THE NEW MISOGYNY, JUST A RERUN

By Ruth A. Sheets

We are facing a strange time with a weird bunch of actors.  I don’t know about you, but I would not have believed so many people would be on board with the effort of dragging our nation into some “golden” past when women were irrelevant well, except for doing all the work of bearing and raising our children and pampering a controlling husband or male partner.  I knew there were forces of misogyny doing their best to undermine women at every turn and to keep women out of nearly every position that had some authority attached to it, but I didn’t realize just how malignant the efforts were and that when they released the Cracken, it would be huge and target women at every level, more than a century after women got the vote.

Going on 52 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that women should have the right to abortion up until the fetus is viable, currently about 24 weeks.  There was enormous celebration then because previously, for so  many women, to end a pregnancy meant getting “help” from someone who had to perform the “procedure” in secret which often meant in unsanitary conditions that could have a bad outcome:  some women died or were unable to become pregnant afterwards.  Even knowing that, many women still chose abortion.

In the 1960s, a group of women in Chicago, the Janes provided safe abortions for women, that is, until they were set up/betrayed, and several of them were arrested.  They had an underground network of activist women trained by medical personnel to provide abortions to women through a word of mouth network.  They figure they performed around 11,000 out of 11,000 safe abortions.

By the late 1970s, Republicans and conservatives in general needed a cause.  The War in Vietnam was over and they weren’t getting traction on anything else.  They had staunch anti-abortion folks in their ranks and chose that to be the issue to run on even though the majority of Americans was in favor of abortion being legal.  Men were mostly behind the move, but realized they would have to recruit women to promote the issue.  They found a few and they tied the anti-abortion stance to pushing the value/wonder of being a stay-at-home mom providing total care for her kids and her hubby.  Of course the women doing the pushing of this movement did not live what they were promoting, but they whipped up the women to such heights they didn’t even notice that Phyllis Schlafly was a lawyer, and the other woman leaders were also professionals, not stay-at-homes.  Hypocrisy!

The movement gained traction through the ‘80s and ‘90s, but the Supreme Court still ruled that women had a basic right to abortion care, but let the states take bites out of that right, and many states took big bites:  waiting periods and expensive ultrasounds that were totally unnecessary, the criteria for facilities that provided abortions, etc.  Protesters harassed women going to perfectly legal clinics, providers were killed, clinics vandalized, and workers terrorized.  Some effort was made to stop the violence and harassment, but not much and the bad behavior continues. 

Meanwhile, in significant numbers, women have entered many fields that were once nearly exclusively male:  tech, engineering and all types of design.  Orchestras have many female members.  About 20% of Congress is female and women have been elected to state legislatures too.  There are female governors even in some “red” states.  Very few women are at the top of major corporations, but at the mid-management level, women are steadily increasing in number.  Many women are journalists, influencers, news anchors, and sports reporters and announcers.  Women are scientists in every field.  The majority of college students and graduates are women too.  I mention this because the movement to drive women back into the home, no birth control, popping babies at the will of the sperm and the state is ultimately not a winning proposition for any political party. 

Donald Trump and his handlers, while in the White House were able to put on the Supreme Court 3 justices who along with the three conservatives already there, have decided that the old days were much better than today, so have handed down numerous decisions under John Roberts that have set a framework to promote rich white men and corporations and diminish everyone else.  That includes ending the abortion protections women had by letting states’ mostly old white male and conservative female legislatures decide about a woman’s bodily autonomy.  Right now, people still have some respect for the Court, but it is on the edge of losing it. 

I, like many other women and our allies, are hoping younger women are putting together networks like the Janes all over the country to provide abortions, to help with miscarriages, and to stockpile Mifepristone and other abortion medications to make them available to anyone who needs them.  Most of us have read The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood and are determined it will not happen here.  We women and our allies need to make it clear to the men and their female surrogates who like J.D. Vance and his master, Donald Trump that we do not appreciate their misogyny, calling women childless cat ladies who have miserable lives and want everyone else to be miserable.  Women don’t appreciate being told that post-menopausal women will provide the child care for the younger women rather than our government providing help to afford child care.  It is not OK that right now at least 20 states have pretty much banned abortions.  Why?  They want to control women.  What they need to realize is that even if Trump is re-elected, women are not going to return to being baby factories and care-givers for selfish child-men.  Misogyny has been around for millennia, and a bunch of scared men are trying to use it as a weapon and they have courted women to go along with the game as long as they get to share in the male power.  Those female surrogates don’t see that they will only be given as much power as the men around them permit in their rabid misogyny.

