Misogyny and Sexism in the News

[Greyson]

This is an article I just read in the Washington Post. I am going to post it now and come back later to comment.
_____________________________________________

The Washington Post

For women in America, equality is still an illusion

By Jessica Valenti
Sunday, February 21, 2010; B02



Every day, we hear about the horrors women endure in other countries: rape in Darfur, genital mutilation in Egypt, sex trafficking in Eastern Europe. We shake our heads, forward e-mails and send money.

We have no problem condemning atrocities done to women abroad, yet too many of us in the United States ignore the oppression on our doorstep. We're suffering under the mass delusion that women in America have achieved equality.

And why not -- it's a feel-good illusion. We cry with Oprah and laugh with Tina Fey; we work and take care of our children; we watch Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice proudly and sigh with relief, believing we've come so far. But we're basking in a "girl power" moment that doesn't exist -- it's a mirage of equality that we've been duped into believing is the real thing.

Because despite the indisputable gains over the years, women are still being raped, trafficked, violated and discriminated against -- not just in the rest of the world, but here in the United States. And though feminists continue to fight gender injustices, most people seem to think that outside of a few lingering battles, the work of the women's movement is done.

It's time to stop fooling ourselves. For all our "empowered" rhetoric, women in this country aren't doing nearly as well as we'd like to think.

After all, women are being shot dead in the streets here, too. It was only last year that George Sodini opened fire in a gym outside Pittsburgh, killing three women and injuring nine others. Investigators learned from Sodini's blog that he specifically targeted women. In 2006, a gunman went into an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania; he sent the boys outside and opened fire on almost a dozen girls, killing five. That same year in Colorado, a man sexually assaulted six female students he had taken hostage at a high school before killing one of them.

And it's not just strangers who are killing women; more than 1,000 women were killed by their partners in 2005, and of all the women murdered in the United States, about a third are killed by a husband or boyfriend. A leading cause of death for pregnant women? Murder by a partner.

In Iraq, women serving in the military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire.

Even the government underestimates the crisis American women are in. Last year the Justice Department reported that there were 182,000 sexual assaults committed against women in 2008, which would mean that the rate had decreased by 70 percent since 1993. But a study by the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center showed that the Justice Department's methodology was flawed. Instead of behaviorally based questions, such as "Has anyone ever forced you to have sex?", women were asked if they had been subject to "rape, attempted or other type of sexual attack." Victims often don't label their experience as "rape," especially when someone they know attacked them. The center says the actual number of U.S. women raped in 2008 was more than 1 million.

The distressing statistics don't stop with violence: Women hold 17 percent of the seats in Congress; abortion is legal, but more than 85 percent of counties in the United States have no provider; women work outside the home, but they make about 76 cents to a man's dollar and make up the majority of Americans living in poverty.

This is a far cry from progress; it's an epidemic of sexism. So where's the outrage? When my co-bloggers and I write at Feministing.com about the hurdles American women face, a common criticism is that if we cared about women's rights, we'd focus on countries where women are actually oppressed -- that women here have it too good to complain. When I speak on college campuses, I'm sometimes asked the same question (generally by a male student): What are you complaining about? Women are doing terrific!

In her upcoming book, author Susan Douglas calls this "enlightened sexism." She writes that the appearance of equality -- from "girl power" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" -- is a dangerous distraction from the pervasiveness of sexism.

So why the blinders? Most women know that sexism exists. But between the glittery illusion Douglas refers to and the ongoing feminist backlash, it's not surprising that so many women don't realize how dire their situation is. Organizations such as the Independent Women's Forum, for example, exist to tell women that equality is actually bad for them. In a 2007 opinion article in The Washington Post headlined "A Bargain At 77 Cents to a Dollar," the forum's Carrie Lukas wrote that the wage gap is simply "a trade-off" for holding jobs with "personal fulfillment." The organization's campus program argues against Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination at educational institutions. Between pop culture and politics, women are being taught that everything is fine and dandy -- and a lot of us are buying it.

