Purple and bold emphasis mine
 

Allison, what makes you think I haven't read your post or "investigated" the issue? Because I don't agree with you?

I actually linked to the same developer explanation in my post that you are now telling me to read. For the record, I've read all five pages on his Tumblr, his Kickstarter, the site for his game development portfolio and presskit, Ektomarch, this interview with Blue Bird Plays, and have researched on my own his relatively short history as a game developer to familiarize myself with his work (such as his work on Subbania). The implication that the only reason I (or anyone) could possibly disagree with you is either through intellectual laziness or ignorance is incredibly insulting and patronizing.

I am well aware of how he he said he was using the term "post-feminist" as it appears we've read the same page. I have a different take on it. That doesn't mean I did not understand it or that I haven't read it.

I don't think the developer is a feminist from what I've read in interviews and on his pages and I don't think that the game captures any of the nuances of the subject matters he is attempting to tackle.

I've actually been mulling the matter over for a few days now and (not that it should matter) the response to your post was composed over the span of roughly two hours wherein I read and re-read your post several times. I would ask that you not insinuate knowledge about my level of comprehension or activity that you know nothing about.

I am well aware that the developer purports that the game is to be one dealing with government conspiracy vs the people but I have serious concerns with its execution and whether that message is evident in the game without the benefit of the developer having to explain himself ad nauseam.

I am also quite aware of the use of "meat shields" in the gaming industry. I still find them distasteful and given the highly sensitive nature of this specific game, I think it's a poor choice.

I find it disingenuous that you seem to not want to comment on the history of Andrea Dworkin being demonized by anti-feminists and hailed as some sort of "angry," catch-all mouthpiece for the entire movement by those who look to discredit it. I don't know if the developer is intending for that building to be a bar, a warehouse, a store, whatever, and I don't think it really matters. The point is that I find the inclusion of the name as background noise in this game to be, given the context, highly suspect and it raises feminist red flags for me.

Similarly, you can't just explain away overweight characters as simply being neutrally overweight or "fat" without talking about the context of stereotypes and the shaming of feminists as fat, ugly, and/or angry, which it is implied that these characters are. Do I think it's a coincidence that a game which depicts a woman-only post-feminist dystopia has its citizens alternately being portrayed as overweight or angry women? Absolutely not. You're supposed to sympathize with the protagonist who is thin and attractive (by game animation standards) and the civilians and/or fascist feminists are fat and ugly and shout things at the protagonist such as "get outta my face" as she walks by. It's about one step away from putting the good guys (gal) in a white hat and the bad ones in black hats and not subtle at all.

By the way, what exactly is a "normal-sized" woman? Are fat women and thin women by definition considered abnormal? Sounds like body shaming to me.

Moving on to the comment about slapping a female character's posterior:

So, if the developer had put her skirt/lab coat a few pixelated inches higher, that comment would have been okay to you...? Saying that you don't see her as dressing provocatively is completely missing the point. And I didn't go "digging" through the post to find something to be offended about. It's fairly close to the top of the post's notes and the developer would have been notified on Tumblr that someone commented on it. It's both indicative of and a larger part of an overall air of subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) feminist- and woman-shaming that I see with this game. Do you think a feminist would create the option or even the gif from one of their games with the main character non-consensually slapping the ass of a woman (which is assault...) with the simple caption "she doesn't like having her butt slapped"?

Would I "feel better" if you contacted the gamer on my behalf...? No. I'd "feel better" if the developer actually showed any feminist behaviour without first having to be prompted or called out on it. This isn't about someone's delicate little feelings being hurt (and it's really minimizing and condescending to suggest that my objections on that point amount to little more). It's about thinking critically about a subject which proclaims to be feminist and around which there is a fair amount of debate and conflicting opinion.

People are allowed to disagree with us and we don't get to decide for other people what is and isn't a significant enough level of research into a topic before they get to form an opinion about it and have it be one which we'll accept as valid and worthy of respect. I have to say that your post came off as incredibly patronizing, disrespectful, and insulting and assumes a lot about what I've personally read or think about this topic.

Furthermore, the idea that other members should be given news about this game by you first... why? Why do you place yourself as having intellectual or explanatory authority over anyone else? And what are "wrong sources" and who are you to decide for someone else what those might be?

Frankly, I'm not sure why you felt the need to edit your post to add that little parenthetical aside about thanking me for not threatening bodily harm to you...? I have never done anything of the sort to anyone and I don't know why you felt the need to include it. It feels unnecessary and gross and honestly, it goes a way towards painting those who disagree with you on this issue as raging, irrational "harpies" who cannot have a logical debate. That sounds pretty sexist to me and I'm not okay with being praised (even backhandedly) by virtue of insulting other women in the process. That's not something I ever agreed to.

Ultimately, I hope that people are able to make up their own minds about this and really, anything else which may be in this thread. We are not and do not have to be of a hive mind here and we are allowed to form our own opinions without the sanction of someone else. The diversity of thought and expression is one of the incredibly positive aspects of this community and one of the main reasons I continue to come here. I think that if that is to continue (and there's no reason to think it won't) then there is a need for respect for the difference in opinions as well as the people holding them by all members and for all members, even if you don't understand or particularly care for either it or them.

I am not a gamer but I, too, have seen the concerns raised about this "game" for several weeks.

From the developer:

In 2XXX, women from around the world migrated to central Bulgaria to escape centuries of oppression. In an attempt to halt its rapid decline, Plovdiv was restructured as a bastion of feminist ideals. Twelve years later, Plovdiv became the last remaining city on Earth. The city flourished into a haven for women and its pride became its stability, proof of the success of its founding females' principles.

And yet, society became apathetic to its fellow citizens' discontent.

Government and private individuals soon hired assassins to resolve their “problems”, and this underground system became the replacement for due process. It was a necessary reality in a system that came to shut out the concerns of its women. It was well accepted that the state's alleged political ideals were sufficient for guaranteeing absolute peace and security. The only solution was to resort to "alternative methods", which increasingly became common practice in a society who praised a good image as being next to godliness.

Our heroine is Ceyda Farhi, a twenty-something Bulgarian Turk, trans woman, and assassin. Her willingness to put a job ahead of her own life gives her steady employment. While the bulk of her jobs entail grudges or handling problematic no-names, she starts to notice traces of interconnectedness in each of her jobs, having far grander repercussions than she could've ever imagined. The fate of Plovdiv hangs in the balance as Ceyda navigates the layers of a conspiracy: Every major society and empire–from the Akkadians to the Shang, from the Romans to the Nazis–has been guided by one immortal force. Plovdiv is now another link in the chain. But how?