So women, and allies, if we care about our future and want the struggle to be a bit less problematic, we need to ditch this new, old misogyny, declare that we are not going back,  and vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, and Democrats up and down the ballot because Republicans have decided women are good only for doing men’s bidding, and care nothing for the quality of the men doing the bidding.

WOMEN, THE MEDIA, 2016, AND 2020

WOMEN, THE MEDIA, 2016, AND 2020

by Ruth A. Sheets

May 30, 2019

At the beginning of the 2020 campaigns, it is necessary that the media, all the media cover female candidates with respect and honesty.  They deserve at least that much.  They are all , at least as qualified as the men in the group of candidates.  They should be judged by their proposals and their ability to address the needs of this nation.  NO mention of their hair, cute or otherwise.  There should be no comments on their perky outfits, whether or not they are perky.  They should not be told their voice is too strident or harsh.  Few people have a harsher , more strident voice than Donald Trump. 

In the 2016 election, most of the media covered nearly every one of Donald Trump's words and lies, but called them everything but lies.  Cameras focused on empty podiums while awaiting the mega (or MAGA) star.

In the interest of “equality” and “fairness,” they did cover Benghazi and emails when discussing Hillary Clinton (except, of course when Mr. Comey was inappropriately chastising her and after her mention of some of Mr. Trump’s followers being a “basket of deplorables).  Mr. Trump was shown shouting, yelling and egging on crowds with his lies and half-truths with no identification of those comments which were lies.  Perhaps the reporters and newscasters thought that would take up too much time.

Hillary had pneumonia, like many Americans each year, but was instantly described as unfit, not healthy enough, not strong enough, etc.  Mr. Trump dictated a note supposedly from his doctor describing him as the healthiest person ever to run for president, a man who could live to be 200.  That was shown over and over.

Mr. Trump was allowed to loom over Ms. Clinton in debates instead of being forced to stay at his own podium with the threat of ending the debate.  Mr. Trump is a bit taller, so for a lot of people, he seemed bigger, stronger, manly enough to be president, while poor pathetic Hillary Clinton just stood there trying to present her “ridiculous” platform.

Mr. Trump was and still is proud that he does not read and it is reported that he does not listen very much either.  Hillary Clinton was and is well informed about the world and the issues that directly impact the nation.  That fact was mentioned a few times, on MSNBC, but even more rarely on mainstream or other cable media outlets.     

Benghazi was thrown in Clinton’s face often as though she had gone in and single-handedly killed the Americans there.  Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Reagan and his Secretary of State were not held responsible for the more than 200 Marines killed in Lebanon in the 1980s, or George W. Bush not held responsible for 9/11, attacked embassies,  or the extreme recession of 2007?  But Hillary Clinton is forever associated with and blamed for Benghazi.

The private emails Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over to the government was the other issue.  If it was such a big deal, why is Donald Trump’s family allowed to keep private servers?  Why is Mr. Trump allowed to have an unsecured phone?  Oh, they’re men and Republicans.  As we are learning lately, Republicans don’t have to abide by the law, any law.

Hillary Clinton was blamed for her husband’s infidelities while the people who accused Mr. Clinton and led to his impeachment were cheating on their wives.  Mr. Trump was not blamed in the media for the way he treated his wives over the years either.  It was like a joke.   Boys will be boys!  And, the women are always responsible.   

Detailed plans for improving conditions for all Americans were laid out by the Clinton campaign, but what was covered concerning them, she told coal miners they would be losing their jobs and that everyone had a responsibility to help them find quality jobs.  That was seen as a slap in the face for miners and other white working men.  Mr. Trump shouted that he would keep coal mining jobs and he would make coal great again.  Miners are still losing their jobs, but there is no strong federal program to help them.   Coal is a losing proposition, but Mr. Trump had no clue.  Ms. Clinton did.

The media was markedly unfair to Ms. Clinton in 2016.  More than the media led to her electoral college defeat, but media coverage definitely tipped the balance.  Already the female candidates running for the 2020 election are receiving comments about their hair, their clothes, the way they walk, their voices, and on and on.  The “b” word has also been employed.  (Maybe the “b” means brilliant, brave, balanced.)  I have heard no similar comments about the men.  Of course, conservatives and Republicans make disparaging comments about male candidates, but mostly political, not gender or appearance related.

In 2016 we expected more from journalists, but got garbage and a pathetic childish president who “hates” the media OK, that’s not exactly true, though, every time Mr. Trump says something disparaging about the media, he laughs because he knows what the media did for him and what he thinks he can make them do for him again in 2020.

Unless some serious changes in the media are made related to the women in the race, 2020 will be a repeat of 2016.  With Russia helping out, Mr. Trump could be allowed to trample any candidate, particularly women who might run against him.  That would be bad for all of us.