Part of this unwillingness to see misogyny in America could be self-protection -- perhaps the truth is too scary to face. Or maybe American women are simply loath to view themselves as oppressed, and it's easier to look at women in other countries as the real victims. This isn't to say that international misogyny isn't a problem; of course it is. And many women in America do have it easier than women in other parts of the world. But this isn't a zero-sum game, and we can fight for our rights while fighting for women internationally as well.

In fact, our successes could help women abroad. The recent increase in the number of female ambassadors globally has been dubbed the "Hillary effect" -- the idea that our secretary of state's visibility has opened doors for women in other countries. And perhaps if the pay gap here were closed, women would have more money to spend on causes overseas. It's time to do away with the either-or mentality that surrounds domestic and international women's rights.

Fortunately, a vibrant feminist movement is still at large in the United States, taking on issues from reproductive justice and racism to pay equity and motherhood. But feminists cannot pick up the sexist slack on their own, and recent mainstream conversations -- such as when singer Rihanna was assaulted by her then-boyfriend Chris Brown, or when Clinton and Sarah Palin were the targets of sexism during the 2008 campaign -- have been far too civilized for the mess that we're in.

We act as if the hatred directed at women is something that can be dealt with by a stern talking to, as if the misogyny embedded in our culture is an unruly child rather than systematic oppression. Yes, women today fare better than our foremothers. But the benchmarks so often cited -- the right to vote, working outside the home, laws that make domestic violence illegal -- don't change the reality of women's lives. They don't prevent 1 million women from being raped, female troops from being assaulted or the continued legal discrimination against gay and transgender people. And seriously, are American women really supposed to be satisfied with the most basic rights of representation? Thrilled that our country has deigned to consider us fully human?

There is so much more work to be done. The truth is, most women don't have the privilege of being able to look at gender justice from a distance; they have no choice but to live it every day. Those of us who are lucky enough not to have to think about sexism, racism, poverty and homophobia on a daily basis -- those of us who have the privilege of sending money to an international cause via e-mail while ignoring the plight of women here at home -- have a responsibility to open our eyes to the misogyny right in front of us. And then to stop it.

Jessica Valenti is the author of "The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women" and the founder of Feministing.com.

[BullDog]

Greyson thanks for posting this. I am not sure what to think of the basic premises and am pressed for time right now, but will say I personally have never ignored the oppression of women in this country, nor been under the mass delusion that women in the US have achieved equality. I wonder if this is a widespread assumption? Also I was struck by the phrase feminists can't pick up the sexist slack on their own. Anyone can be a feminist so this puzzles me.

I shall return later when I have more time. Thanks again.

[Apocalipstic]

Very interesting article Greyson!

I don't know that I agree that Clinton and Palin were targeted just for being women, but otherwise I agree with much of what is said.

Will be back to discuss!

[Greyson]

Okay, back. Blav and HSIN, thanks for bringing it to my attention that this was posted in another thread earlier. Sorry, I did not see it. Also, Admin, please can you correct the spelling in the title of this thread? I was in a rush and missed one of the y's in misogyny.

I found this article worthy of posting and timely. We have been discussing racism quite a bit. Sexism is also one of those embedded "isms". I do not think I am exempt from internalized sexism and flat out influenced by some masculine privilege.

I am not posting any of this to be provocative and just to stir it up. I am posting this and dedicating a thread specifically to Misogyny and Sexism because I believe this community is capable of looking at uneasy, difficult things and capable of self reflection and change.

It is true many woman around the world are suffering atrocities daily. I don't want to get into measuring the victim status. Subtle, blatant, physical, emotional abuse it's all not acceptable. Where do we begin to address this in our B-F/Trans/Gender Variant Community?

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Greyson

Okay, back. Blav and HSIN, thanks for bringing it to my attention that this was posted in another thread earlier. Sorry, I did not see it. Also, Admin, please can you correct the spelling in the title of this thread? I was in a rush and missed one of the y's in misogyny.