While fearing the rapid decline of her mental state and feeling the world of unbelievable conspiracies spiraling around her, she knows that she must tell the world the truth before it's too late for her and womankind. Two problems stand between her and alerting everyone of the truth: who could ever believe her? And in a society where being a woman is being human, does Ceyda--a trans woman who's often not regarded as being a "whole" woman--have any responsibility to save those who look down on her?

Aerannis hopes to give players an insight into the struggles of gender identity and empowerment in an oppressive world without in any way sacrificing the intensity of 2D action games.



Even tho I have been unable to track down the sex of the developer(s), what I see in their "explanation" is a lot of man speak i.e. believe our intent as opposed to what we actually developed.

I also see a gross misunderstanding of what feminism is, thus the portrayal of a feminist society gone bad looks just like the patriarchy i.e. same power dynamics, same oppression, same violence, same isms.

And, the developers stated goal is about the struggle for gender identity and empowerment....which apparently can only be achieved thru violence.

To me, this is just the same crap, different game.

Femmadian: Indeed we are allowed to disagree, and for all that there are concerns that we actually do share, I'm going to invoke exactly that right here. We don't agree and aren't going to.

He's a man, though he's not the only person on the writing team, and it does include a trans woman. (Had she been given more control over the publicity, this might have gone better.)

I'm still pretty sure that the conspiracy at the top is a metaphor for patriarchy, but obviously I can't make anyone agree with me on that.

I'm resisting the urge to get into a dissertation about how the fact that men have been permitted almost sole ownership of violence is what's enabled patriarchy to run rampant throughout virtually every society and that nothing short of women's violence will change that, but pacifism is fashionable and so I don't really expect a lot of agreement.

I get this warm and fuzzy feeling in my chest whenever I hear of a woman who beat the shit out of a man who thought he could victimise her because he thought violence belonged to him and not her and learned otherwise.

I suppose if I wanted to put it in more academic terms, I could say that I think a lot of the fundamental power imbalance between men and women in our society is that women are taught that they don't own violence (whereas men are taught that they do own it), and that nothing else will fix that fundamental power imbalance until women get that same tacit message that they own their share of the use of force, because at the end of the day, whether it's an "acceptable" form of power or not, it is absolutely a form of power. Peace, on the other hand, is pleasant, and non-threatening, and exactly what the patriarchy expects of women. It might be a controversial opinion, but I've stated it more than once on these fora.

I appreciate that this particular line of discussion has remained civil (for some values of civil, I suppose), but I have absolutely no faith in it ever being remotely feasible to completely eradicate power, control, and violence. They can be reduced, they can be managed, they can be distributed in patterns that result in fewer people getting ground in the gears, but humans are still animals. Endurance predators, to be specific, with some degree of predator instincts inherent to us. Good is possible, better is possible, but perfect just isn't an option. I'm not about to turn down "better" because it wasn't the "perfect" I wanted. Perfect is a pipe dream and that way lies madness.

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't presume to define your brand of feminism as the only one. I know you don't care for liberalism any more than I care for radicalism, but that was kind of patronising.

Feminist Is a 21st Century Word
 

Robin Morgan is an author, activist and feminist. She is also a co-founder, with Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda, of the Women's Media Center

I know, I know, TIME’s annual word-banning poll is meant as a joke, and this year’s inclusion of the word feminist wasn’t an attempt to end a movement. But as a writer — and feminist who naturally has no sense of humor — banning words feels, well, uncomfortable. The fault lies in the usage or overusage, not the word — even dumb or faddish words.

Feminist is neither of those. Nevertheless, I once loathed it. In 1968, while organizing the first protest against the Miss America Pageant, I called myself a “women’s liberationist,” because “feminist” seemed so 19th century: ladies scooting around in hoop skirts with ringlet curls cascading over their ears!

What an ignoramus I was. But school hadn’t taught me who they really were, and the media hadn’t either. We Americans forget or rewrite even our recent history, and accomplishments of any group not pale and male have tended to get downplayed or erased — one reason why Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda and I founded the Women’s Media Center: to make women visible and powerful in media.

No, it took assembling and researching my anthology Sisterhood Is Powerful to teach me about the word feminism. I had no clue that feminists had been a major (or leading) presence in every social-justice movement in the U.S. time line: the revolutionary war, the campaigns to abolish slavery, debtors’ prisons and sweatshops; mobilizations for suffrage, prison reform, equal credit; fights to establish social security, unions, universal childhood education, halfway houses, free libraries; plus the environmentalism, antiwar and peace movements. And more. By 1970, I was a feminist.

Throughout that decade, feminism was targeted for ridicule. Here’s how it plays: first they ignore you, then laugh at you, then prosecute you, then try to co-opt you, then — once you win — they claim they gave you your rights: after a century of women organizing, protesting, being jailed, going on hunger strikes and being brutally force-fed, “they” gave women the vote.

We outlasted being a joke only to find our adversaries had repositioned “feminist” as synonymous with “lesbian” — therefore oooh, “dangerous.” These days — given recent wins toward marriage equality and the end of “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military, not to mention the popularity of Orange Is the New Black — it’s strange to recall how, in the ’70s, that connotation scared many heterosexual women away from claiming the word feminist. But at least it gave birth to a witty button of which I’ve always been especially fond: “How dare you assume I’m straight?!”

Yet in the 1980s the word was still being avoided. You’d hear maddening contradictions like “I’m no feminist, but …” after which feminist statements would pour from the speaker’s mouth. Meanwhile, women’s-rights activists of color preferred culturally organic versions: womanist among African Americans, mujerista among Latinas. I began using feminisms to more accurately depict and affirm such a richness of constituencies. Furthermore, those of us working in the global women’s movement found it fitting to celebrate what I termed a “multiplicity of feminisms.”

No matter the name, the movement kept growing. Along the way, the word absorbed the identity politics of the 1980s and ’90s, ergo cultural feminism, radical feminism, liberal/reform feminism, electoral feminism, academic feminism, ecofeminism, lesbian feminism, Marxist feminism, socialist feminism — and at times hybrids of the above.