WHAT HAVE REPUBLICANS DONE FOR US? (revisited)

We all hear Republican candidates claiming they want to “Make America Great again,” and before that "Take America back again."  They seem to want to return our nation to some mythical time when things were better.  I can’t help but wonder, better for whom. 

If we look at what Republicans have done in the past few decades, it is not clear what that mythical time looks like to them.  It certainly is not a place most Americans would like to live in.

I have been trying to think of one thing the Republicans have done for America in, let's say, the past 40 years.  That should be long enough for a party to do something positive for the nation.  It is true they have made the rich richer, given tax breaks to the wealthiest, started a few wars, tortured a lot of prisoners, vastly increased the prison population of the country, ran a completely incompetent "war on drugs," but what was gained by  any but the top 1%?

I have only considered contributions by Republicans to American society since 1980 or so.  Going back further would have been too painful.  Check out these important categories that touch the lives of most Americans and Republican contributions.

Education:  Republican education reformers came up with vouchers which take tax payer money and give it to private and religious schools while neglecting the public schools as much as possible.  Charter schools were introduced, a vehicle for giving public money to private companies and individuals to provide educational services, whether or not those people or companies are competent.  The current Secretary of Education is totally behind these measures and contributes part of her fortune to promote them. 

Health care:  Republicans tore down every attempt to introduce programs that could assure each American of affordable medical services.  They convinced many Americans that “Obamacare/socialized medicine” would be terrible for Americans when what they meant was it would be terrible for the wealthy medical insurance companies who sponsor their campaigns. (It actually  did not.)    Even extending insurance to poor children involved a fight.  They are still working hard to get rid of the Affordable Care Act that provides many millions with coverage they can afford, through sneaky underhanded means, tucked in bills passed at midnight.

Jobs:  Republicans say they create jobs, but they are not too interested in the quality of those jobs and whether or not those jobs provide a living wage.  They work constantly to break unions and to fight raising the minimum wage.  Most Republicans barely blink when a presidential candidate tells poor people that their kids should be hired as janitors so they can learn to “show up on Monday,” as Mitt Romney did in 2012.  The unemployment rate is going down, but wages are barely rising. 

Family Values:  Republicans would have us believe they have a lock on what it means to be family while ignoring their own principles.  It is OK, though since they ask forgiveness after they are caught and are immediately assumed to be repentant.  Some of the most prominent among Republicans speak of the sacredness of marriage while not honoring it very well themselves.  Their hatred of immigrants allows them to break up well established stable families so one or some of the members can be deported.

Women's Rights:  I know this is not really a Republican issue, but since nearly 50% of Republicans are women, it automatically becomes one.  Many of not most Republicans want to prohibit use of all birth control as well as abortion but do not want to provide assistance after the baby is born. "That would foster dependence on social programs."  The Republican  position should accurately be called “Right to Birth,” not “Right to life.”  It is not sufficient that they choose not to use these family planning techniques themselves, they want to dictate what everyone else is allowed to do. Republican state legislatures work very hard to criminalize abortion and the women who choose to have one.  At midnight they pass laws that outlaw abortion before most women are even aware they are pregnant.  They would prefer that abortions never be granted, that is, of course unless their life or their wife's life is at risk.  

Government Programs:  Republicans don’t want to have Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security or other Government programs, yet these are often the only safety nets that stand between citizens, even Republican citizens, and disaster.  Republicans do not create better programs, they just put barriers in front of people who need what currently exists.  Why, In their minds, of course there should be work requirements for those receiving Medicaid, the poorest, most struggling people among us.
  
Civil Rights:  Most bills that have come before Republican Congresses and presidents related to civil rights have been either ignored or watered down to mean essentially nothing.  Police are being militarized and that equipment is often used against people of color.  Segregation in our communities, schools, and other public places is nearly as strong as ever.

Size of Government:  Republicans claim Government is too large, and should be "drowned in a bathtub."  But under every Republican administration, our government grew significantly, particularly in the areas of the military, the war on drugs, homeland security.  Growth is good as long as the right people benefit.

Tax Reform:  Republicans HATE taxes.  They want all the benefits of having decent roads, police, fire, and deportation services, safe bridges, airports, sports stadiums but they don't want to have to pay for, and will work hard to avoid paying for them.  Companies are permitted to take profits off-shore, and for quite a while, companies were given tax breaks for moving abroad.  Any tax breaks go mostly to the wealthiest 1%.  Republicans think that's fair.