I found this article worthy of posting and timely. We have been discussing racism quite a bit. Sexism is also one of those embedded "isms". I do not think I am exempt from internalized sexism and flat out influenced by some masculine privilege.

I am not posting any of this to be provocative and just to stir it up. I am posting this and dedicating a thread specifically to Misogyny and Sexism because I believe this community is capable of looking at uneasy, difficult things and capable of self reflection and change.

It is true many woman around the world are suffering atrocities daily. I don't want to get into measuring the victim status. Subtle, blatant, physical, emotional abuse it's all not acceptable. Where do we begin to address this in our B-F/Trans/Gender Variant Community?

Doesn't matter if this was posted elsewhere at all. That might be a good thing (re.: circulation). I did read it somewhere else and thought it to be a clear analysis that just lays out some facts but doesn't inflame, which all too often causes division and halts our ability to even attempt change.

I think having a thread dedicated as such could be a very good thing just as the new thread on white priviledge might prove to be in promoting self reflection and change. Thanks, good idea!

[Greyson]

This morning as I was partaking of my 90 minute commute to work, I was listening to the Local Talk Radio AM Station and then to NPR. Here are some stories that I heard that are directly impacted by misogyny and sexism.

• The Navy is going to allow women to now serve on submarines.

• Crime On College Campuses. The rape and assault of women.

Regarding the story about women serving on submarines, the radio host a heterosexual male spoke of how our laws, policy and practices are set up to serve the fears, concerns, behavior of heterosexual men. For example, DADT.

The second story, a young woman was raped while intoxicated by two male friends on a college campus in Wisconsin. She did not report the rape, initially. In fact it took her I believe over a year to report it.

Basically nothing came of the report and following investigation. One student had already graduated and the other denied it. He said it was consensual and he was allowed to remain on campus and finish his degree.

I am meandering a bit here because I am thinking out loud. Many of you know that I have been in the process of "transitioning" for a few years now. This transition, for me has begun my questioning my beliefs, values, and motives.

I do know that I want to consciously be a part of redefining masculinity. Masculinity does not exclude, nor elude women and/or femininity. I think this process of redefining masculinity must include looking at my life, my world, my actions, my beliefs through the lens of my entire life experience. In other words, my experience and history as a cisgendered woman, perpetrator and victim of patriarchy.

[Soon]

Saudi women raise their voices over male guardianship

[Nat]

Reporter Sainz talks about Jets incident, draws criticism

[Nat]

[Laerkin]

This terrifies me on such a gut-wrenching level I now feel ill.

These women scare me and I really worry about the future of this country with these very Conservative and restrictive politics gaining attention. They are using women to sabotage women.

Ugh! Sick to my stomach...

Originally Posted by Nat

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Laerkin

This terrifies me on such a gut-wrenching level I now feel ill.

These women scare me and I really worry about the future of this country with these very Conservative and restrictive politics gaining attention. They are using women to sabotage women.

Ugh! Sick to my stomach...

me too. i remember some lady in Brazil? was forced to bear a brainless fetus to term recently. Is that next?

[Cin]

Julian Assange Says Being Anti-Choice Represents ‘Non-Violence.’ Non-Violent for Whom?

by Lauren Rankin

During a recent online Q&A session with Campus Reform, Julian Assange, founder of the government secret-leaking group WikiLeaks, admitted he’s a “big admirer” of former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), for what he called “their very principled positions.” He spoke of their commitment to “non-violence,” highlighting the various ways in which he sees that commitment reflected in their political stances, including opposing abortion.

“The position of the libertarian Republican—or a better description, right—coming from a principle of non-violence which is the American libertarian tradition. That produces interesting results,” said Assange. “So, non-violence: well, don’t go and invade a foreign country. Non-violence: don’t force people at the barrel of a gun to serve in the U.S. Army. Non-violence: doesn’t extort taxes from people to the federal Government with a policeman. Similarly, other aspects of non-violence in relation to abortion that they hold.”

He went on to say, “I think some of these positions that are held by Rand Paul, while I can see how they come from the same underlying Libertarian principle, I think the world is often more complex and by taking a no-doubt principled, but sometimes simplistic position, you end up undermining the principle.”