Flash-forward to today when, despite predictions to the contrary, young women are furiously active online and off, and are adopting “the F word” with far greater ease and rapidity than previous feminists. Women of color have embraced the words feminism and feminist as their own, along with women all over the world, including Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

As we move into 2015, feminism is suddenly hot; celebrities want to identify with it. While such irony makes me smile wryly, I know we live in a celebrity culture and this brings more attention to issues like equal pay, full reproductive rights, and ending violence against women. I also know that sincere women (and men of conscience), celebs or not, will stay with the word and what it stands for. Others will just peel off when the next flavor of the month comes along.

Either way, the inexorable forward trajectory of this global movement persists, powered by women in Nepal’s rice paddies fighting for literacy rights; women in Kenya’s Green Belt Movement planting trees for microbusiness and the environment; Texas housewives in solidarity with immigrant women to bring and keep families together; and survivors speaking out about prostitution not being “sex work” or “just another job,” but a human-rights violation. From boardroom to Planned Parenthood clinic, this is feminism.

The dictionary definition is simple: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Anyone who can’t support something that commonsensical and fair is part of a vanishing breed: well over half of all American women and more than 30% of American men approve of the word — the percentages running even higher in communities of color and internationally.

But I confess that for me feminism means something more profound. It means freeing a political force: the power, energy and intelligence of half the human species hitherto ignored or silenced. More than any other time in history, that force is needed to save this imperiled blue planet. Feminism, for me, is the politics of the 21st century.

http://time.com/3588846/time-apologi...-robin-morgan/

FEMINISTS: What were they thinking?
 

DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT

Feminism seems to be the scariest word in the English language. But not for those of us who experienced the game-changing awakening that was the Women’s Movement of the 1970s. Growing up in the fifties and sixties meant not only second class citizenship legally, but 2nd class human being-ship: not invited to the party of medicine, art, law, education, science, religion, except maybe as the secretary. Our film, FEMINISTS: What were they thinking? digs deep into our personal experiences of sexism and of liberation, and follows this ever-challenging dialogue right into the 21st century. We are taking it personally.

Gina Raimondo - to become the first female governor of Rhode Island
 

Gina Marie Raimondo (born May 17, 1971) is an American politician, businesswoman, and venture capitalist, and the Governor-elect of the State of Rhode Island. Raimondo, a member of the Democratic Party, will become the first woman to serve as Governor of Rhode Island. [1]

She has served as the General Treasurer for the State of Rhode Island since 2011. She is the second Rhode Island woman to serve as Treasurer. She was selected as the Democratic Party candidate for Rhode Island Governor in the 2014 election. Raimondo won the election with 40% of the vote on November 4, 2014.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo

German cabinet approves gender quota law

"After years of debate about its effectiveness, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet has now approved legislation for more female representation in top boardrooms. If it's passed by parliament the new law will come into effect in 2016. Currently less than one in five members of supervisory boards in Germany is held by a woman."

The new law will require large corporations to have a 30% representation of women in top positions. Follow the link to see the video as it aired today on DW news.

very clever
 

Vatican offers olive branch to US nuns
 

VATICAN CITY (AP) — A sweeping Vatican investigation into Roman Catholic nuns in the U.S. that began amid fears they had become too feminist and secular ended up praising the sisters for their selfless work caring for the poor — a major shift in tone that reflected the social justice mindset of Pope Francis.

The overwhelmingly positive report Tuesday also promised to value their "feminine genius" more, while gently suggesting ways to serve the church faithfully and survive amid a steep drop in their numbers. It was cheered by the American sisters themselves, dozens of whom swarmed the Vatican news conference announcing the results in a rare occasion of women outnumbering men at the Vatican.

"There is an encouraging and realistic tone in this report," Sister Sharon Holland told reporters. "Challenges are understood, but it is not a document of blame, or of simplistic solutions. One can read the text and feel appreciated and trusted to carry on."

The report was most remarkable for what it didn't say, given the criticism of American religious life that prompted the Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI to launch the investigation in 2009.

There was no critique of the nuns, no demands that they shift their focus from social justice to emphasize Catholic teaching on abortion, no condemnation that a feminist, secular mentality had taken hold in their ranks.

Rather, while offering a sobering assessment of the difficult state of American congregations, the report praised the sisters' dedication and reaffirmed their calling in a reflection of the pastoral tone characteristic of history's first Jesuit pope.

It was a radically different message than that of another Vatican office that investigated an umbrella group of the sisters' leaders.

That investigation, conducted by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, resulted in a Vatican takeover of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in 2012. The doctrine office determined that the LCWR, which represents the leaders of 80 percent of U.S. nuns, took positions that undermined church teaching and promoted "radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

The Vatican's congregation for religious orders has long sought to distinguish its broad investigation into the quality of life of American sisters from the more narrow doctrinal assessment carried out by the orthodoxy office.

But both investigations began within months of one another and resulted in tremendous feelings of betrayal and insult from the sisters.

The probes also prompted an outpouring of support from rank-and-file American Catholics who viewed the investigations as a crackdown by a misogynistic, all-male Vatican hierarchy against the underpaid, underappreciated women who do the lion's share of work running Catholic hospitals, schools and services for the poor.

Theological conservatives have long complained that after the reforms of the 1960s Second Vatican Council, women's congregations in the U.S. became secular and political while abandoning traditional prayer life and faith. The nuns insisted that prayer and Christ were central to their work.

Holland, who heads the Leadership Conference, acknowledged that the investigation was initially met with apprehension and distrust, particularly among elderly sisters who "felt that their whole lives had been judged and found wanting."

But she said the results showed that the Vatican had listened and heard what the sisters had to say.

Asked if the change in tone reflected Francis' new leadership, Holland said "I'm willing to give him all sorts of credit."

"He's been a great encouragement and hope to a lot of us," she said.

The report outlined the bleak reality facing American women's congregations now: The current number of 50,000 U.S. sisters represents a fraction of the 125,000 in the mid-1960s, although that was an atypical spike in U.S. church history.

The average age of U.S. nuns today is mid-to-late 70s. They are facing dwindling finances to care for their sisters as they age and haven't had much success in finding new vocations. The report asked the sisters to make sure their training programs reflect church teaching and ensure their members pray and focus on Christ.

It stressed an appreciation for their work and expressed hope that they take "this present moment as an opportunity to transform uncertainty and hesitancy into collaborative trust" with the church hierarchy.

The report noted many sisters have complained that their work often went unrecognized by priests and requested improved dialogue with bishops to clarify their role in the church and give them greater voice in decisions.

The report noted that Francis, who has pledged to bring more women into decision-making positions in the church, has recently asked the Vatican to update a key document outlining the relationship between bishops and religious orders.