Environment:  President Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Agency into law in the early 1970's, but despite the amazing clean-up it has overseen, current Republicans are working very hard to dismantle the regulations that protect our air and water, so even the one really positive thing Republicans have done is being corrupted.  Make as much money as you can and to hell with the destruction caused.  Someone will clean it up later. 

So, what do Republicans have to offer America?  It is certainly not anything to benefit average Americans.  If the past is any indication, unless we can get some Republicans out of office, our nation will continue on this destructive course, and the rich will get richer and the rest of us poorer.

WOMEN HATING WOMEN

by Ruth A. Sheets
"Oh, you know her, she's just a . . ."  then "You know she can't be trusted, you know how women are."  also "I don't think I could stand her voice for 4 years."  and "She's such a b***h!"

I heard these statements and far worse during the 2016 presidential campaign.  I think I might get it more if they were said by men, as men's understanding of women is less than excellent.  I wasn't expecting the high level of vitriol toward Hillary Clinton from women.

I suppose I should have, though.  I am a teacher, a profession where females are the majority, in the classroom.  If you check out the positions of leadership in schools, district administration, and teachers' unions, however, men tend to significantly outnumber women.  Women supervisors/principals, though, have been crueler in their criticism and more vindictive, not just toward me, but also toward other women on staff.

Female teachers can be less kind to colleagues as well.  This unkindness is often subtle, a quick cutting remark here and a fake self-deprecating comment to someone in authority that implicates another teacher in something, there.  "I know I don't do it as well as Miss Smith who gets extra time every day to . . " "I didn't see Ms. Jones at lunch.  I guess she was here."  "I know it isn't as nice as Ms. Johnson's . . " (even though it was actually professionally done). 

I know that author Cheryl Sandberg tells women to "lean in," but what happens when there are several women leaning in at the same time or when one is perceived to be leaning in a bit more assertively than the other women?  Often, it isn't pretty.  What's going on here?  Women have made progress over the past few decades, haven't we?  Yes, we have, but there is something else going on.

Law Professor Patricia Williams in "The Nation" Magazine discussed the way some English words have become sexualized even though English words do not have gender prefixes and endings the way words in languages like French and Spanish do.   Which gender is associated with certain words is perfectly clear.  Cultural/social practices have associated characteristics to words.  So, the images one gets when saying or hearing the word "woman" can be pretty toxic.  Let's see, emotional, fussy, pushy, weak, submissive (or controlling) depending on a variety of factors, poor decision maker, vindictive, nasty, back-stabbing, soft, mother, nag, helpless.

Professor Williams uses the word "president" to help explain this phenomenon.  She says that Americans have an image of president as white and male.  It would be hard for many people to consider supporting a person in that office who is either a person of color or a woman.  This may account for the number of women who voted either for Donald Trump (despite his clear misogyny) or against Hillary Clinton, "She just doesn't 'look' presidential." 

Ms. Clinton did few of the reprehensible things Mr. Trump has done and her email-related poor judgment is really nowhere as serious as the media and Mr. Trump would have us believe.  But her sin is the worst one.  She's a woman and we can't get past what we believe a woman is/must be.  She tried to reach the highest office in the land, one she is not entitled to.  She left her place, so is an acceptable target for loathing by other women. "Only a man is strong enough to be Commander in Chief, you know."  

A few weeks ago, I attended an affair at a church.  The keynote speaker was a woman minister.  The event was to honor an extremely competent, active, caring woman for her years of service.  What was the talk about?  It was about how women need to submit to men.  They need to marry, have kids and submerge their needs beneath their husbands, the master and head of the house.  I was sitting with a woman who had divorced an abusive husband, yet, she kept nodding during the talk saying "Yes Lord" and "That's right."  I was totally shocked.  She was being insulted and put down, yet agreed.  And, the person doing the insulting was a woman.

The very little bit I could do was to occasionally shake my head and mumble "No, that's not OK."  (This was not my church and I didn't want to make waves.)  I didn't applaud for the speaker because I knew that most of the people in the room were strong competent, confident women.  I can honestly say I had no idea what the speaker was thinking and what led her to make such a ridiculous speech to these amazing women and why they all just sat there and took it with "Amen" and "Yes Lord.".  Could it be that somewhere deep down, we women believe that we really are not as good or as valuable as men?  Maybe, even most women see "popping babies" as our primary purpose in life, the secondary purpose being to support men and whatever they do or want.    

Perhaps, the only way we can really change things for women in society is to force the media to regularly show all kinds of women in a variety of roles, without male commentary.  More women need to step up and run for office at all levels.  This is not a new thought, organizations like Emily's List have been working on this for years.  However, it could be that more people saying and encouraging it could truly change the perception of women, even by women.