While he seems to suggest there is a contradiction with the libertarian movement and the politics of some libertarians, it is unclear, at least to me, how opposition to abortion is grounded in a commitment to non-violence. Non-violent for whom, exactly?

According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been 6,461 reported incidents of violence against abortion providers since 1977, including eight murders and 17 attempted murders. Abortion providers and clinics have faced numerous bombings, cases of arson, butyric acid attacks, death threats, kidnappings, and more, all from opponents of abortion rights. In 2009, Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while at church with his family. His convicted killer, Scott Roeder, is heralded as a “hero” in some anti-choice circles.

In 1965, eight years before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, illegal abortion accounted for 17 percent of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth. And today, around the globe—mostly in the developing world—at least 47,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year (roughly 13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide) and many times that number suffer serious and sometimes lifelong health consequences.

It is impossible to quantify how many people in the United States avoid accessing safe and legal abortion care because of fear of harassment and intimidation, but with 5,165 abortion clinics reporting some form of disruption or harassment in 2011 alone, it’s safe to assume that it plays at least a small role; people often avoid accessing the basic reproductive health care to which they have a constitutional right because of virulent hostility from abortion opponents.

What’s that about anti-abortion views being non-violent again?

In a political climate so openly hostile and threatening to abortion rights, one in which states have enacted 43 abortion restrictions in the first six months of 2013 alone, where 37 of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas will be forced to close because of an omnibus anti-abortion bill, where serious legal threats to Roe v. Wade abound every day, women’s lives are literally at risk.

So why are men like Assange essentially telling women to get over the abortion issue and praise Ron and Rand Paul anyway? It’s simple: privilege.

While these white, cisgender men may be able to pick and choose which political positions they like from the Pauls, marginalized groups do not have that luxury. They are essentially asking women and people of color to praise politicians who disdain and combat their very existence. This is not petty partisanship; it is a fundamental lack of respect for who we are as people. A simple look at their political records proves this.

In 2011, Ron Paul sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define life as beginning at the moment of conception. He has stated that he favors abortion as an option only if a woman is a victim of an “honest rape.” He is listed as the author of some controversial newsletters from the 1980s that featured racism and other types of bigotry. In 1999, he voted yes on HR 2587, a bill that would have banned adoption for gay couples in Washington, D.C. He has run ads that vehemently state his opposition to granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants and has been critical of current efforts to overhaul the nation’s immigration system.

As RH Reality Check‘s Adele M. Stan has pointed out in the past, Rand Paul opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he believes it infringes on private establishments’ rights to refuse service to whomever they deem unfit. Earlier this year, he introduced a “personhood” bill that would give legal recognition to fertilized eggs and effectively outlaw safe abortion care in the United States. He has linked same-sex marriage to bestiality and opposed a bill that would ban workplace discrimination against LGBTQ people in the United States. He publicly opposed the creation of an Islamic community center at Ground Zero and has been accused of running anti-Muslim attack ads.

If, as Assange suggested, “pro-life” libertarians like Rand Paul are the “only hope” for U.S. electoral politics, that doesn’t bode well for women, people of color, or LGBTQ individuals. These aren’t small bumps-in-the-road in an otherwise spotless political record; this is evidence of general disdain for and bigotry against women, people of color, LGBTQ communities, and other marginalized groups. Yet civil libertarians expect us to put aside our partisan squabbles to cheer for these men? Please.

It’s easy for Julian Assange to endorse Rand Paul as “non-violent” when he doesn’t belong to the marginalized groups against which the younger Paul perpetuates violent oppression. Likewise, it’s easy for journalists like Salon‘s David Sirota to belittle reproductive and civil rights activists for their opposition to Paul when his rights aren’t on the line. And it’s easy for The Guardian‘s Glenn Greenwald to say that the elder Paul is “willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear,” when the views of which Ron Paul speaks so often come at the expense of women and people of color.

