Misogyny and Sexism in the News

[Kobi]

CNN) -- I really am speechless, which makes it that much harder to write this column. After everything I've seen covering modern parenting over the past several years, I kind of feel like nothing can really surprise me anymore.

Oh how wrong I was, because when I heard what Boomer Esiason said, the former football star and now CBS NFL analyst and radio host, I thought he had to be joking.

Did he really suggest that New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy should have encouraged his wife to have a C-section, which is major surgery, so that he wouldn't have to miss Opening Day?

Murphy's wife went into labor, so he flew to be with her, missing the season's first two games. Major League Baseball allows a player to miss up to three games for paternity leave.

During a conversation on his radio show with co-host Craig Carton, Esiason, a father of two, said he would never have done what Murphy did.

"Quite frankly, I would have said C-section before the season starts," said Esiason. "I need to be at Opening Day. I'm sorry. This is what makes our money. This is how we're going to live our life. This is going to give my child every opportunity to be a success in life. I'll be able to afford any college I want to send my kid to because I'm a baseball player."

What about family, Esiason? What about not scheduling a major surgery that takes up to four weeks or longer to recover from (I should know; I had two unplanned C-sections!) just to avoid missing the first two games of a 160-plus game season?

For his part, Murphy, whose wife ended up having a C-section, is shrugging off any criticism of his decision.

"That's the choice of parents that they get to make," said Murphy. "That's the greatness of it. You discuss it with your spouse, and you find out what you think works best for your family."

Not surprisingly, outrage in social media to Esiason's remarks was pointed solidly in one direction.

"There are so many reasons this is so wrong," said a mother on my Facebook page, who had three C-sections, none of them by choice.

"He has no idea what in the world he is talking about," she added. "(A C-section) is no walk in the park for mom or dad, whether you are a baseball player or not, whether you are in the off season or not."

Another woman, also on Facebook, cited what she called "the lack of sensitivity and sophistication" around these issues of gender and reproduction. "I also think (despite what he says), if it were (his) wife, he would not feel the same way."

Don't show me the money, said Sue Scheff, a parenting advocate and author, on Facebook, criticizing Esiason for suggesting that money should be more important than family. "Games happen a lot. How often is the birth of your child?" she asked.

"Easy for him to say, he'll never have to have one," said a man, who did not want to be identified, referring to a C-section.

Esiason made his comments during an exchange with his co-host, who thought Murphy should have gotten back to work once the baby was born instead of taking an additional day of paternity leave. (Another WFAN radio host, Mike Francesa, also took issue with Murphy being out for two games.)

In Esiason's defense, his first comments when the subject came up were that Murphy had "legal rights to be there if he wants to be there."

As a football player, he's also coming from the mindset of his sport and how key players haven't traditionally missed one of the season's games for a birth, noted @heymatt on Twitter. In fact, Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco's wife gave birth one hour before game time in September, and Flacco played that game against the Cleveland Browns.

But what got under people's skin, more than anything, was the idea of suggesting that a wife have major surgery to accommodate her husband's sports schedule.

"Major surgery should only be used when medically advised, not for convenience," said @elia_eltringham, also on Twitter.

C-sections may be scheduled because of the estimated size of the child and the age of the mother, or if a mother had a prior C-section, doctors say. Some women have chosen to have them because of fears of incontinence after a vaginal birth.

Nearly a third of births are currently done by C-section, which is a significant jump from the 20% of deliveries resulting in C-sections in 1996, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Lillian Schapiro of Atlanta said she has seen a movement away from scheduled C-sections in her practice.

"I would say a few years ago, there was more of a trend to have scheduled C-sections, and now there is much more a move back to allowing nature to run its course, and people wanting to have a more natural experience," said Schapiro, an ob/gyn doctor affiliated with Piedmont Hospital in Atlanta.

Dr. Lynn Friedman, an ob/gyn with Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and one of my doctors during my pregnancies, said her practice also hasn't seen a rise in elective C-sections.

"A purely elective (C-section) ... someone who just says 'I don't want to labor,' I mean, that's not that common, and that's really still very much discouraged," said Friedman.

"For someone to say 'my career is something that would make my wife schedule a section' ... I think in the 21st century ... that's really still a very sexist thing to say, and I think a ball team should understand that their player should be with his wife. I mean, I just think that's grotesque."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/living...rebar_facebook

[Kobi]

Boomer Esiason "Apologizes" For Comments On Murphy’s Paternity Leave

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – WFAN co-host Boomer Esiason says he’s reached out to the New York Mets and is “truly sorry” for “insensitive comments” made earlier this week regarding second baseman Daniel Murphy’s paternity leave.

“I just want to say again on this radio show that in no way, shape or form was I advocating anything for anybody to do. I was not telling women what to do with their bodies. I would never do that. That’s their decision, that’s their life and they know their bodies better than I do. And the other thing, too, that I really felt bad about is that Daniel Murphy and Tori Murphy were dragged into a conversation, and their whole life was exposed. And it shouldn’t have been.

“And that is my fault. That is my fault for uttering the word ‘C-section’ on this radio station. And it all of a sudden put their lives under a spotlight, and for that I truly apologize. I tried to reach out to Daniel yesterday through intermediaries over there at the New York Mets, and to his credit, he answered all of his questions yesterday. I’m sorry that he had to go through that. No man should have to go through that. And certainly Daniel Murphy, who we both admire much as a baseball player as anybody else — and all I can say is that I truly, truly, feel terrible about what I put them through. So for that I certainly apologize.

“I spoke with (Mets public relations chief) Jay Horwitz yesterday and was texting back and forth with (COO/co-owner) Jeff Wilpon, and I think Daniel — I can’t speak for Daniel — I think he wants to put everything behind him, he wants to try to play baseball, he wants to try to become a dad, he wants to try to do all the right things in life, and he has every right to do that. And again, like I said, I apologize for putting him and his wife in the midst of a public discussion that I basically started by uttering insensitive comments that came off very insensitive. And for that I apologize, and that’s really all I can do.

“The other thing I do want to say is that my friends — our friends — over at the March of Dimes also reached out to me yesterday. And I immediately called them back and talked to them, and they kind of re-educated me on their mission statement. And you and I (co-host Craig Carton) have been a part of the March of Dimes luncheon for many years, and I go back all the way to 1994 with them, and they were very gracious in re-educating me and making me understand what their mission statement was. And I agree wholeheartedly in their mission statement.

“I can only hope that people understand that my comment — my flippant comment — wasn’t made in any way, shape or form to insult anybody. But obviously it did. And for that I am truly sorry.”

He added: “Again, I just want to reiterate one more time that if I in any way, shape or form insulted anybody, that was not my intention. My flippant remark was insensitive. I’ll leave it at that. And again, I feel terrible for the Murphy family, because what should be the greatest time in their life turned out to be somewhat of a firestorm that I personally put them into. And for that hopefully they can find forgiveness in their heart.”

“My deep apologies to both Daniel and Tori Murphy for creating an intrusion into a very sacred and personal moment in their lives, and that’s the birth of their son, Noah. Daniel is the Mets’ second baseman, whose brief paternity leave led to a flippant and insensitive remark that I sincerely regret.

(In the) meantime, I’m very grateful to my many friends over at the March of Dimes who graciously reached out and re-educated me that if a pregnancy is healthy, it is medically beneficial to let the labor begin on its own rather than to schedule a C-section for convenience. In fact, babies born just a few weeks early have double the risk of death compared to babies born after 39 full weeks of pregnancy. As their promotional campaign says, ‘Healthy babies are worth the wait.’ And as I proud father, I couldn’t agree more.”

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/...ternity-leave/

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

Maxim model Paulina Gretzky doesn't play professional golf but she is engaged to PGA tour star Dustin Johnson and has two famous parents, hockey great Wayne Gretzky and actress Janet Jones Gretzky.