Given that the report didn't find any major problems or recommend any major changes in the way U.S. religious live out their vocations, the question arose about whether the tensions the investigation produced — not to mention the time, cost and effort involved — were worth it.

"I would say it was worth it," Holland said. "We benefited in ways we didn't know we would benefit."

Signaling that the change in the Vatican's tone might also extend to the LCWR crackdown, Holland said she was "working hard and working well" with Vatican-appointed delegates who took over the Leadership Conference and that the process might end sooner than originally expected.

"We're moving toward resolution of that," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/vatican-praise...112527933.html

101 Women Artists Who Got Wikipedia Pages This Week
 

Last Saturday, about 600 volunteers in 31 venues around the globe engaged in a collective effort to change the world, one Wikipedia entry at a time.

In the United States, Canada, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, in nonprofits and art schools, in museums and universities, these people—mostly women—set out to write entries, uncredited and unpaid, for the fast-growing crowd-sourced online encyclopedia.
Editors working around the resource table, Wikipedia Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon, at Eyebeam in New York City.

They had answered a call for the Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon, a massive multinational effort to correct a persistent bias in Wikipedia, which is disproportionally written by and about men.

The event, whose epicenter was the New York art and technology center Eyebeam, is part of a larger movement, only now reaching the art world, to upload content to Wikipedia in a proactive manner.

At a time when Wikipedia is becoming increasingly influential, “it’s really tangible to be able to fix something that is visibly wrong,” says Jacqueline Mabey, a co-organizer of Saturday’s Edit-a-Thon with Siân Evans of the Art Libraries Society of North America’s Women and Art Special Interest Group, Michael Mandiberg, an artist and associate professor at CUNY who teaches with Wikipedia, and current Eyebeam Fellow Laurel Ptak.

More than 150 people crowded into Eyebeam’s Chelsea headquarters during Saturday’s event, while satellite venues reported turnouts ranging from 6 to 60.

Volunteers versed in the process, protocol, and ethic of Wikipedia gave tutorials to the newcomers, who were mostly artists, activists, students, and scholars. They learned what constitutes a proper reference, how to create external links, and when and where to put footnotes. They learned that people can’t write about themselves, and what kind of sources are acceptable.

By the end of the day, around 100 new entries were up (around 80 more were enhanced). The new pages, devoted to figures ranging from Australian modernists Ethel Spowers and Dorrit Black to Catalan painter Josefa Texidor i Torres to contemporary artists including Mary Miss, Xaviera Simmons, Audrey Flack, and Monika Bravo, vary widely in scope, grammar, and quality of content. But the Wikipedia team expects that blips will vanish as the hive mind has its work on the entries.

“You have someone you know a lot about? It takes ten minutes,” says Ximena Gallardo C., a gender and film scholar at LaGuardia Community College. “This is the world brain. It’s just starting.”

Nicole Casamento, a former ARTnews intern who runs the website Culture Grinder, attended the Brooklyn Museum meetup, where she created the first Wikipedia page for the artist Senga Nengudi.

“The event seemed like a new kind of consciousness raising that was very goal-oriented,” says Casamento, a masters student in American literature at Brooklyn College. “It was aimed at writing women into history in a new way for the digital age—by giving more women the awareness and tools to take matters in their own hands.”

The National Museum of Women in the Arts, Wikimedia DC and the Smithsonian’s Archives of American Art have scheduled the next Women in the Arts edit-a-thon for March 30.

- See more at: http://www.artnews.com/2014/02/06/ar....bwXfHsL6.dpuf

Church of England appoints its first woman bishop
 

STOCKPORT, England (Reuters) - The Church of England appointed its first female bishop on Wednesday, overturning centuries of tradition in a Church that has been deeply divided over the issue.

It named Reverend Libby Lane, a 48-year-old married mother of two, as the new Bishop of Stockport in northern England.

After long and heated debate, the Church of England governing Synod voted in July to allow women to become bishops and formally adopted legislation last month.

Women have served as priests in the Church since 1994, a decision that prompted some 470 male priests to leave in protest, many for the Roman Catholic Church.

“It is an unexpected joy for me to be here today," Lane said in her acceptance speech. "It is a remarkable day for me and I realise an historic day for the church."

She added: “I am conscious this morning of countless women and men who for decades have looked forward to the time when the Church of England would announce its first woman bishop.”

The issue of women bishops has caused internal division ever since the Synod first approved female priests.

It has pitted reformers, keen to project a more modern image of the Church as it struggles with falling congregations in many increasingly secular countries, against a conservative minority which says the change contradicts the Bible.

Two years ago, opposition from traditionalist lay members led to the defeat of a vote in the Synod to allow women bishops, to the dismay of modernisers and the Church hierarchy.

Women serve as bishops in the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand but Anglican churches in many developing countries do not ordain them as priests.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/church-eng...101027972.html

Sisters in Spirit: The Iroquois Influence on Early American Feminists
 

The invisible women of the Civil Rights Movement
 

Tens of thousands of women participated in the March on Washington on Aug. 28, 1963. But none of the female civil rights leaders marched in the procession with Dr. King, nor were any of them invited to speak to the enormous crowd.

Instead, these women were asked to march on an adjacent street with the wives of the male leaders and to stay in the background.

The small role allowed female civil rights leaders in the activities of that day was the exact opposite of the central role these women played in planning the strategies, tactics and actions of the movement — including the march itself!

In fact, many of the most iconic campaigns of the civil rights movement were coordinated by women, including nonviolent sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, forced integration of Central High School by the Little Rock Nine, and the voter registration drives of 1964's Freedom Summer.

Let's celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King by learning about and remembering the overlooked women leading the struggle for equal rights right by his side.

Daisy Bates (1914 – 1999) was the force behind the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. She recruited, organized and supported the nine teenagers — six girls and three boys — and their families who were chosen to desegregate the school under court order.

White mobs rallied at the school in the early days, hurling insults and threatening violence. Ultimately, it took the U.S. Army to escort the black students to school and keep them safe, which showed the nation that the federal government was serious about enforcing integration.

It was Daisy Bates and the local NAACP who planned, coordinated and executed the Little Rock Nine strategy. Bates was rewarded for her efforts with rocks thrown through her windows, a cross burned on her roof and the financial demise of the newspaper she and her husband owned.

Pauli Murray (1910 – 1985) was a groundbreaking legal scholar, lifelong activist for civil rights and women's rights and, in her later years, the first African-American woman ordained as an Episcopal priest.