Out of Control

by Ruth A. Sheets

A few years ago, author Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book that I believe is relevant to our current insanity.  The book, THE TIPPING POINT describes situations when actions started by a few individuals or small groups increase to a point where, for awhile at least, they are unstoppable, OUT OF CONTROL.  This point of no return is the tipping point.  I think we have reached it in relation to individual rights in our culture.

After “Roe v. Wade, and the Women’s Liberation Movement, most Americans began to see women in a more positive light, having a lot to contribute to the world outside the home.  Women began to slowly increase their level of education as well as the age at which they chose to have children, if they had any at all. 

Under Ronald Reagan, some of those advances began to reverse.  Public figures who were looking for a “cause” to champion chose anti-abortion because it had emotional appeal to the most conservative among us.  All sorts of righteous language could be flung into the minds of the portion of the population who are certain that God is on their side and that they have a direct line of communication to God. (admittedly it is generally through a series of writings that is more than 2,000 years old, but despite its contradictory nature, the Bible for many is the will of God.) 

This would not be such a problem if these Bible fanatics only wanted to hold their beliefs and practices for themselves.  Unfortunately, their mission is to make everyone else follow their beliefs.  They are fired up to pass laws and even alter the Constitutions of the United States and the various states to insure we all comply.

The Tipping Point came with the 2010 election.  Democrats in particular, forgot how important voting is in the years that end in “0” because of the redistricting due to population shifts.  The Hypocricans took over the House of Representatives in Washington and many state legislatures.  This gave them the go-ahead to step up their crusade.  And, boy did they get going.

Lately, when one state manages to get some restrictive law passed, others follow immediately like a set of dominoes falling. 

It happened with Gay Rights, voting restrictions, increasing the influence of business, limiting support for the poorest among us, and driving undocumented immigrants “back where they came from.” Before a lot of people took notice, many people were on their way to losing their rights.

Our members of Congress are unable to get anything done because they have tipped over into a place where they can’t see that what they are doing or allowing to be done is destructive to the American way of life, our democracy.  Our infrastructure is failing, our planet is suffering from severe climate change, our jobs are either paying obscenely high salaries or impossibly low wages, our banks risk money as if they have an unlimited supply, our Supreme  Court hands down the most outrageous decisions, our government can’t seem to control its appetite for spying on its own citizens and allies, our system of farm subsidies are long out of date.  Our military industrial complex cannot control its appetite.  The gap between the 1% and the 99% is widening every year.   

All of these challenges face us and what are Congress and state legislatures doing to address these real problems?  Not much, especially in the legislative bodies under the control of the Hypocricans with governors who are fully in step with them. 

Instead, they are trying to repeal Obamacare for the 40^th time.  They are writing and sneaking in provisions to limit women’s right to choose.  They are trying to limit or even eliminate food stamps.  They are trying to privatize public services so they won’t have to meet their obligation to pay reasonable salaries or pensions.  They are cutting funding to schools.  They are allowing interest for student loans to double.  They are trying to find ways to lure the richest among us into their jurisdictions with a tax pass while the community pays.  They are encouraging drilling and fracking for fossil fuels on public lands.

The only way to stop this runaway train is to start or join a movement that can ultimately tip thinking and actions in a different direction.  It has started.  The Defense of Marriage Act is dead on the Federal level.  California same sex couples can now marry.  Wendy Davis got national notice in Texas for her filibuster.  Even though none of these events brought about the desired change for everyone, it is a start and has drawn attention.  It’s up to all of us, those who care about human rights, to keep pushing the boulder of inclusion, acceptance, and the belief in the ability to make good decisions that will benefit all, up the hill of ignorance until it tips over into a better place.

What’s with Men These Days?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Most of the legislatures throughout the country now are male dominated.  After the 2010 election when disgruntled Democrats and others sat home in some sort of protest that everything they had wanted did not come to pass, we women found ourselves under attack.

There has been a lot of talk of a “war on women,” and it appears to me that this talk has it right.  Male legislators push through bills that restrict nearly everything related to women and control of their bodies.  Sometimes, they do it as Virginia’s Governor has, when people’s attention is focused on something else (the fiscal cliff).  Now, in VA, not only do women who want to choose abortion have to go through an ultrasound first, the clinics where they can have the abortion safely performed are facing laws to modify facilities which have nothing to do with safety, provision of information, or quality of care.  The goal is to shut down the clinics, of course.

What are the jobs most under attack by Republicans as costing too much and not worth the cost? Teachers and other government workers (jobs where women predominate).   Most governors back down from cutting and limiting support for police and fire fighters and other higher-level workers, predominantly men.  Interesting!