That apparently was enough for Golf Digest to put her on its cover. It was also enough to irk players on the LPGA Tour, the New York Times reports.

"We don’t get respect for being the golfers that we are," two-time major winner Stacy Lewis said, according to the paper. "Obviously, Golf Digest is trying to sell magazines. But at the same time you’d like to see a little respect for the women’s game."

Seven-time major winner Juli Inkster seemed to feel the same way. "It’s frustrating because it’s Golf Digest; it’s not Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue. I think they should maybe recognize some of the great women golfers that we have," she said, according to the Times



So, WTF is it Golf Digest? Christina Kim, a REAL LPGA player doesn't fit your image?


Golf Digest, last I saw, you are a GOLF magazine, not Maxim, not Playboy. There are real, life women golfers whom you could choose to be on the cover. How fucking unsurprising this is to me. BOO!

Note: I, Happy_Go_Lucky played competetive golf as well as taught for many years. When I played, as well as the awesome other female players, the LAST thing we were concerned about is how fuckable we could make ourselves for the dudes.

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

Dear Golf Digest. Did you consider these LPGA members to be on the cover?









These women REALLY are golfers.....Damn!

[DapperButch]

Happy-Go-Lucky. There is no link to an article I can see. Maybe this is just your commentary?

As an aside to everyone, it is hard to find links to the articles posted unless you put them at the top of your post. Also, I think that all posts should have links, even just photos. Used to be standard here.

Just my two cents.

[Happy_Go_Lucky]

http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-...-doing-on.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...icle-1.1746710

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/pa...132635952.html

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...nd-controversy

[Kobi]

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy has asked for a column he penned for Breitbart California to be removed from the site in the wake of a sexist ad controversy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was depicted in a poster for the news site's launch on her hands and knees in a bizarre, punk-inspired "street art" homage to Miley Cyrus. Democrats, including Pelosi, have blasted the ads as “foul, offensive and disrespectful to all women.”

McCarthy topped the bill of Breitbart California’s conservative contributors from the state, the jewel in the crown of a list that includes Fox News host Greg Gutfield and Rep. Tom McClintock. But it appears that McCarthy, the third-ranking House Republican, is standing in solidarity with Pelosi at the expense of the outlaw conservative credibility attached to Breitbart. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a frequent contributor to Breitbart News, promoted the news site last week, and wrote, “Breitbart California will only help our party evolve, not die” and called on California Republicans to “[e]volve, adapt or die.”

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times about the images, McCarthy spokesman Matt Sparks said, “We didn’t condone them. We thought it was the right thing to do to ask for the column to be removed.” Another spokesman, Mike Long, told ABC News, “The images are inappropriate. We requested that Whip McCarthy’s piece be taken down.”

Breitbart’s defense largely revolves around the argument that Democrats do the same thing to Republican women all the time. After the ad controversy swelled into frothing Internet outrage on Monday, Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle compared the Pelosi ad to a 2013 Saturday Night Live skit in which Michelle Bachmann was depicted by none other than Miley Cyrus (her again), writhing around with Taran Killam’s perma-tan, tank top-wearing John Boehner in a political parody of the video for her song, "We Can't Stop."

“Cyrus herself raunchily depicted Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) in a Saturday Night Live skit touching her crotch while writhing on the ground, shaking her backside in tight shorts, and sticking out her tongue and licking people with a gay, hypersexual John Boehner,” Boyle writes, which makes us wonder which is more offensive to Breitbart: Cyrus as Bachmann, or a gay Boehner.

http://news.yahoo.com/breitbart-unap...JmMQR2dGlkAw--

The Ads

[Kobi]

Senate Republicans blocked a vote on Wednesday to open debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would hold employers more accountable for wage discrimination against women. The Senate voted 53 to 44 to move forward on the bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.

The bill would prohibit retaliation against employees who share their salary information with each other, which supporters say would eliminate the culture of silence that keeps women in the dark about pay discrimination. It would also require the Department of Labor to collect wage data from employers, broken down by race and gender, and require employers to show that wage differentials between men and women in the same jobs are for a reason other than sex.

All Republicans present and one Independent, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), voted against proceeding to debate the bill. All Democrats and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) voted in favor.

"At a time when the Obama economy is already hurting women so much, this legislation would double down on job loss, all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said before the vote. "In other words, it's just another Democratic idea that threatens to hurt the very people that it claims to help."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized McConnell's caucus for opposing the bill.

"Are they so repulsed by equal pay for hardworking women that they'll obstruct equal pay for equal work?" he said Wednesday before the vote. "I'm at a loss as to why anyone would decline to debate this important issue."

The bill is part of the Democrats' larger policy push, ahead of the November election, to increase economic security for women, which includes proposals to raise the minimum wage, allow workers to earn a certain amount of paid family and sick leave and expand affordable childcare and pre-Kindergarten for working parents.

"This is not just an issue of fairness," President Barack Obama said in a speech on Tuesday. "It’s also a family issue and an economic issue, because women make up about half of our workforce and they’re increasingly the breadwinners for a whole lot of families out there. So when they make less money, it means less money for gas, less money for groceries, less money for child care, less money for college tuition, less money is going into retirement savings."

U.S. Census Bureau data shows that women who work full-time earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar men earn in a year. When you compare women and men with the same education and experience levels working the same jobs, the pay gap shrinks, but there is still an unexplained gap of 7 to 9 percent, economists estimate, suggesting persistent pay discrimination against women.

Most Republicans in Congress object to all of the Democrats' proposals related to women's economic security. Senate Republicans have blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act twice before, claiming that it will only result in more lawsuits against employers. GOP lawmakers slammed the Paycheck Fairness Act again on Tuesday, calling it "condescending" to women.

"Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns, and find it condescending [that] Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policy," Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), the GOP conference's vice chair, said Tuesday at a press conference.

Equal pay advocates expressed their dismay after Wednesday's vote, suggesting the consequences will be felt in November.

"Today's vote is a disappointment for women and families across the United States. Considering the impact of the gender pay gap, it's mystifying that the Senate can't even agree to debate it!" said Lisa Maatz, the vice president of government relations at the American Association of University Women. "That's what happened today –- GOP senators essentially filibustered equal pay for women. Given the size of the gender voting gap, Republicans are foolish to cede this issue to Democrats."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5118254.html

[Kobi]

Children in Iraq could be legally married before the age of nine under sweeping legislation tabled on Tuesday that introduces new religious restrictions on women's rights.

As almost its last act before elections at the end of the month, the Iraqi parliament looks likely to pass new marital rules for its majority Shia community with a draft law criticised by human rights activists as "legalised inquality"

The legislation has been approved by the governing coalition in an effort to attract support from Shia Muslims in the April 30 vote.

Current Iraqi law sets the legal age for marriage at 18 without parental approval and states girls as young as 15 can be married only with a guardian's approval. It does not allow for special provisions according to sect.

But the legislation, known as the Jaafari law, introduces rules almost identical to those of neighbouring Iran, a Shia-dominated Islamic theocracy.

Ayad Allawi, a former Iraqi prime minister, warned on Tuesday that approval of the law would lead to the abuse of women. "It allows for girls to be married from nine years of age and even younger," he said. "There are other injustices [contained in it] too."

While there is no set minimum age for marriage, the section on divorce includes rules for divorces of girls who have reached the age of 9 years.

Marital rape is condoned by a clause that states women must comply with their husband's sexual demands. Men are given guardianship rights over women and the law also establishes rules governing polygamous relationships.

Hanaa Edwar, a well-known activist and head of the charity Al-Amal ("Hope" in Arabic), has campaigned against the law as a setback for women's rights in a country that has struggled since the 2003 invasion.