In 1950, Murray published a legal study of the segregation laws in the states. In it, she argued that civil rights lawyers should stop taking a gradual approach to changing segregation and should instead argue straightforwardly that segregation itself violated the U.S. Constitution. Thurgood Marshall, lead counsel in Brown v. Board of Education and later, a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, called this book the "bible" of the Civil Rights movement.

Murray also turned her sharp legal mind to gender discrimination. In 1961, as a member of the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women, she wrote a memo arguing that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution outlawed gender discrimination as well as race discrimination. In 1963, she became one of the first to criticize the leaders of the civil rights movement for its overt sexism.

In 1966, she became a co-founder of the National Organization for Women.

Fannie Lou Hamer (1917 – 1977) was one of the founders of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and deeply committed to helping African-Americans gain their voting rights. In the deep south at that time such activity was often met with violence. She was well known for singing hymns to keep up the spirits of the people who were putting themselves in danger to register themselves or others to vote.

In July 1963, she and a group of activists were returning by bus from a workshop when they were stopped, arrested and then savagely beaten. Despite this ordeal, Hamer continued her advocacy work, including organizing the Freedom Summer campaign in the summer of 1964.

Also in the summer of 1964, Hamer attended the Democratic National Convention as the vice chair of the Mississippi "Freedom Democrats." Their goal was to challenge the all-white, anti-civil-rights Mississippi delegation to the convention as not representative of Mississippi Democrats. Their challenge drew national attention, and a speech given by Hamer was seen on national television. Her eloquence and passion changed the tenor of the debate at the convention.

Dorothy Height (1912 – 2010) was a social worker, educator and activist for civil rights and women's rights. Among Height's achievements was coordinating the integration of the facilities of the YMCA in 1946. She also co-founded the Center for Racial Justice in 1965. She served as president of the National Council of Negro Women from 1957 to 1997. During the 1960s, she organized "Wednesdays in Mississippi" to bring together white and black women for conversation and to increase understanding. She has been described as one of the "Big Six" in the civil rights movement.

Height described her experience of the sexism of the March on Washington as an "eye-opening experience." She turned at least some of her attention to women's rights, and in 1971 she helped found the National Women's Political Caucus with Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and Shirley Chisholm.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/s...ights-movement

This article by Emer O’Toole made me smile, a sad smile, but definitely a smile.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...ism-has-ruined

Gender Bias in Performance Reviews
 

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2015 BY HEATHER

Performance Reviews: The Hurdle that Keeps Getting Higher

A NEW study by the linguist and tech entrepreneur Kieran Snyder, done for Fortune.com, found two differences between workplace performance reviews given to men and women. Across 248 reviews from 28 companies, managers, whether male or female, gave female employees more negative feedback than they gave male employees. Second, 76 percent of the negative feedback given to women included a personality criticism, such as comments that the woman was “abrasive,” “judgmental” or “strident.” Only 2 percent of men’s critical reviews included negative personality comments.

Why?

Why is this the case in 2015? Why are women getting more negative feedback than men on personality traits and finding gender bias in performance reviews? I refuse to believe that women are truly under performing as a gender. In 2013, Women in STEM careers consistently reported feeling like females have to perform better than men to be judged equally competent (Knobloch-Westerwick, Glynn, & Huge). So women feel as if they have to go above and beyond yet still get more negative feedback.

Women report that their mistakes are noticed more, and remembered longer (Bauer & Baltes, 2002). So, women are faced with the pressure of being perfect. A female can’t make a mistake or have a bad day because it will linger longer than their male contemporaries. There is simply no room for error if you are a female.

Why are women given more negative managerial feedback about their personality?

Behavior and emotional intelligence are playing a larger role in performance evaluations these days. I would think this would be where women would win the day. After all, many women are instinctively nurturing, yet instead of being a big, gold star it is a source of criticism.

What to do?

How can women fight back against this injustice? Here are a few ideas.

Keep records of what you do.

This can be something as low tech as keeping a notebook at your desk. Before you leave at the end of the day, write the date at the top, and then list everything you accomplished. An electronic calendar is another good way to document what you do daily. Put anything outstanding in bold so that you can be sure to include it in your discussion with your manager.

Develop your network.

Having a group of cheerleaders that get out the positive word about your performance and reputation will offset any negative statements in your annual review. Just remember to do the same for them, and they will totally appreciate the gesture. My rule of thumb is to always “talk up” my team. You would think my team is the best and brightest of the entire company based on what I say about them.

Pay it forward by supporting other women.

Mentor those below you, and sell the sponsor above you. Yes, I said sell your sponsor. Ensure you always speak of the positive aspects of your sponsor. Remember, he or she is giving feedback to the succession planning of the company. If you want a slot to open for you, the best way is to help someone above you get a promotion. If you can, try to find ways to help other women find success. Over time, women will rise to the top of the pile and truly be an equal part of the workplace!

If you know of any other strategies to help women get past the gender bias issues inherent in performance reviews, let us know!

We’d love to hear from you and keep the discussion ongoing!


Heather graduated from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte with an Electrical Engineering degree, and later received her MBA. She first worked as an engineer designing sub-stations for a regional power company.
She is now an engineering project manager for an international company specializing in smart grid technology.

http://leanedon.com/gender-bias-in-performance-reviews/

"What Happened When I Posed As a Man on Twitter"
 

I didn't know where to post this, I just knew I wanted to post this somewhere.


http://www.alternet.org/gender/what-...ed-man-twitter

Ummm, thanks.

Hopefully, it can still be appreciated here.

I actually do not think that it is out of place in either thread.

The following quote encompasses both:

"It turned out I hadn’t gone from woman to man, but from object to human.

I spent the week discussing systemic oppression and race. An intersectional feminist, I dove into rape culture. I talked about the need for police accountability, condemning domestic violence and amplifying other voices. It was almost always without interruption. My voice felt so unrestricted. How beautiful it felt to speak without fear of retribution. I felt such freedom."

Thanks, Anya. My goal was to post it in the forum that the largest number of people who would be interested in it would read it. This thread gets a lot of readers.

It's interesting. I am wondering if my inclination to look for the feminism thread because the energy behind the article to me (and the energy I felt she was putting out...maybe because that was what I wanted to read in it) was her sense of power as a women (feminism), rather than her writing from a place of defeat (misogyny and sexism...but which of course the article is about).

This would all be unconscious, of course, but is interesting to think about.