There have been a few victories for women and their supporters.  At least three major anti-women candidates were defeated in November.  Women have again begun to pay attention.  More women than ever before are serving in the US Congress.  All these are positive, but certainly not enough.

It seems that men are getting more scared of women than ever.  Perhaps it is that they see women moving forward in most jobs.  Women have passed men in number at most colleges and universities, including programs for training ministers.  Women are proving competent and creative when it comes to business.  Do men in power fear they will have to share that power with the other half, the half they were brought up to see as inferior because their primary task is raising children, and we know how much our society values its children.

What do we women do?  Well. . .  

we stay alert to what is going on,  

we fight where we can,

we support each other, , 

we keep demanding reproductive rights no matter the obstacles, then we break the law if we have to, 

we work to help talented women keep abreast of the skills in their field while they take some time to get their/our kids off to a good start,

we try to get progressive and moderate men on our side to see that making life better for women benefits them too,

 

Let’s get radical in 2013.

One-Issue Decision? Not This Year

by muon

I made a list last night of all the issues, off the top of my head, that seem to hinge on this election. I'm sure I forgot something. Here's my list, in no particular order:

Unemployment
Education
Energy independence
Climate change
Renewable energy
Equal pay for women
Middle East, terrorism, war, national security
Healthcare
Women's healthcare, including contraceptives, abortion, and Planned Parenthood
Medicare and Social Security
Immigration
FEMA and crisis management
Infrastructure
Welfare, food stamps, other poverty issues
Science, Arts, PBS
Deficit
Gun control
Citizens United
Supreme Court appointees
Banking/mortgage industry problems
Foreign and Domestic Trade
Wealth imbalance

For all of you still undecided folks out there (if any), really, all you have to do is go down this list and decide who you trust to make policy for you on these issues, at the Presidential, Congressional, State and Local levels. For instance, if you're hit by a natural disaster in the next 4 years, do you want someone who acted the way President Obama, Governor Christie and Mayor Bloomberg acted this week, or say, the way President Bush acted during Hurricane Katrina? Do you want a president who'd shut down FEMA and tell the states to handle disasters themselves, even when their infrastructure is completely compromised?  You might say, oh, but I don't live in a natural disaster prone area. I thought so, too, until Hurricane Sandy.

These issues are the main reasons I'm voting, not only for Obama, but for all the Democrats on my ballot.  I say main reasons because there are others.

I refuse to vote for a party that condones and spreads the blatant lies of its presidential candidate. This week Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders pressured the independent Congressional Research group to suppress a report showing that tax cuts for the wealthy do nothing to help the economy. I won't vote for anyone who has such a contempt for truth.

GOP leaders have gone out of their way to make voting more difficult this year. Voter ID laws, voter roll purging, laws restricting registration drives, reduced early voting in many states, and intimidation measures aimed at African-American and Latino voters are all forms of voter suppression. For the first time, the UN has sent monitors to the US to observe our elections. I'm not voting for the party that made all this happen.

Legislation in this country shouldn't be influenced by anyone but the voters. Many Democrats are in the pockets of lobbyists as much as Republicans, but the worst offenders right now--the Koch Brothers, Grover Norquist, the NRA, far-right religious fanatics, and Big Oil--are GOP cronies.

So that's the election in a nutshell for me. You're on your own.

The Message We are Sending

by Ruth A. Sheets

The election process keeps rolling on.  It seems we have been at it for years.  Oh wait, we have.  What’s the message we are sending to the world, our children, and future generations, running is more important than governing.

One of our candidates, Mitt Romney has no trouble lying on a regular basis.  Whenever he faces an audience, he says whatever he thinks that audience wants to hear.  No one really knows what he stands for and what kind of president he might be, but the election is really close.  What is the message sent forth? Lying works and if you say it loud enough and you act as though you truly believe your lies, people will believe them too and vote for you.  Mitt Romney has this one down.

Mitt Romney talked over President Obama in the first debate, showed him a lot of disrespect, even to the point of bullying.  The President was advised that if he were too strenuous in his debate style, he would be seen as “THE ANGRY BLACK MAN” AND WOULD SCARE FOLKS OFF.  Romney had no such directive or stereotype, so he could open fire, even though most of what he said was untrue.  What is the message? Bullying works and our racism is actually OK because it can get you what you want.

Mitt Romney supports denying women most of the rights they’ve earned in the past 40 years or so, and yet a large number of women are supporting him.  What is the message? Women’s needs aren’t even important to women, despite the effect of losing those rights on more than half the population.

The wealthy are buying the 2012 election with the blessing of the Supreme Court, and Americans go on as though this doesn’t matter.  They complain about the number of ads, especially the negative ones, yet they allow those ads and that money to persuade them.  What is the message? Money can buy anything and everything, even our democracy.