"It turns women into tools for sexual enjoyment," she said. "It deletes all their rights."

Human Rights Watch, the US-based organisation, has issued a plea for the Iraqi government to abandon the legislations.

"Iraq is in conflict and undergoing a breakdown of the rule of law," Basma al-Khateeb, a women's rights activist, said in a Human Rights Watch report. "The passage of the Jaafari law sets the ground for legalised inequality."

Supporters of the draft, named after a Shiite Muslim school of jurisprudence, say it simply regulates practices already existing in day-to-day life. Officials said there has been a surge in under 18s being married off since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-marriage.html

[Kobi]

According to Wharton professor Katherine Milkman's new study, released on Tuesday, professors are less likely to want to mentor female and minority students. Especially in fields that lead to the most lucrative careers.

Milkman explained her research on NPR's Morning Edition. To determine how professors respond to different students looking for mentoring, Milkman and her colleagues Modupe Akinola and Dolly Chough created fake student emails with names that are representative of different genders and racial groups. These "students" emailed professors at top universities to see if they could meet about their work. Professors were more likely to respond, and respond positively, to white men. Even female and minority faculty are more likely to help the white guys. Milkman explains,

" There's absolutely no benefit seen when women reach out to female faculty, nor do we see benefits from black students reaching out to black faculty or Hispanic students reaching out to Hispanic faculty."

Faculty bias is particularly entrenched in areas of study that lead to the best-paying jobs, like the natural sciences and business. "The very worst in terms of bias is business academia," Milkman says. "We see a 25-percentage-point gap in the response rate to caucasian males versus women and minorities."

It's this kind of bias that explains why women excel in college but still reach a glass ceiling in their careers, especially in business. Women currently hold 60 percent of bachelor's degrees in the U.S., but that achievement isn't reflected in the number of women excelling at Fortune 500 companies. Next fall, more Latinos will be enrolled as freshmen in the University of California system than whites for the first time. But white students, especially males, will still have an easier time finding a professor to help them transition from college to career.

In her now-legendary advice book on women and careers, Lean In, Sheryl Sandberg has an entire chapter titled "Don’t Ask Anyone to be Your Mentor." She advises that women seek answers to questions from a variety of people in the office, instead of focusing on finding one mentor. But college is a time when it would be great to have one professor dedicated to helping you with your academic and career development. When female and minority students put themselves out there, ask for help, and get no response or a negative response, it's got to be frustrating. No wonder women tend to have less confidence once they get out into the workforce.

http://www.thewire.com/culture/2014/...school/361047/

[Kobi]

The Navy has reassigned a former commander of the Blue Angels, its acrobatic fighter squadron, and is investigating allegations that the elite team of pilots was a hotbed of hazing, sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination, documents show.

The Navy announced Friday that it had relieved Capt. Gregory McWherter, a two-time commander of the Blue Angels, of duty for alleged misconduct. At the time, the Navy did not describe the nature of the accusations or provide other details except to say that the case remained under investigation.

But an internal military document that a Navy official inadvertently e-mailed to a Washington Post editor states that a former member of the Blue Angels filed a complaint last month accusing McWherter of promoting a hostile work environment and tolerating sexual harassment. The complaint described an atmosphere rife with sexually explicit speech, the open display of pornography and jokes about sexual orientation.

The Navy officer is the latest in a string of senior military commanders to come under investigation for sexual misconduct or other misbehavior. Congress and the White House have grown especially frustrated at the Pentagon’s struggles to police sex crimes and harassment in the ranks.

The Navy appeared to move swiftly after the former Blue Angels member filed the complaint March 24 with the Navy inspector general. The complaint alleged that McWherter encouraged or allowed sexual harassment and lewd activity to occur when he commanded the Blue Angels during two stints between 2008 and 2012.

McWherter did not respond to e-mails seeking comment. Late Wednesday, in response to a request for comment, the Navy confirmed the circumstances that led to the probe. The Navy also released a statement from Vice Adm. David H. Buss, the commander of Naval Air Forces, who said, “We remain fully committed to accountability, transparency, and protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations.”

According to McWherter’s biography, which the Navy has removed from a public Web site, he is an alumnus of the Citadel and graduated from the Navy’s famous “Top Gun” fighter pilot school in 1995.

The Blue Angels are a flight demonstration team that performs daring maneuvers at air shows and before large crowds at other public events. It is a major honor for pilots selected to join; the Navy treats the squadron as a valuable recruitment tool and a vivid symbol of its aviation firepower.

The commander of the unit is chosen by a panel of admirals and serves as the Blue Angels’ lead pilot.

Although the investigation has not been completed, Navy officials decided that the preliminary findings warranted taking action. McWherter was fired from his new job as executive officer of Naval Base Coronado near San Diego. He has been temporarily reassigned to other duties.

Summaries of the complaint and investigation are contained in a five-page internal document, labeled “official use only,” that was drafted by Navy public affairs officers in anticipation of media coverage.

The document included talking points and prepared quotes attributed to Navy admirals, expressing concern about the gravity of the case. The material was being assembled in the event that further details of the investigation became public.

McWherter was a commander highly regarded by many in the Navy. He was brought back to lead the Blue Angels for a second stint in 2011 after the unit was temporarily grounded that year for performing a dangerous barrel roll too close to the ground during a show in Lynchburg, Va.

Upon leaving the team in November 2012, he told the Pensacola (Fla.) News Journal that he had no regrets.

“If being with the Blue Angels was the last time I fly a Navy plane, that’s a pretty good way to go out,” he said.

In the face of several ethics scandals over the past 18 months, the Pentagon has repeatedly pledged to hold commanders accountable for their actions. At the same time, however, the military has tried to suppress details about many embarrassing episodes.

For example, the Army announced in June, without elaboration, that it had suspended its top general in Japan for allegedly mishandling a sexual assault case. On Tuesday, after obtaining a copy of the investigative report under the Freedom of Information Act, The Post disclosed that the general was given a plum job at the Pentagon even though he had violated regulations by failing to refer the sexual assault complaint to criminal investigators.

In January, after obtaining another batch of investigative documents, The Post reported that the Pentagon had disciplined three other generals for personal misconduct.

One was found guilty of assaulting his mistress. A second joked in e-mails that he sexually gratified himself after meeting a member of Congress whom he described as “smoking hot.” The third kept a bottle of vodka in his desk and was investigated for having an affair, according to the documents.

At the same time, it appears that some military leaders have become highly sensitive to the issue and are quick to launch investigations at any hint of sexual impropriety or ethical misbehavior in the ranks.

In February, the Army announced it had suspended a brigade commander at Fort Carson, Colo., and in a highly unusual move, would not allow him to deploy with his soldiers to Afghanistan. Again, Army officials did not divulge what had prompted the decision.

A copy of the investigative report in that case, however, shows that the commander was suspended after three female soldiers alleged that he had made insensitive comments during a meeting to discuss sexual assault policies.

The commander, Col. Brian Pearl, was later cleared of wrongdoing and allowed to join his troops in Afghanistan. A copy of the investigative report was first obtained and published Tuesday by the Gazette newspaper of Colorado Springs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...washingtonpost

[Gemme]

Montana Teacher Re-Sentenced for Rape of 14 Year Old


Teacher Rape Case

By MATTHEW BROWN

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- A former high school teacher who served one month in prison after being convicted of raping a 14-year-old student faces more time behind bars after the Montana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that his original sentence was too short.

Justices in a unanimous ruling ordered the case of Stacey Dean Rambold assigned to a new judge for re-sentencing.

The decision means Rambold must serve a minimum of two years in prison under state sentencing laws, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said.

The high court cited, in part, the inflammatory comments of the sentencing judge, District Judge G. Todd Baugh, who drew wide condemnation for suggesting that the victim shared some responsibility for her rape.