I wasn't saying anything about what the article was about. It was clearly about misogyny and sexism. This is why I said "misogyny and sexism...which of course is what the article was about".

I was making comment on how I felt the woman viewed herself...that it didn't knock her down any.

Thanks for posting the article Dapper.

I think it could be posted in either thread or both, and I'm not sure why the need to nit pick where it goes.

She chose to experience something and then speak out in a strong and clear voice afterwards. To me that is feminism in action.

Something of a cross-post from What Are You Listening to
 

CASTRATOR'S BRUTAL 'NO VICTIM' EP IS A PERFECT FEMINIST DEATH METAL REVENGE FANTASY

By Kim Kelly

When I first saw the name Castrator, I hoped in my heart of hearts that I'd somehow stumbled across some kind of badass feminist death metal killing machine. How awesome would that be, right? Given death metal's traditional approach towards the concept of feminism (and women in general—that's a whole 'nother thinkpiece right there), though, I wasn't banking on it. With a name like that, it was probably just another pornogrind slamfest hoping to one day secure a coveted opening slot for Cemetery Rapist or Prostitute Disfigurement.

Imagine my surprise and delight, then, when I got a promo email from their label, Horror Pain Gore Death, revealing that my initial hunch had been correct and that Castrator was in fact the band of my dreams. Not only is the fledgling supergroup a self-described all-female band, it's an international effort—women from established underground bands in Colombia, Florida, Mexico, Massachusetts, Sweden, and Norway had come together to write brutal death metal songs about chopping off dicks and stabbing rapists. Before you go crying "misandry," keep in mind the astonishing glut of metal songs that celebrate graphic, gory violence against women. It's about time someone stepped up to level the playing field, and Castrator's knives are sharpened and at the ready.

The band's members prefer to remain semi-anonymous, but a little sleuthing pointed me towards vocalist M.S. and nabbed Noisey the chance to premiere the vicious, life-affirming title track for the band's new EP, No Victim.

M.S. was also kind enough to answer a barrage of my excited questions via email, and to tell us exactly why a band like Castrator is so much fun—and so necessary.

Castrator is a confrontational band, from the name to song titles like "Honor Killing," "The Emasculator" —hell, all of them read like a feminist revenge fantasy. Is Castrator the first overtly feminist death metal band?
M.S.: You could call us that. We are unapologetically strong, independent, and pissed-off females. We aren’t asking for equality, we’re taking it. Not all of us choose to carry the flag of feminism, though I most certainly do. We are five women who love death metal, who like jamming with other like-minded women, and we feel like we have some ideas worth expressing. People will label us how they will, we aren’t concerned about it. We are going to make the music we want to make, and we are having a great time doing it!

What brought you all together in the first place? You're all part of your own established projects all over the world—would I be remiss to think that Castrator was born from your collective frustration at the bullshit you've had to endure as female musicians in a brutal genre?
C. Perez and I got to know each other through the NYC metal scene when playing shows with our other bands. She expressed the desire to form an all-female band, and I was really into it. I had an all-female project once in the past, but it fell apart after a year. I still had a lot of ideas for lyrics and themes that I wanted to get out in this kind of band. I have to say, yes, it has been really nice to vent amongst other ladies all the bullshit we deal in the metal scene. It’s also something fun, it’s a much different vibe then writing with my other bands that contain only male members besides myself. I still love my other bands too, this is just something different and refreshing for me.

What do you aim to accomplish with this band? Have you encountered any pushback or hate from other death metal fans?
We aim to write some killer music, play some aggressive shows, and take no prisoners! So far we have had nothing but great support from the scene, male and female fans, and other bands. Some of our biggest supporters are men. Yeah, some guys out there are a little afraid of us, they cup their balls, hehe. I’m sure we’ll eventually run into some haters… but we aren’t concerned about that. We do what we like, we’re having fun and we don’t give a fuck who doesn’t like it.

The album title, No Victim, is so powerful—can you tell me a little more about it? The lyrics for the song itself resonate so deeply.
The idea behind that song and album title is highlighting the fear all women deal with walking alone at night- the fear of being attacked and raped. Yes, it’s so easily relatable to any woman! It’s something guys don’t usually think about, and it’s really not fair. It’s something we should talk about more in society, and change the whole predator-victim scenario. We also want to empower women to realize their own strength and ability… to fight their attackers when possible. That same old story of a rapist attacking a woman in a dark alley can have a different ending.

All your lyrics are intense, especially on "Honor Killing," whose horror is ripped from the headlines. Given your own half-Indian background, what was it like to write and sing these words?
I think now more than ever, it’s important to bring up the issues and struggles, especially in particular parts of the world where women’s rights are far behind. Definitely this song has some personal connection for me. I really feel for those who are suffering violence, rape, and murder in India and other countries. This has got to stop. When writing this song, I researched and read countless news story after news story and documentaries of individual cases of honor killings (there are so many)! It’s so hard to look at, it’s disgusting. Even so, I made myself look straight at it, get pissed off, and turned those feelings and thoughts into lyrics.

"Brood" is deliciously creepy, but also sobering when you remember that so many people still think of women as broodmares - baby machines with no other value. Did any specific situation inspire the lyrics for this one?
Yes, you are right. In a way it’s about that, how our own bodies and sexual reproduction don’t “belong” to us anymore. Women’s bodies and rights are so often controlled by men, the law makers, boyfriends, husbands in this patriarchal system. It’s also about how this unbalanced system is allowed by or continued by women, by accepting it and not fighting it or rising above it. It was inspired by the case of Octomom, she wanted to seek fortune and fame through having an unnatural amount of children. The song takes the idea that a woman’s value is determined through childbirth and her ability to please men, but this theme on steroids. I feel she is a victim of our disturbed society, and not necessarily a monster in and of herself.

Where is the sample on "The Emasculator" from? It's rad to see you turning the tables on the countless brutal death, goregrind, and pornogrind bands that litter their records with sample after sample of women in sexual distress or death throes.
The sample is from Hostel 2. I found it while searching for a good castration audio sample, haha! That’s exactly it. We are turning the tables on what you usually see in brutal death metal that focuses on rape and torture of women. We are doing what the guys do but from a female point of view, and in doing so making a critique of the whole genre. In some of our themes, a woman is the powerful one, the victor. If someone has a problem with our lyrics and samples, they should frown equally upon misogynistic themes. We ourselves are pretty laid back about all these things. We aren’t going to tell people what kind of music they should or shouldn’t write, or listen to; I believe in artistic expression and freedom of speech. But if there will be anti-female themed bands out there, I believe there should also be anti-male or at least pro-female bands out there too. I suppose that is a goal, to add some balance to the male dominated metal scene, and to the male-dominated world.