Conservatives claim to spend a lot of time trying to channel our founders, trying to figure out how those guys would have handled the situations we are facing today.  It is hard to imagine that our founders would have been pleased by this campaign.  Their message? Decide what kind of society you want, one ruled by the wealthy for the interest of the wealthy, or something that is more balanced and fair for the country as a whole. 

One would be hard put to see that Mitt Romney can possibly bring us to the latter. 

Women DO Care About the Economy

Women in Binders protesting in Ohio

by muon

The other day Mitt Romney said all this talk about "women in binders" was just a diversion. He said women aren't all that concerned with "women's issues." He said what they really care about is the economy.

As for women caring about the economy, I couldn't agree more. So let me explain it to you, Mr. Romney.

You're the one who uttered the words "women in binders." It was part of your response to a question about the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Now, nevermind the fact that you lied about actively appealing to women's groups to find qualified women to fill cabinet posts (the women's group contacted you, not the other way around), the issue here is women who are often discriminated against in being considered for certain jobs in our society. If a woman can't find a job, simply because she's a woman, for her, that's an economic issue.

If a woman isn't paid equally for doing the same work as a man, especially if that woman's family depends on her paycheck to make ends meet, THAT's an economic issue.

If a woman can't afford contraceptives, and therefore can't plan a family according to what is affordable in her circumstances, THAT's an economic issue.  Not just a family issue, but a major national economic issue, because the more children who are born into poverty, the more strain it puts on social programs designed to help the poor. Of course, these are programs you'd just as soon take away from those children, but that won't change the fact that, without contraceptives, the population will grow, creating a bigger economic issue in the future.

If a woman and her family have inadequate preventative healthcare, to the point where symptoms are ignored because the cost of seeing a doctor, having tests, or buying medicine is too high, THAT's an economic issue. The nation's emergency room and clinics will be overwhelmed. The costs of major medical procedures can ruin families completely.

And that's just for starters. EVERY women's issue is an economic issue. And most women I know are getting very tired of having Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan dismiss women's issues as mere diversions.

You Think You Know A Person

by muon

This morning when I signed into Facebook, I noticed that one of my friends had "Liked" Mitt Romney.

This friend isn't a bosom buddy, so it wasn't like I'd found out my best friend was a serial killer or anything, but I couldn't help but wonder why this person would support Romney.

I've met her face-to-face, so I know she's female. She has a job in a profession not often pursued by women. Does she honestly think she ought to be paid less than the men who do the same work? She's been married for a couple decades and has 2 kids. Only 2. That kind of seems to indicate use of contraceptives. So...she's okay with other women being denied contraceptives and with women being forced to submit to state-mandated ultrasounds? She's okay with her own daughter having to be forced to have an ultrasound?

She and her husband aren't millionaires, or even likely half millionaires. Beyond that, I don't know her financial status, though she's definitely not in the 1%. Possibly she has enough bucks that she can't fathom how much more of her income will be funneled to the .01% under a Romney presidency. Here's how that works: government projects that benefit you are cut, making you spend more money on either private or local government substitutes, while the very rich get more tax breaks. You lose money, they gain.

Maybe she's pro-life. Of course, you'd think anyone calling themselves pro-life would object to the dismantling of programs that keep starving children alive and warm and healthy. You'd think they'd balk at the war on contraceptives, the very things that prevent the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions (because, seriously, what woman would intentionally get pregnant just for the chance to have an abortion?).

Maybe she's okay with being forced to drive gasoline powered cars and to heat her home with fossil fuels, at increasingly higher fuel costs, more carbon emissions, a dirtier environment, and more severe climate events each year, simply because the GOP refuses to lose their ties with the oil, gas and coal industries. Maybe she doesn't care about leaving her grandkids the legacy of having to fix the environment before her great-grandkids suffer the toxic effects?

Maybe she's just not too bright...that she lacks the reasoning power to know that a vote for Romney is a vote completely against her own interests and that of her family and her descendents? Of course, she's got a college degree in a scientific field. You'd think she'd have the smarts necessary to achieve that.

So, I don't get it. What makes an intelligent woman and mother "like" Mitt Romney? You tell me.

WOOING WOMEN WITH A WOMAN WHO IS OUT OF TOUCH

by Ruth A. Sheets

Mitt Romney’s campaign is having trouble wooing women.  The things he has declared as part of his platform are not exactly supportive of women.  So, Romney is bringing out his wife Anne to improve his chances with “the fair sex.”

A Democratic aide made a comment that Ms. Romney had not worked a day in her life, and the responses came flooding in, predominantly screaming that this was an insult to stay-at-home moms.