Baugh said during Rambold's sentencing in August that the teenager was "probably as much in control of the situation as the defendant." He later apologized.

Rambold was released after fulfilling the original sentence last fall and is expected to remain free pending his reappearance in state District Court.

The defendant was a 47-year-old business teacher at Billings Senior High School at the time of the 2007 rape. The victim, one of his students, killed herself while Rambold was awaiting trial.

Rambold's sentence had been appealed by the state Department of Justice.

Attorney General Tim Fox said the Supreme Court's decision had "rebuffed attempts to place blame on a child victim of this horrible crime."

Under state law, children younger than 16 cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

Rambold's attorneys insisted in court filings that the original sentence was appropriate, and cited a "lynch mob" mentality following a huge public outcry over the case.

Like Baugh, they suggested the girl bore some responsibility and referenced videotaped interviews with her before she committed suicide. Those interviews remain under seal by the court.

Rambold attorney Jay Lansing was traveling and not immediately available, his office said.

The family of victim Cherice Moralez issued a statement through attorney Shane Colton saying the court's decision had restored their faith in the judicial system. The statement urged the family's supporters to continue working together to keep children safe from sexual predators.

During last year's sentencing hearing, prosecutors sought a 20-year prison term for Rambold with 10 years suspended.

But Baugh followed Lansing's recommendations and handed down a sentence of 15 years with all but 31 days suspended and a one-day credit for time served. Rambold was required to register as a sex offender upon his release and to remain on probation through 2028.

After a public outcry, Baugh acknowledged the sentence violated state law and attempted retroactively to revise it but was blocked when the state filed its appeal.

The Supreme Court decision did not specify what sentence would be more appropriate. That means Rambold potentially could face even more time in prison.

County Attorney Twito said he would consult with attorneys in his office and the victim's family before deciding how much prison time prosecutors will seek.

The case will likely be assigned to a new judge sometime next week, Baugh said Wednesday. He said he was not surprised by the court's decision.

The judge sparked outrage when he commented that Moralez appeared "older than her chronological age."

Her 2010 suicide took away the prosecution's main witness and resulted in a deferred-prosecution agreement that required Rambold to attend a sex-offender treatment program.

When he was booted from that program - for not disclosing a sexual relationship with an adult woman and having an unauthorized visit with the children of his relatives - the prosecution on the rape charge was revived.

During August's sentencing, the judge appeared sympathetic to the defendant, fueling a barrage of complaints against him from advocacy groups and private citizens. It also led to a formal complaint against Baugh from the Montana Judicial Standards Commission that's now pending with the state Supreme Court.

Justices said they intend to deal with Baugh separately. But their sharp criticism of the judge's actions signals that some sort of punishment is likely.

"Judge Baugh's statements reflected an improper basis for his decision and cast serious doubt on the appearance of justice," Justice Michael Wheat wrote. "There is no basis in the law for the court's distinction between the victim's `chronological age' and the court's perception of her maturity."

Baugh, 72, was first elected in 1984. He has said he deserves a public reprimand or censure for undermining the credibility of the judiciary and plans to retire when his six-year term expires at the end of the year.

He was unsure when the Supreme Court would act on the complaint against him.

"I expect at some point to appear before them, but don't know when," he said.

The leader of a women's group that filed one of the complaints against Baugh said Wednesday's high court decision gave advocates only part of what they want.

"The other part of the victory will be when something is done about Baugh," said Marian Bradley, president of the Montana chapter of the National Organization for Women.

[Kobi]

Two weeks ago more than 230 Nigerian girls were kidnapped from their school by a local terrorist group, and as the search wears on, the Guardian reports, families are starting to lose hope.

As Smart News wrote earlier, the perpetrators are assumed to be part of a group of militants that calls itself Boko Haram, a terrorist organization tied to Al Qaeda. The group's name translates to “western education is sin.” Boko Haram has been on a campaign against schools around Nigeria, though the group's targets also include markets, churches, mosques and other public places.

It's been 14 days since the girls went missing and no progress has been made on tracking their whereabouts, either by the military or by groups of machete-wielding parents searching through the countryside. The search for the kidnapped girls also has been muddled by misinformation. In the immediate wake of the kidnapping, says BuzzFeed reporter Jina Moore, the Nigerian military claimed to have found and freed the girls and captured one of the terrorists involved—a claim that was proven wrong and ultimately retracted. And, according to a report by Voice of America, the Boko Haram terrorists are threatening to kill the girls if the search operations aren't called off.

Northeastern Nigeria has been in a state of emergency for a year, writes the Guardian. The school from which the 234 girls (from 15 to 18 years old) were kidnapped was the only one still open in the region. The girls had been called back to class to sit an exam.



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...GF4T3mgbw3p.99
-------------------------------------



Kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls taken as brides by militants, relatives told
Relatives say they have been told of mass weddings involving insurgents and some of the girls abducted two weeks ago



For two weeks, retired teacher Samson Dawah prayed for news of his niece Saratu, who was among more than 230 schoolgirls snatched by Boko Haram militants in the north-eastern Nigerian village of Chibok. Then on Monday the agonising silence was broken.

When Dawah called together his extended family members to give an update, he asked that the most elderly not attend, fearing they would not be able to cope with what he had to say. "We have heard from members of the forest community where they took the girls. They said there had been mass marriages and the girls are being shared out as wives among the Boko Haram militants," Dawah told his relatives.

Saratu's father fainted; he has since been in hospital. The women of the family have barely eaten. "My wife keeps asking me, why isn't the government deploying every means to find our children," Dawah said. The marriage reports have not been confirmed officially, and rely on eyewitnesses.

The 14 April abduction of the girls – students aged between 16 and 18 who were sitting a physics paper at their school, one of a handful in troubled Borno state that had opened specially for final exams – shocked a nation inured to violence during a five year-insurgency.

Desperate parents launched their own rescue attempts in the 60,000 sq km Sambisa forest where the girls were being held. Security sources told the Guardian that at least three rescue attempts had been scuppered.

This week, former prime minister Gordon Brown, the United Nations' special adviser on girls' education, will visit Nigeria to launch a campaign to raise funds and awareness of the schoolgirls' plight. "We cannot stop terrorism overnight but we can make sure that its perpetrators are aware that murdering and abducting schoolchildren is a heinous crime that the international authorities are determined to punish," he said.

Reports of the mass marriage came from a group that meets at dawn each day not far from the charred remains of the school. The ragtag gathering of fathers, uncles, cousins and nephews pool money for fuel before venturing unarmed into the thick forest, or into border towns that the militants have terrorised for months.

On Sunday, the searchers were told that the students had been divided into at least three groups, according to farmers and villagers who had seen truckloads of girls moving around the area. One farmer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the insurgents had paid leaders dowries and fired celebratory gunshots for several minutes after conducting mass wedding ceremonies on Saturday and Sunday.

"It's unbearable. Our wives have grown bitter and cry all day. The abduction of our children and the news of them being married off is like hearing of the return of the slave trade," said Yakubu Ubalala, whose 17- and 18-year-old daughters Kulu and Maimuna are among the disappeared.

The parents are planning a mass rally on Saturday to lobby the government for official updates rather than having to rely on reports from local people.

Nigeria's armed forces face an uphill battle against the insurgents, who operate in small, mobile units and are drawn from communities that spill across the country's porous desert borders. Near daily aerial bombardments have been halted as ground troops have poured into the forest in search of the girls.

"We are trying, but our efforts are being countered in a way that it is very clear they are being tipped off about our movements. Any time we make a plan to rescue [the girls] we have been ambushed," said an artillery soldier among a rescue team announced by presidential decree over the weekend. In one clash, he said, 15 soldiers were killed by the insurgents.