I don’t have a serious problem with people who joke about those things; I don’t like it, but I have more of a problem with musicians and fans that take anti-women themes seriously, and there are many of those out there. There are men out there that genuinely disrespect women and I would go so far as to say, they hate women. They take out their own frustrations of their own shortcomings and dissatisfaction with their lives and relationships, and they turn it outward at all women. We deal with these attitudes on a daily basis, in the scene and in our daily lives. I’m all about changing people’s perspectives or making them think a little bit.

You're in a few other brutal bands of your own, and write lyrics with traditional gory (though genderless) violence, or sociopolitical screeds. How much do you think is too much in terms of fantasy violence in extreme metal lyrics?

I believe strongly in freedom of expression. I wouldn’t support people with sexist, racist, or homophobic beliefs, but I also don’t believe in censorship or banning. As long as you aren’t hurting, someone you should be able to create whatever art or music you like. I think it’s just important to speak truth and try to change people’s ideas and opinions through what you do and what you create, using educated and evolved ideas. When I see bands with the same rehashed violence fantasy lyrics, I just think, "Booooring. Those themes have already been done a thousand times over, is this band doing anything creative or new?"

Given Castrator's members' far-flung geographical locations, do you intend to do any touring or at least more live shows to support No Victim?
We are getting together next week to shoot a music video and play a small tour including Philthadelphia Infest, Brooklyn NY, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. We’re excited to get out there and emasculate!

'No Victim' is out May 5 via Horror Pain Gore Death Productions.

So Hillary Clinton announced her presidency and I'm not seeing a lot of posting about it around here. Did I kill the thread that badly?

The Roman Catholic Womenpriests Movement
 

The Roman Catholic Womenpriests is a renewal movement within the Church that began in Germany with the ordination of seven women on the Danube River in 2002. In 2003, Gisela Forster and Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger (two of the original Danube 7) were ordained bishops and in 2005 Patricia Fresen from South Africa (who currently lives in Germany) was also ordained a bishop. Womenbishops ordained in Apostolic Succession continue to carry out the work of ordaining women in the Roman Catholic Church. In 2006, Ida Raming was ordained a bishop and in 2008 Dana Reynolds of California became the first American Roman Catholic Womanbishop. These women and those who have come after them continue to carry on the pastoral work of ordaining women to the priesthood. Currently there are over 145 Roman Catholic women worldwide who are reclaiming their ancient spiritual heritage and are re-shaping a more inclusive, Christ-centered Church for the 21st century. We advocate a new model of priestly ministry united with the people with whom we serve. We are rooted in a response to Jesus who called women and men to be disciples and equals living the Gospel.

Homepage

Portraits From the Forbidden Priesthood of Women

"Sophie Thomas wore a black t-shirt with the word ‘feminist’ printed in white lettering to school on the day that school photographs were being taken. When Thomas received the printed photograph last week, she and her mother Christine discovered that the school had erased the word completely without their knowledge."

Ah plus ça change. Feminist is still a dirty word. So many women don't want to be seen as feminists. Nothing new here. Still it's sad to see a female who has power over so many young minds making the choice to step on this girl's attempt to express herself.

"School principal Kendra Young said she had made the decision to remove the word because it is “offensive to some people”.

http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talki...4#.VTW8DmNFCM8

Former President Jimmy Carter breaks from S. Baptist (religious) politics.
 

I have several long time friends in my metro area who are senior executive librarians who posted this article on Facebook. All of them support the choice made by former U. S. President Jimmy Carter. I've always thought he was a decent person, fair and deeply humanitarian. I couldn't be happier that he is leading by example and reusing himself from religious politics in favor of strong political efforts in favor of lifting women to a more rightful place in American society and to help lead the way for tremendous social reform across gender identity divides. While this article was published back in 2009, it is in recirculation as of tonight.

(Please see article below).

____________________________


Losing my religion for equality.

July 15, 2009 - 12:00AM


By JIMMY CARTER

Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.

I HAVE been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.

In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.

The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.

The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable."

We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share.

The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.

I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.


Copyright © 2015 Fairfax Media The Age

(Link: http://m.theage.com.au/federal-polit...0v.html?stb=fb)

Progressive

Let’s start, this time, with a story. This is about Hillary Clinton – everything I write seems to be about her these days – but it’s about me, too. It’s about what it means, to be a feminist, or a woman on the left, and whether it matters. So before I get to her, let’s give you a good look at me.

I’m at a job interview. It seems like I actually have a shot at this one. Someone who likes me knows the boss here, and has talked me up to him in person. I can show him my most recent performance review, in which I’m described as “a joy to work with,” that “my editors fight over who gets to edit my pieces,” and where the “places for improvement” section mentions they actually have to “wrack their brains for something I could do better.” I’ve come prepared to talk about my strong, built-in reader base, which I built from the ground up; the fact that I’ve led several social media campaigns that received national or international press attention and raised substantial funds, one of which was enthusiastically endorsed by several pro-choice members of Congress; my award for social media activism, from a prestigious women’s media organization, which I won by popular vote; the fact that I wind up at or near the top of my magazine’s “most-read” traffic list every time I publish a new piece.

I can mention other things, basic work-ethic things. I can mention that I have not voluntarily taken a vacation day or a sick day for the past 18 months, and that the last sick day I took was only because I was hospitalized. (I do have to take the day off on federal holidays, but on those days, I usually write for fun.) I can mention that I have never been late filing a piece. I can mention that the copy comes in clean, doesn’t require much editing, and gets turned around quickly, with maximum co-operation. I can talk about all that, at my job interview. Those are the questions I’m prepared to answer.

I’m not prepared for the question they ask.

“We’re a progressive site,” the man across the table begins, “And our readership, as with most progressive sites, is mostly men. You’ve focused a lot on women’s issues. Would you be comfortable writing something that men would be able to read?”

I’m silent for a second. I keep smiling — always smile at the job interview — but I cannot speak. Largely because I believe that what I just heard cannot possibly be what he really said. I misinterpreted something. I missed a word, misheard a word. He can’t actually be telling me that I would have to stop being so feminist to get a job at his “progressive” site. Or that “progressive” media is mostly for men.

“I read your most recent article,” he adds, helpfully. “That seemed very sympathetic to the male character.”

Okay. So I heard him right.