For those of us on the front lines of the fight for reproductive rights, many of us women, it is both demoralizing and sexist to hear these men scold us for not embracing Ron and Rand Paul more fully. As people who will never need to access abortion care, it is telling that they aren’t more willing to check their privilege and listen to the individuals whose health care and basic reproductive rights are eroding before our very eyes. It is both offensive and absurd to ask that women put concern for something as fundamental as their own bodily autonomy aside in order to commend the very men working to erode it. And it is the embodiment of hypocrisy that Julian Assange, a so-called champion against governmental overreach, lobbies for an end to imperialistic foreign policies while supporting politicians who participate in the occupation of women’s bodies.

These men have the privilege of never having to worry firsthand about accessing abortion care or being disenfranchised because of their skin color. As men who are often heralded as progressive heroes, one would think that they would not only understand and acknowledge their privilege, but advocate for political candidates who embrace women’s and civil rights, in addition to civil liberties and anti-imperialism.

But as we’ve unfortunately witnessed, they largely don’t. They and other civil libertarians like them eulogize the duo for their opposition to drone strikes but remain conveniently silent on their virulent disdain for women, people of color, and LGBTQ people. Yes, it is possible to commend them on certain issues, even if they’re terrible on others. But it seems woefully hypocritical to support politicians who undermine the rights and liberties of people who don’t look like you.

When Julian Assange heaped praise on Ron and Rand Paul while equating abortion with violence, he simply reified what many of us already knew: Too often, civil libertarians like Assange prioritize other issues ahead of our own basic human rights, and then condemn us for being petty and partisan.

If you champion men like Ron and Rand Paul for their anti-imperialism, but casually disregard their bigotry, it isn’t women’s and civil rights activists who are being politically myopic. It’s you.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...lent-for-whom/

[Kobi]

Montana judge apologized but said he had no plans to resign after his remarks about a 14-year-old rape victim – and the 30-day jail sentence he handed the perpetrator – sparked outrage.

The case involves a 54-year-old former teacher who raped the teen, who later committed suicide.

District Judge G. Todd Baugh said Wednesday he "deserved to be chastised" for his comments about the victim, who he had said was "older than her chronological age" and had as much control of the situation as the Billings Senior High School teacher who was in a sexual relationship with her.

Baugh, 71, said he stood by his decision Monday to sentence the former teacher, Stacey Rambold, to 15 years in prison, with all of but 31 days of that term suspended. He gave Rambold credit for one day already served.

Baugh, 71, wrote an apology Wednesday in a letter to the editor to the Billings Gazette. He said his comments were demeaning of all women and not reflective of his beliefs.

The judge later told reporters he was "fumbling around" in court trying to explain his sentence and "made some really stupid remarks."

"I don't know how to pass that off. I'm saying I'm sorry and it's not who I am," Baugh said. "I deserve to be chastised. I apologize for that."


Protests Planned
Protesters planned a Thursday afternoon rally outside the Yellowstone County Courthouse to demand that Baugh resign. Organizer Sheena Rice said it's important for the community to show it is not going to stand for victim blaming.

"I'm glad he apologized, but he should have known better as a judge," Rice said. "The fact that he said it makes me think he still believes it."

If Baugh doesn't resign, protesters will try to defeat him in an election in 2014, Rice said.

Baugh was first elected to the bench in 1984 and has been re-elected every six years since then without an opponent. He said he has not decided whether to run again in 2014.

Rambold was charged in October 2008 with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent after authorities alleged he had an ongoing sexual relationship with Cherice Moralez, starting the previous year when she was 14. Moralez killed herself in 2010 at age 16 while the case was pending.

Yellowstone County officials agreed to defer Rambold's prosecution for three years and dismiss the charges if he completed a sexual offender treatment program. The case was revived in December after prosecutors learned Rambold, 54, was kicked out of the program for having unsupervised visits with minors who were family members and not telling counselors he was having a sexual relationship with a woman.

"She wasn't even old enough to get a driver's license. But Judge Baugh, who never met our daughter, justified the paltry sentence saying she was older than her chronological age," the girl's mother, Auleia Hanlon, said in a statement to the Gazette after Monday's sentencing.