"We know where these girls are being held in the forest, but every day we go in and come out disappointed. Definitely somebody high up in the chain of command is leaking up information to these people," said the soldier, whom the Guardian was able to reach three times during shift breaks. Nigeria's president, Goodluck Jonathan, said in 2012 that Boko Haram had secret backers among government and security officials.

Another soldier deployed to Borno state said: "In my 13 years of service, I have never been in terrain this big and tough. There is desert and there is forest – you cannot imagine how difficult both of them are."

He said there had been intelligence reports of the militants moving groups of girls to Marte – a known training camp – and to the Gwoza hills, a range of caves and valleys spanning the border with Cameroon.

The kidnappings have sparked debate on whether foreign intervention could help stabilise Nigeria. Officials have long ruled out such a move.

Nelson Uwaga, a representative at an official conference set up by presidential decree to discuss national unity as Nigeria celebrates a century of nationhood, said: "If countries can help us by way of arming our people through modern surveillance equipment, for defence and all that, it will be most welcome. [But] what the Boko Haram is doing is not a formal kind of fight but a guerrilla kind of fight, and it is only the local people that will tell you how to fight it."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...arriage-claims

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Reported sexual assaults in the U.S. military jumped 50 percent last year, the Pentagon said on Thursday, and officials welcomed the spike as a sign that a high-level crackdown has made victims more confident their attackers will be prosecuted.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the jump in reported sexual assaults to 5,061 in the 2013 fiscal year from 3,374 the previous year, was "unprecedented."

He announced six new directives to expand the fight, including an alcohol policy review and an effort to encourage reporting by male victims. Men are thought to represent about half of the victims of military sexual assault but made up only 14 percent of the reports that were investigated.

"We believe victims are growing more confident in our system," Hagel told a Pentagon news conference. "Because these crimes are underreported, we took steps to increase reporting and that's what we're seeing."

Despite increased focus on the issue over the past year, the military has continued to face embarrassing incidents in which officers have been accused of tolerating sexual misconduct and even encouraging it, rather than fighting the problem.

Critics said the Pentagon's numbers on increased reporting demonstrated little improvement in the proportion of cases going to trial or the percentage of convictions.

A total 484 cases went to trial in the 2013 fiscal year that ended on September 30 and 370 people were convicted of an offense, the report said. That compared with 302 trials the previous year and 238 convictions.

"You can't tell me that only one in 10 cases are worthy of going to trial. That's like saying 90 percent of those who come forward are lying," Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, told Reuters in an interview.

Speier and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, have led a push to remove prosecution of sex crimes from the military chain of command and put it in the hands of specialized prosecutors. The effort was narrowly defeated earlier this year, but Thursday's report revived calls for its consideration.

"Today's report is deeply troubling and shows the scourge of sexual assaults has not been brought under control and our current military justice system remains broken," Gillibrand said in a statement.

Other lawmakers saw progress. Senator Claire McCaskill, who worked on legislation to develop a more forceful military response to the problem, said the increased reporting was encouraging.

"We know that the majority of survivors, both military and civilian, choose not to report their assaults," the Missouri Democrat, a former sex crimes prosecutor, said in a statement. "This data suggests that the number of brave men and women in uniform choosing to pursue justice is increasing."

Sexual assault is vastly underreported, and a separate military survey conducted in 2012 concluded there were some 26,000 sex crimes in the military that year, from rape to abusive sexual contact.

The survey is conducted every two years, so there was no survey with the annual report this year to use as a basis for projecting total sex crimes in the services.

The figures last year provoked outrage and led to a broad effort across the military to crack down on sex crimes and sexual misbehavior. But despite the push, a number of high-profile officers are being investigated for their actions.

The Navy said last week it was investigating allegations of misconduct by Captain Gregory McWherter, the former commander of the Blue Angels precision flight squadron. He was accused of allowing and sometimes encouraging "lewd speech, inappropriate comments, and sexually explicit humor," the Navy said.

Major General Michael Harrison also was recently disciplined for failing to take appropriate action in response to sexual assault allegations while commander of U.S. Army forces in Japan. He had been suspended from the post last June when the allegations were made.

Army General Martin Dempsey, the highest-ranking military officer, told defense bloggers earlier this month that the department had a limited window of opportunity to demonstrate it could deal with the sexual assault problem.

"If it occurs that after a period of very intense and renewed emphasis on this that we can't solve it, I'm not going to fight it being taken away from us," the military's press service quoted him as saying.

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-due-a...111510864.html

[Kobi]

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released today a list of the higher education institutions under investigation for possible violations of federal law over the handling of sexual violence and harassment complaints.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. In the past, Department officials confirmed individual Title IX investigations at institutions, but today's list is the first comprehensive look at which campuses are under review by OCR for possible violations of the law's requirements around sexual violence.

"We are making this list available in an effort to bring more transparency to our enforcement work and to foster better public awareness of civil rights," Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon said. "We hope this increased transparency will spur community dialogue about this important issue. I also want to make it clear that a college or university's appearance on this list and being the subject of a Title IX investigation in no way indicates at this stage that the college or university is violating or has violated the law."

As with all OCR investigations, the primary goal of a Title IX investigation is to ensure that the campus is in compliance with federal law, which demands that students are not denied the ability to participate fully in educational and other opportunities due to sex.

The Department will not disclose any case-specific facts or details about the institutions under investigation. The list includes investigations opened because of complaints received by OCR and those initiated by OCR as compliance reviews. When an investigation concludes, the Department will disclose, upon request, whether OCR has entered into a resolution agreement to address compliance concerns at a particular campus or found insufficient evidence of a Title IX violation there.

The list of institutions under investigation for Title IX sexual violence issues will be updated regularly and made available to the public upon request by contacting OCR or to media by contacting the Press Office at press@ed.gov.

Releasing this list advances a key goal of President Obama's White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault to bring more transparency to the federal government's enforcement activities around this issue. The Obama administration is committed to putting an end to sexual violence—particularly on college campuses. That's why the President established the Task Force earlier this year with a mandate to strengthen federal enforcement efforts and provide schools with additional tools to combat sexual assault on their campuses.

As part of that work, the Education Department released updated guidance earlier this week describing the responsibilities of colleges, universities and schools receiving federal funds to address sexual violence and other forms of sex discrimination under Title IX. The guidelines provide greater clarity about the requirements of the law around sexual violence—as requested by institutions and students.

All colleges, and universities and K-12 schools receiving federal funds must comply with Title IX. Schools that violate the law and refuse to address the problems identified by OCR can lose federal funding or be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for further action.

Under federal law, sexual violence refers to physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person's will or where a person is incapable of giving consent -- including rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual abuse and sexual coercion.

OCR's mission is to ensure equal access to education and promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights. OCR is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination by educational institutions on the basis of disability, race, color, national origin, sex, and age, as well as the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001.

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-release...s-open-title-i

------------------------------------


The list of institutions being investigated can be found at the end of the article. Follow the link Dapper

[Kobi]

By the end of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, two key questions were on the table for those who not only are aware of rape but would like to end men’s violence against women.

First, do we live in a rape culture, or is rape perpetrated by a relatively small number of predatory men?

Second, is rape a clearly definable crime, or are there gray areas in sexual encounters that defy easy categorization as either consensual or non-consensual?

If those seem to be tricky, or trick, questions, don’t worry. There’s an easy answer to both: patriarchy (more on that shortly).

This year’s Sexual Assault Awareness Month in April was full of the usual stories about men’s violence, especially on university campuses. From football-obsessed state schools to elite private campuses, the reality of rape and rape culture was reported by journalists and critiqued by victim-survivors.

But April also included an unexpected debate within the anti-violence movement about the appropriate boundaries of the discussion about rape and rape culture.