It seems to me this is not an insult to stay-at-home moms, but an emphasis on the fact that most women cannot make the choice to stay at home, but must work, sometimes two or three jobs to support their kids.  When Anne Romney “works,” it is by choice, not by necessity.

Ms. Romney raised five kids and of course, that is challenging.  She also has MS, which provides daily struggles.  Clearly she has worked over the years at both.

However, that is not what the aide, Ms. Rosen meant.  Ms. Romney did not face these challenges without help to handle them.  Her financial situation made the decision to stay home with her kids a no-brainer, a non-decision.  She had sufficient health care and support that she could navigate the difficulties of MS far better than her non-financially gifted sisters.

One would think that someone who experienced real struggle would appreciate the struggles of others.  She would want to see that her “neighbors” had the same level of support she was given.  But, if her husband’s positions on current issues are any indication, there is little or no empathy for people who have less than she has.

We haven’t heard Ms. Romney’s positions on the important issues for women, but my guess is she would favor many of the bills moving through Republican-run state legislatures.  None of this anti-woman push will directly touch her now since she is past child-bearing, and she has only sons. 

She, like her husband, is attractive and she is even more articulate, but is that enough?  Don’t we want someone in the White House with her president husband who can at least slightly relate to the needs of the majority of women?  I hope so.  Well, that would not be Anne Romney.

Our Government and Your Reproductive Health, or This Won't Hurt A Bit

This post is for women. All you fellas do us a favor and go find a blog about big screen TVs or football or something. This won't take long.

Ladies, imagine if you will a perfect world where a Congressional committee convenes to discuss men's reproductive health. It would, of course, be chaired by a woman. Only women would be allowed to testify.

The media would only interview women on the subject. No one in these news outlets would ever mention that drugs like Viagra are prescribed for actual, sometimes serious, medical disorders. Reporters would seek out Catholic nuns and the ex-wives of political candidates to ask if we shouldn't simply go with God's will on the subject.

Men? Are you still reading this? Hmm. You're worried that such a committee's recommendations might make you hold your knees together in the manner approved by the Santorum campaign for birth control? Perhaps you're worried that aspirin might not be an adequate pain killer?

Nonsense. After all, women know what's best for you.

muon

FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

by Ruth A. Sheets

This past week, the Obama administration took a bold step, not as common an occurrence as I would like, but certainly welcome at this time. All private insurance companies will be required to cover contraception for women, no co-pays, no denials of service. This includes religion-based institutions who serve and employ people not of that particular faith.

Most people, when polled, thought that women should have access to free contraception.  As of August, even working-class women will be able to plan their family size and decide when and whether they will become pregnant.  An added bonus is that the number of abortions and unwanted children will decrease significantly.

This sounds like a win-win scenario, don’t you think!  Even the right-wing conservatives should find something here to love.

Not so fast!  The Roman Catholic clergy are vowing to stop this service from being implemented in all facilities that are in any way associated with the Church.  It doesn’t matter if the person to be covered by the insurance is not herself Roman Catholic.  The Bishops’ argument is that this is a matter of freedom of religion. 

This is fascinating!  The Roman Catholic Bishops don’t seem to have a problem interfering with everyone else’s freedom of religion as they campaign against abortion and contraception despite the fact that many religious people do not agree with their stance.  They even want to criminalize it, calling women murderers.  In Pennsylvania, the bishops support the bill that is before the Assembly that forces women to have an ultrasound which they must watch, before they can have an abortion.

I guess that religious freedom only counts when the clergy get to force women to follow their archaic world view.  If one’s faith allows for a more progressive understanding, too bad. 

Does President Obama’s position on this matter mean he “hates” the Roman Catholic Church as implied by some commentators?  No, of course not, but the bishops are highly skilled at using inflammatory rhetoric.  They will vilify the current administration in the Church’s campaign against women, a centuries old effort. 

In the Roman Catholic scheme, women cannot win.  They are to submit to their husbands and the Church.  If they get pregnant, that must be God’s will.  If they are too poor to raise a child, that’s their fault.  According to the Church hierarchy, all male, of course, pregnancy is perfection for women and choosing not to be pregnant is a sin, unless a women has chosen a chaste life.

What I don’t get is the number of women who go along with this  nonsense.  Is it their penance for some imagined sin?  If the women left the Church en masse until some real changes on behalf of women were made, it wouldn’t take too long.  Women hold the Roman Catholic Church  together, just as they do most denominations, no matter what those in charge think.

I hope President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services will stand their ground.  Maybe that will keep the bishops distracted long enough to allow progressives to reverse the Medieval abortion laws springing up all over the country.