"I guess somehow it makes a rape more acceptable if you blame the victim," said Hanlon, "even if she was only 14."

http://www.people.com/people/article...ntent=My+Yahoo

[Kobi]

For years, women have had to pay higher health care premiums because insurance companies have used gender rating — a practice that, as of 2014, will be outlawed by the Affordable Care Act. The provision is one of the least controversial of the health care overhaul. But "Fox & Friends" still couldn't resist debating the issue Tuesday in a gender-baiting exchange (see video below) that's caused a controversy of its own.

“We only have the prostate,” noted Fox News medical contributor Dr. David Samadi, who fanned the flames by arguing that women actually should pay more than men. "Women have the breasts, they have the ovaries, they have the uterus, they get checked in every part."

It was just one of several surreal points raised by Samadi, who is a professor at Hofstra University and chairman of the Urology Department at New York's Lenox Hill Hospital.

Look, it's not bias, I'm not saying this as a man," he said. "They go through a lot of preventive screenings, they give birth, they have the whole mammogram, the Pap smear. Guys, we don't like to go to doctors, right? Seventy percent of health care decisions are made by women. In my own practice, I see it's the women who bring the guys, who say, 'Go get screened.' Otherwise, we would never go."

Host Gretchen Carlson couldn't help jumping in to note that those facts alone should actually earn women a discount (which got her a blank look from Samadi). She looked alternately amused and outraged by every one of the doctor's points, and responded to Samadi's argument that "women live longer" with a sarcastic "Let's just kill 'em off!"

Online criticism of Samadi has been swift, with Twitter commenters calling him an "idiot," "sexist," "stupid," "ridiculous," a "fool," and an "'expert.'"

Slate's Amanda Marcotte noted, "This newfound enthusiasm for strict economic fairness between men and women sadly did not lead Fox to also advocate that men stop getting paid more than women for their work." Marcotte also took Samadi to task for his vague response to Carlson's suggestion that maternity costs be shared since a pregnancy is created with two people, to which he said, "Not always."

"Was he suggesting that the ridiculously small number of pregnancies created in single or lesbian women by sperm donors was justification enough to spare men the responsibility of sharing childbirth costs?" Marcotte asked.

Freak Out Nation took the doctor to task for that sort of "mansplaining," countering his "Not always" comment with "Yes Dr. Dummy, always."

Wonkette offered pitch-perfect Samadi translations, with "Why are women so greedy, with their breast and ovarian cancer costing men all this money?" and "Man, women love going to the doctor like they love buying SHOES, amirite?"

There was a quick response from the National Women’s Law Center, which recently did an in-depth study of gender rating among insurers. "We did the research and the fact is that women are charged more for health coverage simply because they are women," the center noted on its website. "Yes, women access more preventive services, as the commentators point out. But shouldn't all of us get the preventive care we need to get and stay healthy? Why should women be discriminated against for simply going to the doctor?"

Daily Kos was over it. "I am not going to even list off the reasons why this statement made by an actual as-seen-on-teevee-medical-doctor-hi-doctor-nick-expert-guy is stupid, because it does not deserve even that much," read the post.

"Listen, Dr. Samadi, this isn't a kindergarten counting lesson — body parts don't operate under the 'three is greater than one' rule here," wrote Marie Claire blogger Maura Brannigan. "The fight for women's health and empowerment doesn't start in Congress, and it definitely doesn't start in the Whole House — instead, it starts with men like Samadi, who refuse to view women as equal partners, yet alone equal, insurance-deserving citizens."

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-livin...172914267.html

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A midshipman testified Wednesday that she didn’t remember being sexually assaulted by three former Navy football players after a night of heavy drinking, but she said one of the men told her she had sex with him and another accused player.

The woman, who is now a senior at the U.S. Naval Academy, testified for more than two hours at the Washington Navy Yard at a hearing to determine whether the three midshipmen will face court-martial. She described a night of drinking in her room at the academy with a friend before going to the toga-themed party in April 2012 at an off-campus house in Annapolis, Md.