“In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming ‘rape culture’ for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses,” wrote the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, or RAINN, in a letter offering recommendations to the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (see the government’s final report). “While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime.”

RAINN expressed concern that emphasizing rape culture makes “it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions.”

Feminists pushed back, pointing out that it shouldn’t be difficult to hold accountable the individuals who commit acts legally defined as rape, while we also discuss how prosecuting rapists is made difficult by those who blame victims and make excuses for men’s violence, all of which is related to the way our culture routinely glorifies other types of men’s violence (war, sports and action movies) and routinely presents objectified female bodies to men for sexual pleasure (pornography, Hollywood movies and strip clubs).

Meanwhile, conservative commentators picked up on all this, using it as a club to condemn the always-demonizable feminists for their allegedly unfair treatment of men and allegedly crazy critique of masculinity.

I’m a man who doesn’t believe feminists are unfair or crazy. In fact, I believe the only sensible way to understand these issues is through a feminist critique of — you guessed it — patriarchy.

Rape and rape-like behavior

Before wading into the reasons we need feminism, let’s consider a hypothetical:

A young man and woman are on a first date. The man decides early in the evening that he would like to have sexual intercourse and makes his attraction to her clear in conversation. He does not intend to force her to have sex, but he is assertive in a way that she interprets to mean that he “won’t take no for an answer.” The woman does not want to have sex, but she is uncertain of how he will react if she rejects his advance. Alone in his apartment — in a setting in which his physical strength means she likely could not prevent him from raping her — she offers to perform oral sex, hoping that will satisfy him and allow her to get home without a direct confrontation that could become too intense, even violent. She does not tell him what she is thinking, out of fear of how he may react. The man accepts the offer of oral sex, and the evening ends without conflict.

If that sex happened — and it’s an experience that women have described (see Flirting with Danger by Lynn Phillips and the companion film) — should we describe the encounter as consensual sex or rape? In legal terms, this clearly is not rape. So, it’s consensual sex. No problem, right?

Consider some other potentially relevant factors: If a year before that situation, the woman had been raped while on a date, would that change our assessment? If she had been sexually assaulted as a child and still, years later, goes into a survival mode when triggered? If this were a college campus and the man was a well-known athlete, and she feared the system would protect him?

By legal standards, this still clearly is not rape. But by human standards, this doesn’t feel like fully consensual sex. Maybe we should recognize that both those assessments are reasonable. In short, rape is a definable crime that happens in a rape culture — once again, both things are true.

What is patriarchy and why does it matter?

Patriarchy is a term rarely heard in mainstream conversation, especially since the backlash against feminism took off in the 1980s. So, let’s start with the late feminist historian Gerda Lerner’s definition of patriarchy as “the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in the society in general.” Patriarchy implies, she continued, “that men hold power in all the important institutions of society and that women are deprived of access to such power. It does not imply that women are either totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influence and resources.”

Feminism challenges acts of male dominance and analyzes the underlying patriarchal ideology that tries to make that dominance seem inevitable and immutable. Second-wave radical feminists in the second half of the 20th century identified men’s violence against women — rape, child sexual assault, domestic violence and various forms of harassment — as a key method of patriarchal control and made a compelling argument that sexual assault cannot be understood outside of an analysis of patriarchy’s ideology.

Some of those feminists argued that “rape is about power not sex,” but other feminists went deeper, pointing out that when women describe the range of their sexual experiences it becomes clear there is no bright-line distinction between rape and not-rape, but instead a continuum of sexual intrusion into women’s lives by men. Yes, men who rape seek a sense of power, but men also use their power to get sex from women, sometimes under conditions that are not legally defined as rape but involve varying levels of control and coercion.

So, the focus shouldn’t be reduced to a relatively small number of men who engage in behavior we can easily label as rape. Those men pose a serious problem and we should be diligent in prosecuting them. But that prosecution can go on — and, in fact, will be aided by — recognizing the larger context in which men are trained to seek control and pursue conquest in order to feel like a man, and how that control is routinely sexualized.

Patriarchal sex

If this seems far-fetched, think about the ways men in all-male spaces often talk about sex, such as asking each other, “Did you get any?” From that perspective, sex is the acquisition of pleasure from a woman, something one takes from a woman, and men talk openly among themselves about strategies to enhance the likelihood of “getting some” even in the face of resistance from women.

This doesn’t mean that all men are rapists, that all heterosexual sex is rape or that egalitarian relationships between men and women are impossible. It does mean, however, that rape is about power and sex, about the way men are trained to understand ourselves and to see women.

Let me repeat: The majority of men do not rape. But consider these other categories:

Men who do not rape but would be willing to rape if they were sure they would not be punished.
Men who do not rape but will not intervene when another man rapes.
Men who do not rape but buy sex with women who have been, or likely will be, raped in the context of being prostituted.
Men who do not rape but will watch films of women in situations that depict rape or rape-like acts.
Men who do not rape but find the idea of rape sexually arousing.
Men who do not rape but whose sexual arousal depends on feeling dominant and having power over a woman.
Men who do not rape but routinely masturbate to pornography in which women are presented as objectified bodies whose primary, or only, function is to provide sexual pleasure for men.

Those men are not rapists. But is that fact — that the men in these categories are not, in legal terms, guilty of rape — comforting? Are we advancing the cause of ending men’s violence against women by focusing only on the acts legally defined as rape?

Rape is rape, and rape culture is rape culture

Jody Raphael’s book Rape is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis points out that if we use “a conservative definition of rape about which there can be no argument” — rape as an act of “forcible penetration” — the research establishes that between 10.6 percent and 16.1 percent of American women have been raped. That means somewhere between 12 million and 18 million women in this country today live as rape victim-survivors, if we use a narrow definition of the crime.

Because no human activity takes place in an ideological vacuum — the ideas in our heads affect the way we behave — it’s hard to make sense of those numbers without the concept of rape culture. A rape culture doesn’t command men to rape, but it does make rape inviting, and it reduces the likelihood rapists will be identified, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished. It’s hard to imagine any meaningful efforts to reduce, and someday eliminate, rape without talking openly and honestly about these matters. But RAINN argues that such denial is exactly the path we should take.

Why should we fear talking about the socialization process by which boys and men are trained to see themselves as powerful over women and to see women as sexual objects? Why should we fear asking critical questions about all-male spaces, such as athletic teams and fraternities, where these attitudes might be reinforced? Could it be a fear that the problem of sexual assault is so deeply entwined in our taken-for-granted assumptions about gender that any serious response to the problem of rape requires us to all get more radical, to take radical feminism seriously?

This does not mean all men are rapists, that all male athletes are rapists, or that all fraternity members are rapists. It does mean that if we want to stop sexual violence, we have to confront patriarchy. If we decide we aren’t going to talk about patriarchy, then let’s stop pretending we are going to stop sexual violence and recognize that, at best, all we can do is manage the problem. If we can’t talk about patriarchy, then let’s admit that we are giving up on the idea of gender justice and goal of a world without rape.

It’s easy to understand why people don’t like this formulation of the problem, given that anything beyond a tepid liberal, postmodern feminism is out of fashion these days and radical feminist analyses of male dominance are rarely part of polite conversation. Sometimes people concede the value of such an analysis, but justify the silence about it by claiming, “People can’t handle it.” When someone makes that claim, I assume what they mean is “I can’t handle it myself,” that it’s too much, too painful to deal with.

That’s not hard to understand, because to confront the reality of rape and rape culture is to realize that vigorous prosecution of the small number of men who rape doesn’t solve the larger problem.

If anyone still doubts that rape culture exists and is relevant, how else would we explain the Yale University fraternity members who marched on campus while shouting sexist chants, including “No means yes, yes means anal,” as part of a 2010 pledge event?