I keep smiling. It’s a test, I tell myself, he wants to see if you’re an angry feminist. I tell him that I pride myself on my versatility, having covered everything from campaign finance reform to reproductive rights to television. I tell him that many of my long-time readers are men, in fact, and I appreciate them very much; I’m confident that I would be able to deliver a diverse and substantial reader base to his publication. I mention the “most-read list” factoid. I keep smiling....



....

....Hillary Clinton lets them insult her with a smile on her face, because she wants the job. Because there is no way to just flip a table, throw the coffee, walk out of this bitch in protest, and get the job she wants. There never is. Not for her, not for me, not for any of us. She smiles.
Yeah, I’m voting for her. Not “because of her gender.” Because of this really basic, stupid belief I have that the most qualified person should be the person who gets the job....


(post too long / link below for full read)

http://sadydoyle.tumblr.com/post/138...28/progressive

Any opinions on the op ed piece by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times entitled " When Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism"?

I thought it made some valid points!

Here is the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/op...nism.html?_r=0


Homoe, what did you get out of the article...what were the "valid points"?

The New Chauvinists Try to Defend Women – But Who Will Defend Us from Them?
by
Laurie Penny

It’s a miracle. All over the world, conservatives and curtain-twitching bigots have taken up the cause of fighting violence against women. From Donald Trump, vowing to protect white Americans from “rapist” Mexican migrants, to European far-right groups that are mustering against the supposed Muslim threat to “their” wives and daughters, conservatives are rebranding themselves as the defenders of women and girls. But who will defend us from them?

The idea that Western men must shelter “their” women from a terrifying mass of foreign masculinity has been around for a very long time. It was used to justify the murder of black men in the US from the slave era onwards, even as black women were abused in their millions by white landowners. It is used to excuse state surveillance and militarised policing around the world, and by the new right to rationalise its bigotry. Following the mass sexual assault of women at the New Year’s Eve celebrations in Cologne, groups such as the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) – a neo-fascist group currently polling at around 15 per cent in Germany – have taken up the old banner of chaperoning white womanhood.

The phrase that I have been using to describe this line of argument is “the New Chauvinism”. Chauvinism is commonly understood in the context of male chauvinism, which most people think is all about holding open doors and getting shouted at by feminists. But it is described by the Oxford English Dictionary as “exaggerated or aggressive patriotism”, with the secondary definition of “excessive or prejudiced support for one’s own cause, group, or sex”.

The New Chauvinism is about both of those things. It uses crude, nationalist sentiment to cast white men in the roles of heroes, protecting “their” women from hordes of, variously, migrants, Muslims and transsexual people.

On behalf of white women everywhere, allow me to say how much safer I don’t feel. It would be easier to believe in the AfD as a defender of women, for example, if it were not also campaigning to ban abortion and gay marriage, undermine the right to div­orce, close kindergartens and strip single mothers of state funding – all in the name of protecting the “traditional family”.

Fundamentalist throwbacks of every sort have remarkably similar ideas about how to protect women, so it is no surprise that the AfD echoes the philosophy of many hard-line Islamist groups on the role of women in society. If anyone wants to turn western Europe into a patriarchal religious police state, it is the far right and not migrants fleeing violence – but irony, to these people, is probably a small town in the Middle East that should be flattened with cluster bombs to protect Christian women everywhere.

You might think that it is nice of them to care. However, I don’t see these self-appointed defenders of women volunteering at domestic violence shelters or donating to rape crisis hotlines. Instead, they hold racist demonstrations in multicultural communities and harass women on the internet, which is a curious way to demonstrate your commitment to public safety.

Across the Atlantic, the American Family Association – a Christian fundamentalist organisation recognised as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre – has admitted to sending men into women’s bathrooms in branches of the retail chain Target to “test” its policy of allowing transsexuals to use the lavatory of their chosen gender. Unable to prove that this policy will allow “men in dresses” to abuse “their” daughters, the association became the creeping queer threat to American womanhood that it wished to see in the world.

These New Chauvinists, who are mostly men, want to protect women from violence – as long as they are the right sort of women. Trans women, queer women, immigrant women and women of colour are nowhere in the sticky mass of stereotypes and dog-whistle racism that passes for their analysis. The Christian groups who claim to want to protect “their daughters” from trans women in the ladies’ loos seem unbothered by how some of their daughters may well be trans – and trans women face violence in huge numbers.

This sort of chauvinism has always been racist and classist, because it is all about men deciding who gets to be treated like a lady – protected, treasured and infantilised – and who gets treated like chattel. As for ungrateful social justice warriors like me, we deserve to be oiled up and thrown to the Taliban: I’m told as much every day by white men who claim to abhor Islamic-coded violence against women but seem to have an erotic fascination with its details.

The New Chauvinism functions on two levels: it stokes up the fear of outsiders by casting foreign, black or queer masculinity as the real threat and it undermines feminist activism by claiming that women just don’t know what’s good for us. Here we are, iron-knickered harpies, making a fuss about equal pay and domestic violence and rape culture, when if we would only shut up and listen to men like we’re supposed to, we would know that the real threat comes from outside.

The New Chauvinists must not be allowed to co-opt feminist rhetoric. These people are not defenders of women. They are the ones who seek to put women in their place, substituting genuine respect for female autonomy with patronising “protection”, which is conditional on our good behaviour and only available if we are white.

Misogyny is not the preserve of any one group. It is a structural, cultural problem that exists in every nation on earth. The vast majority of Western feminists are not fooled by those who seek to undercut our cause to rationalise their racism: but who cares what we think? We’re only women, after all.

http://commondreams.org/views/2016/0...defend-us-them

Cynthia Nixon calls out 'Sex and the City' white feminism issues
 

HBO's beloved series "Sex and the City" was groundbreaking in its day, showcasing women in their 30s and 40s who were single, sexual and stylish. But looking back on the show more than 20 years after it premiered, actress Cynthia Nixon can see that it also had "a lot of failings of the feminist movement in it."

Nixon noted what hindsight has brought to light. “One of the hardest things for me...is looking back and seeing how much of it centered around money, right? And how, Steve, my (character’s) husband, was like the closest we got to a working class guy, you know? Never mind a working class woman, right?”

She made A LOT of money from that show and it sure didn't seem to bother her so much back then! And actually if you think about it, the same could be said of the Sex and the City movie franchises! Again she didn't turn down the big bucks she made from those as well!

In all fair honestly since she came out and got married to a woman she's made several comments that have irritated me to no end!