At the crowded party, which took place in what was known as ‘‘the football house’’ because of its association to the team, the woman said she felt ‘‘overwhelmed’’ and ‘‘dizzy’’ from drinking too much.

‘‘I felt like I was going to pass out,’’ she said, noting that she leaned against structural beams in the basement to keep from falling over.

The woman said she spent the night at the house and woke up the next morning without her phone or purse.

‘‘I was really confused, and I noticed my back was really sore,’’ she said.

She also testified that she had consensual sex that Sunday morning with a student at the house who has not been charged.

The woman described feeling troubled by not remembering what happened and asked Tate, who had initially invited her to the party, to come to her room to see what he knew.

The woman also noticed ‘‘lewd comments’’ on Twitter that seemed directed at her and tagged to people she had slept with in the past. She also testified that rumors had spread rapidly that she had had sex with multiple partners at the party.

When Tate came to her room, she testified that he joked about her not remembering and suggested he refresh her memory.

‘‘He told me that we did have sex,’’ she said.

The woman also said she asked Tate if she had had sex with Graham.

‘‘He said yes, and then I was like, ‘I don’t want to hear anymore,'’’ she said.

The woman also described being reluctant to seek an investigation at first.

‘‘Mainly, I was scared,’’ she said. ‘‘I didn’t want to anyone else to get in trouble.’’

She also said she feared her mother would find out and force her to leave the academy.

The woman said she decided to cooperate after hearing rumors that other people, specifically underclassmen, could be blamed.

Her cooperation with Navy investigators included wiretaps.

On cross-examination, Andrew Weinstein, Bush’s attorney, noted that the woman had had a previous sexual relationship with Bush. When asked by Weinstein whether she had ever considered him capable of rape, she said, ‘‘I don’t think that he would.’’

She also said, ‘‘He wasn’t mean to me by any means,’’ during their previous sexual relationship.

The female midshipman also testified that she didn’t remember whether she had sex with Bush that night. Weinstein noted that it was Bush who told her he had told Navy investigators that the two had had sex.

Testimony resumes today.

[Kobi]

NEW DELHI (AP) — A series of recent high-profile gang rape cases in India has ignited a debate: Are such crimes on the rise, or is it simply that more attention is being paid to a problem long hidden within families and villages? The answer, experts say, is both.

Modernization is fueling a crisis of sexual assault in India, with increasingly independent women now working in factories and offices and stepping beyond the subservient roles to which they had traditionally been relegated. They are also more likely than their mothers and grandmothers were to report rapes, and more likely to encounter male strangers in public.

"We never used to see so many cases of gang rape, and so many involving groups of young, unemployed men," said Supreme Court lawyer Kirti Singh, who specializes in women's issues.

While there are no reliable statistics on gang rapes, experts say the trend, along with the growing sense of insecurity it has brought for women, led to recent outbursts of public anger over the long-ignored epidemic of violence against women.

The silence broke in December, when a New Delhi student was gang-raped on a bus in a particularly vicious attack from which she died two weeks later. A juvenile court on Saturday handed down the first conviction in the case, sending a teenager to a reform home for three years for rape and murder.

The sentence, the maximum a juvenile can face, was widely denounced as too lenient, and the girl's parents vowed to appeal. The other suspects in the case are being tried as adults and could face execution if convicted.

While attacks on women occur constantly across India, often within the home, the brutality and public nature of the New Delhi case left many shocked and shamed. Thousands took to the streets in the capital to express their outrage.

The government, pledging to crack down, created fast-track courts for rape cases, doubled prison terms for rape and criminalized voyeurism, stalking, acid attacks and the trafficking of women.

The Tourism Ministry launched a nationwide "I Respect Women" campaign after a Swiss bicyclist was gang-raped in March in central India and an American woman was gang-raped two months later in the northern resort town of Manali.

Yet another high-profile gang rape last month, against a photojournalist on assignment in Mumbai, renewed public fury and sent the media into 24-7 coverage marked by daily front page headlines and talk shows debating how to make India safe for women.