Everyone recognizes the mocking reference to the anti-rape message, “No means no,” which expresses women’s demand that men listen to them. These Yale men reject that. The second part of their chant — “Yes means anal” — states that women who agree to sex are implicitly agreeing to anything a man wants, including anal penetration. This will make sense to anyone who is aware of the prevalence of anal penetration in today’s pornography marketed to heterosexual men. In those pornographic scenes, women sometimes beg for that penetration and other times are forced into it, but the message is the same: Men’s pleasure is central.

In this one chant, these men of Yale — one of the most elite universities in the United States, which produces some of the country’s most powerful business and political leaders, including five presidents — clearly express a patriarchal view of gender and sex. Their chant is an endorsement of rape and an expression of rape culture.

Is a feminist critique of rape and rape culture a threat to me as a man? I was socialized in a patriarchal culture to believe that whatever feminists had planned, I should be afraid of it. But what I have learned from radical feminists is that quite the opposite is true — feminism is a gift to men. Such critique does not undermine my humanity, but instead gives me a chance to embrace it.

http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature...em-patriarchy/

[Kobi]

An Indonesian woman who was gang-raped by men accusing her of having extramarital sex may be caned publicly for violating Islamic law, an official said Wednesday.

The 25-year-old widow said she was raped by eight men who allegedly found her with a married man in her house. The men reportedly beat the man, doused the two with sewage, and then turned them over to Islamic police in conservative Aceh province.

The alleged attack occurred early Thursday in Lhokbani, a village in East Aceh district.

The head of Islamic Shariah law in the district, Ibrahim Latief, said his office has recommended the widow and the married man be caned nine times for violating religious law, pending an investigation. Its preliminary finding was that the two were about to have sex at that time, but Latief contended they violated Shariah law by being in the same room together. He said they also admitted they had sex earlier.

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation of 240 million people, has a policy of secularism but allows Aceh, a predominantly Muslim province on the northern tip of Sumatra, to implement a version of Sharia Islamic law.

Police have arrested three of the eight men and are hunting for the others.

East Aceh police chief Lt. Col. Hariadi said those arrested are being questioned on charges of rape. One of the accused is a 13-year-old boy, who would be charged as an adult but prosecuted in a closed-door trial.

Latief said the eight could be caned for raping the woman, but "it will be too lenient if they just received the same punishment of nine strokes."

The criminal charge of rape carries a maximum penalty of 15 years.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...aning-23619038

[Kobi]

It's only April, but it looks and sounds like October. More than $80 million has been spent on political advertising in only about a dozen Senate battleground states.

About half that amount is targeted at women.

"We have allowed ourselves to be branded [in] a way I do not feel is representative of who we are as Republicans," says Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., of her party's negative reputation on women's issues.

Many ads aimed at women take the most obvious approach: Republicans putting their female candidates front and center; Democrats attacking Republicans for waging a war on women.

But there's more to it than that, says Republican ad-maker Ashley O'Connor.

"Women process information differently than men," O'Connor says. "So much of political advertising focuses on conflict, and facts and figures, and I think that we're already starting to see, when reaching women voters, there's just new techniques need to be used, and a different tone, and more storytelling."

O'Connor singles out an ad aired by Monica Wehby, a pediatric neurosurgeon seeking the Republican nomination for Senate in Oregon. In the ad, a woman tells the story of Webby operating on her daughter.

"Dr. Wehby was going to open her back and reconstruct my daughter's entire lower spine," the woman says. "She just hugged me and kissed my forehead, and she said, 'It's going to be OK, sweetheart. I've got her, and I am going to see you in a couple of hours.' "

"This is a 60-second ad and it's not particularly issue-driven," O'Connor says of the spot. "It sort of goes to this point that when talking to women, I don't think you necessarily have to be delivering factual information to move them. I think connecting with their heart and really trying to build emotion is more effective."

That may sound a little sexist, but appealing to emotions is what all effective advertising does. And the fact that Republicans are trying to do it is the biggest new development in political ads aimed at women.

Aiming For Tough, But Not Harsh

In a typical Republican superPAC ad from 2012, for instance, a man intones a list of Democrats' alleged failings over a soundtrack of ominous music: "Family incomes down, 40 percent living paycheck to paycheck, and Obamacare's new tax on middle-class families."

This year, the GOP has ditched the baritone narrator, the scary music and the facts and figures. Instead, the party is doing what Democrats have been doing for many years: using softer voices and more personal stories.

A Republican superPAC ad running this year features a woman who narrates in a conversational tone: "People don't like political ads. I don't like them either. But health care isn't about politics. It's about people. It's not about a website that doesn't work ... It's about people, and millions of people have lost their health insurance. ... Obamacare doesn't work."

Elizabeth Wilner, senior vice president with Kantar Media, praises the ad.

"It's a very clean ad," Wilner says. "The tone of the ad, her tone, is very sympathetic and very easy on the ears. It's a new kind of attack ad, and it is not a harsh ad in any way, but the message itself is very tough."

Endorsed By Wives, Moms And Daughters

There are other trends this year that both parties hope will appeal to women. Family members are everywhere in ads, especially moms and daughters.

In a Florida special election to fill the seat vacated by Republican Rep. Trey Radel, candidate Curt Clawson's mother appears in an ad to endorse her son. In the same race, Paige Kreegel's wife criticizes "nasty" campaign ads.
Democrats have an urgent problem this year: how to get their most reliable female supporters to become more reliable voters.

In Iowa, the children of Monica Vernon, also running for Congress, promise their mom "will never stop working for the middle class."

Not only is the content of the ads changing, but so are the places in which they appear. Jim Margolis, a veteran Democratic ad-maker, says it's no longer enough to air an ad on daytime TV, or even the nightly news, to reach women.

"We are using data and analytics to try to determine what are the actual programs that women are watching, Margolis says. "And to try to determine, as well, what are those issues, for that particular group, that are going to be the most resonant, that they're going to find the most compelling."

Wherever women are digitally, Margolis says, political ads will find them. A woman who is a Democratic target voter in a Senate battleground state might see campaign ads all day online.

"When you log on in the morning to check the weather, there's a pretty good chance that somebody is going to be talking to you right there," he says.

Your browsing history can say a lot about you, Margolis says, including your gender, interests and issues that matter to you.


The Shoot-'Em-Up Approach

These new ways of targeting women voters, with content tailored to women's concerns, are becoming common. But there's always an exception to the rule. Take the much-imitated ad in which a male politician attacks — literally — the IRS code or a piece of legislation passed by President Obama.

This week, that macho format was adopted by Republican Joni Ernst, a pistol-packing mama running for Senate in Iowa. Ernst already earned attention for an ad about her experience castrating hogs. In the new ad, Ernst rides a Harley to a gun range, and fires off six shots at a target.

"Joni Ernst will take aim at wasteful spending," the narrator says. "And once she sets her sights on Obamacare, Joni's gonna unload."

It seems that even the shoot-'em-up TV ad has achieved gender equality, for better or worse.

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/10/311189...h-women-voters

[Kobi]

When it comes to talking about women, "saying what you mean" and "meaning what you say" don't always have much in common. Words like "b*tchy" and "slutty" are clearly sexist and meant to insult, but even seemingly neutral adjectives have become euphemisms for "uniquely female character flaw."

Used by both men and women, these words are the linguistic equivalents of wolves in sheeps' clothing, often disguised as flattery while used to subtly undermine the woman being described. It's time to strip them down.

Below is a brief compendium of adjectives that are often used to describe women -- and what they really mean:

Bossy: Has on one or more occasion suggested that someone, man or woman, has made a factual error. (Related, know-it-all)

Clingy: Describes a woman who insists on responding to a partner's cues of romance, intimacy and commitment by reciprocating them.