"There is very clearly a class dimension" that is compounding the sudden outrage, women's rights lawyer Flavia Agnes said.

All five of the accused in the Mumbai attack had little to no education, and three had previously been arrested for theft, Mumbai police said. They lived in the slums near the abandoned textile mill where the woman was raped.

In both the Mumbai and the Delhi cases, "middle-class people identified with these young girls, aspiring professionals, trying to make their mark in a competitive world," said Sudha Sundararaman, an activist with the All India Democratic Women's Association.

Experts say the rapid growth of India's cities and the yawning gulf between rich and poor are exacerbating the problem, with young men struggling to prove their traditional dominance in a changing world.

"These are young men in the cities, without prospects, without hope. They feel rage against those who are perceived to have it," sociologist Sudhir Kakar said.

Cultural stigmas, police apathy and judicial incompetence have long made it difficult for women to even report rapes.

But if modernization is changing the risks women face, it is also giving them the ability to speak up. In the first three months after the December bus rape, the number of rapes reported in the city more than doubled to 359, from the 143 reported in January-March of 2012.

Those numbers, in a city of almost 17 million people, are still seen by experts as far below the actual number of attacks, but the jarring increase in just one year appeared to signal a significant change.

"The biggest change is that women in the middle classes are reporting crimes to police," Kakar said. They are fed up with the landscape of sexual harassment and fear, with the constant barrage of lewd comments and even groping — locally known as "eve-teasing" — and with being told they should stay indoors at night.

"Thirty years ago, even uttering the word 'rape' was almost taboo. That is changing," said Ranjana Kumari, a women's activist with the Center for Social Research. "There are so many cases, each more gruesome than the other, and people have lost patience, especially when no justice is served."

The photojournalist attacked last month stunned the nation by telling local media that "rape is not the end of life" — a groundbreaking statement given that many rape victims are still often dismissed as defiled. Many are shunned by their families, fired from jobs or driven from their home villages. As a result, most rape victims are still thought to remain silent.

"What's wrong with the system?" Supreme Court Justices R.M. Lodha and Madan B. Lokur said in a statement last week, while hearing a petition from the father of a 15-year-old girl gang-raped by three men in 2012, according to Indian media. The girl, who is a dalit, member of the outcast community once known as untouchables, has since been barred from her school in north India, and her mother was killed for refusing to withdraw a police complaint about the crime, according to Press Trust of India.

The court lambasted India's poor record of conviction in rape cases, saying "Why are 90 percent of rape cases ending in acquittals? The situation is going from bad to worse."

http://news.yahoo.com/india-fury-ove...102555774.html

[Kätzchen]

A decade has gone by, since Greyson first started this thread, way back in the year of 2010.

I'm bumping Greyson's thread because there might be some new members in our community who desire reading how Misogyny and Sexism has been part of American culture, for way too long.

Even today, as I read news articles on major news websites, I read where the GOP is re-writing election law, rewriting women's rights concerning abortion, and basically propelling Misogyny and Sexism to the forefront of American politics and how it affects women in our everyday lives.

There is a lot to take in, reading posts from Greyson's forum thread, but there is also so much to do. So, I am bumping this thread for new members as well as for members who have been here for a long, long time.


~K.

[Stone-Butch]

Best book I have ever read on the topic.

WOMENS MADNESS; MYSOGENY OR MENTAL ILLNESS.

Jane Ussher

From witches to todays psychiatry and all in between. If your library has it or check it out on Amazon this book is worth ever penny. It took me about a year to find a copy to purchase. (used).

Check out Freud and another book Anna.... Mysogeny as all get out.

If women beat and killed and castrated men and boys (not possible) then the laws would turn so strict that capital punishment would not be enough to satisfy the multitude of MEN. Rape and murder women and little girls. You might get years but not many. The worst I ever heard was a judge had a male come before him for forcing a 10 yr old to give him oral sex. The judges opinion, "well at least she is still a virgin". OMG