Cold: Used to describe a woman who does not smile enough, or whose resting face does not suggest joyous contentment.

Crazy: Attributes women's behavior to an error in reason independent of speaker's actions, thereby dismissing her feelings as irrational, "while simultaneously absolving ... men from responsibility." A label most women seek to avoid at all costs.

Cute: Used among men when referring to an attractive woman whose intellectual and comedic allure happen to be more pronounced than her conventional sex appeal.

Exotic: Mainstream media's preferred adjective for a non-white female who is also beautiful.

Feisty: Feisty is sassy with a better resume. It's essentially results-based sass, invoked to acknowledge the achievement and/or ambition of a woman, while also warning against it. Remarkably useful to misogynists, "feisty" implies enough aggression to diminish a woman's accomplishment without completely dismissing it. (Related, sassy)

High-maintenance: Wears makeup and/or requires regular attention from significant other. (Related, low-maintenance)

Intense: Applies to women who express their feelings, opinions and expectations freely, and politely excuse suitors not up to matching them.

Laid back/chill: Deeper implication than "casual or relaxed in manner." Often a celebration of a woman's ability to sublimate the emotional excesses of her gender. A woman who is "chill" reacts to her male friend or partner's questionable behavior the way he wants her to -- usually, not at all. Related to the "cool girl" as referenced in Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl.

Low-maintenance:
1. Used to describe a woman willing to repress her own needs in order to make no demands on her current or desired partner.
2. A woman who is not interested enough in said partner to make demands. (Related, high-maintenance)

Peppy/Bubbly: Describes an attractive woman with nicely-balanced serotonin levels. Use patronizingly when referring to women whose friendliness and enthusiasm you find annoying.

Perky: Identifies a well-rested, usually petite woman.

Prude: A woman who doesn't engage in whatever romantic or sexual encounter a man has suggested. Use liberally when said woman is not excessively apologetic about her lack of sexual experience or interest therein.

Pushy: Most recently, used to describe a remarkably accomplished woman whose high standards and willingness to insist on them aggressively just kinda rubs colleagues the wrong way. (Related, bossy)

Sassy: An adjective used to describe a woman with a personality. (See, personality: broad spectrum of verbal behavior spanning "is not clinically mute" and "enjoys humor," all the way to "expresses an opinion.") Serves to attribute a woman's comedic or intellectual superiority to a specifically feminine trait rather than actual competence. Related, sassy black woman: Describes self-reliant African-American woman with strength of character. Close association with "angry black woman."

Sweet: Used to indicate a general lack of sass or feistiness. Frequently serves to co-opt a woman's kindness in order to present her as intellectually inferior.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0....html?ir=Women

[Kobi]

WHEN terrorists in Nigeria organized a secret attack last month, they didn’t target an army barracks, a police department or a drone base. No, Boko Haram militants attacked what is even scarier to a fanatic: a girls’ school.

That’s what extremists do. They target educated girls, their worst nightmare.

That’s why the Pakistani Taliban shot Malala Yousafzai in the head at age 15. That’s why the Afghan Taliban throws acid on the faces of girls who dare to seek an education.

Why are fanatics so terrified of girls’ education? Because there’s no force more powerful to transform a society. The greatest threat to extremism isn’t drones firing missiles, but girls reading books.

In that sense, Boko Haram was behaving perfectly rationally — albeit barbarically — when it kidnapped some of the brightest, most ambitious girls in the region and announced plans to sell them as slaves. If you want to mire a nation in backwardness, manacle your daughters.

What saddens me is that we in the West aren’t acting as rationally. To fight militancy, we invest overwhelmingly in the military toolbox but not so much in the education toolbox that has a far better record at defeating militancy.

President Obama gives the green light to blow up terrorists with drones, but he neglects his 2008 campaign promise to establish a $2 billion global fund for education. I wish Republicans, instead of investigating him for chimerical scandals in Benghazi, Libya, would shine a light on his failure to follow through on that great idea.

So why does girls’ education matter so much? First, because it changes demography.

One of the factors that correlates most strongly to instability is a youth bulge in a population. The more unemployed young men ages 15 to 24, the more upheaval.

One study found that for every 1 percentage point increase in the share of the population aged 15 to 24, the risk of civil war increases by 4 percent.

That means that curbing birthrates tends to lead to stability, and that’s where educating girls comes in. You educate a boy, and he’ll have fewer children, but it’s a small effect. You educate a girl, and, on average, she will have a significantly smaller family. One robust Nigeria study managed to tease out correlation from causation and found that for each additional year of primary school, a girl has 0.26 fewer children. So if we want to reduce the youth bulge a decade from now, educate girls today.

More broadly, girls’ education can, in effect, almost double the formal labor force. It boosts the economy, raising living standards and promoting a virtuous cycle of development. Asia’s economic boom was built by educating girls and moving them from the villages to far more productive work in the cities.

One example of the power of girls’ education is Bangladesh, which until 1971 was (the seemingly hopeless) part of Pakistan. After Bangladesh gained independence, it emphasized education, including of girls; today, it actually has more girls in high school than boys. Those educated women became the backbone of Grameen Bank, development organizations like BRAC and the garment industry.

Likewise, Oman in the 1960s was one of the most backward countries in the world, with no television, no diplomats and radios banned. Not a single girl attended school in Oman. Then there was a coup, and the new government educated boys and girls alike.

Today, Oman is stable and incomparably better off than its neighbor, Yemen, where girls are still married off young and often denied an education. America is fighting Al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Pakistan with drones; maybe we should invest in girls’ schools as Bangladesh and Oman did.

Girls’ education is no silver bullet. Iran and Saudi Arabia have both educated girls but refused to empower them, so both remain mired in the past. But when a country educates and unleashes women, those educated women often become force multipliers for good.

Angeline Mugwendere was an impoverished Zimbabwean girl who was mocked by classmates because she traipsed to school barefoot in a torn dress with nothing underneath. She couldn’t afford school supplies, so she would wash dishes for her teachers in hopes of being given a pen or paper in thanks.

Yet Angeline was brilliant. In the nationwide sixth-grade graduation examinations, she had the highest score in her entire district — indeed, one of the highest scores in the country. Yet she had no hope of attending seventh grade because she couldn’t afford the fees.

That’s when a nonprofit called the Campaign for Female Education, or Camfed, came along and helped pay for Angeline to stay in school. She did brilliantly in high school and is now the regional director for Camfed, in charge of helping impoverished girls get to school in four African countries. She’s paying it forward.

Educating girls and empowering women are also tasks that are, by global standards, relatively doable. We spend billions of dollars on intelligence collection, counterterrorism and military interventions, even though they have a quite mixed record. By comparison, educating girls is an underfunded cause even though it’s more straightforward.

Readers often feel helpless, unable to make a difference. But it was a grass-roots movement starting in Nigeria that grabbed attention and held leaders accountable to address it. Nigeria’s leaders perhaps now realize that they must protect not only oil wells but an even greater treasure: the nation’s students.

Likewise, any of us can stick it to Boko Haram by helping to educate a girl. A $40 gift at Camfed.org buys a uniform so that a girl can go to school.

We can also call on members of Congress to pass the International Violence Against Women Act, which would elevate the issue of sexual violence on the global agenda.

Boko Haram has a stronghold in northeastern Nigeria because it’s an area where education is weak and women are marginalized. Some two-thirds of women in the region have had no formal education. Only 1 in 20 has completed high school. Half are married by age 15.

Obviously, the situation in the United States is incomparably better. But we have our own problems. It’s estimated that 100,000 girls under 18 years old in the United States are trafficked into commercial sex each year. So let’s fight to #BringBackOurGirls in Nigeria but also here in the United States and around the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/op...irls.html?_r=0