This week we checked the news daily and took suggestions from our audience. Like every week, it's been a busy week, fortunately for having material but unfortunately for the world. I was able to start and end with some better news to cheer you up a little, and scatter action items along the way for when you feel an urge to DO something. Of course, the best thing to do in 10 days from now is vote!
Details below the orange squiggle of infinity.
Sunday, October 19, 2014:
A brave, exceptional woman: If you would like to enjoy some positive news, please read A Mighty Girl's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/...) detailing the story of Andree Peel, "Agent Rose" of the French Resistance during World War II. Among other resistance activities, over three years she rescued 102 American and British pilots shot down over France, ensuring that they were able to escape to England. When her activities were discovered, she was arrested and tortured in the concentration camps in Germany, before being rescued just as she was about to be executed. She passed away in 2010 at age 105. For details on this story and a photo of the heroine, please see the Facebook page above.
Action Item: For more stories of World War II heroines, please see Kathryn J. Atwood's "Women Heroes of World War II," which can be ordered at http://www.amightygirl.com/....
Possibly the fastest summary of the Republican War on Women ever: On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed Republican chair Reince Priebus versus Democratic chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who had exactly 10 minutes in total to explain who was going to win the Senate and why; the war on women; and the Ebola crisis and who should be the Ebola czar.
Wow. Each chairperson could have used 10 minutes each to address each issue, more for rebuttal!
My impression was that Ms. Wasserman Schultz had the better arguments and took the majority of the time, but neither of them were able to complete their statements before Chris Wallace moved onto the next issue.
Regarding the war on women, they focused on Ms. Wasserman Schultz' previous statements regarding Scott Walker (Repub governor of Wisconsin up for re-election; if you're like me, you're starting to get all the political Scotts confused). She had time to list that he was not concerned about equal pay for equal work, he did not create jobs as promised, would not increase the minimum wage, nor allow women their own reproductive choices. By which point she was interrupted and there was some crosstalk and they were on to Ebola. Whew!
Watch here http://dailycaller.com/... if you like and see what you think. Don't read the conservative Daily Caller's commentary on this site, it could make your head explode; once again, political pundits pick and choose from a debate and make it sound like something other than it was.
I would say neither won, they didn't have enough time. I would have preferred one issue for the 10 minutes, so that the comments could have been more substantive. Ah well. Considering it was Faux News, it's probably amazing that the war on women was a subject for discussion at all.
Monday, October 20, 2014:
Using accomplished young women against other young women: It was brought to my attention today that on Friday, October 17, a commentator at Jezebel took Bristol Palin to task (http://jezebel.com/...), unfavorably comparing her to Malala Yousafzai. For those of you who haven't heard, Malala published a memoir last year and recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. Bristol's 2011 memoir was compared to Malala's, with expected results.
I say, unfair cheap shot. We have a fantastic role model in Malala, and what a shame that now she's being used as a weapon against other young women. You could use this approach to embarrass anyone. Who among us is Nobel Peace Prize material? Who has ever been Nobel Peace Prize material at such a young age? (None is the answer, she's the youngest recipient ever.) How would your memoir, or even the biographies or memoirs of other Nobel Peace Prize winners, stack up against Malala's? Compare Barack Obama's, for example, or Al Gore's, or heck, George Marshall's (surprise -- not -- virtually no conservatives on the Nobel Peace Prize list!).
Are Bristol Palin's memoirs shallow compared to Malala's? Yes. Would any American's memoirs seem shallow compared to Malala's? Yes. Malala has shown extraordinary bravery under extraordinarily oppressive circumstances. We don't live in such oppressive circumstances, thus our trials and tribulations come from a place of relative privilege and are unlikely to seem so dire.
So let's drop the comparisons. If you've accomplished something, great. Don't compare it to someone else's and minimize it. Let's celebrate Malala's accomplishments, learn what she may have to teach us, and support her endeavors, without getting into "why aren't you as great as Malala?" moments. Young or old, male or female.
I do need to address Bristol Palin for a moment: Honey, if you don't remember your first sexual experience, it's not that your "moral standards had disappeared," as you wrote in your book. You were raped. Maybe your confusion is a result of our evolving standard of what constitutes rape. Maybe your young man was nearly as drunk and out of it as you were. But you most certainly were in no condition to give consent, and he should not have taken advantage. Only yes means yes, and only when that consent is given by someone in possession of their faculties. You are a survivor, Bristol, but not of your own bad choices, of his. Please stop feeling guilty. Your "friends" did not keep you safe that night the way they should have.
And this leads to what I hope is a teachable moment for all readers: If you see someone passed out, or nearly so, that is a medical emergency. Young or old, male or female. Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. It alone can cause you to stop breathing, and of course other drugs might be involved. Think it's a rarity for someone to drink themselves to death, or to mix pills and alcohol to deadly effect? According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/...), there are approximately 27,000 deaths per year in the U.S. from alcohol overdoses, 29,000 from drug overdoses, 4000 from the combination of alcohol and drugs. These are not from drunken homicide or car accident or liver cirrhosis. Just overdose or a deadly mixture. About 340,000 people receive treatment for the combined abuse of alcohol and drugs in the United States. Every year. So just because you saw someone drinking doesn't mean you know why they passed out, and just because it was "only alcohol" doesn't mean it can't kill them.
* This is certainly not an occasion to undress them and take advantage of them.
* This is not an occasion to let someone else leave the room with them.
* This is not even an occasion to take them home and tuck them into bed to "sleep it off".
* This is an occasion to call 911, and to determine with the help of the 911 operator whether it's faster to take them to the ER or have an ambulance come to you.
Stop the madness.
Condemning the behavior of extremists not the same as condemning the religion: According to The Gateway Pundit today, ISIS is slaughtering "non-believing" men, and selling girls and women as sex slaves (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/...). The women discuss "the humiliation of being traded like cattle". This is terrible. And one example of the international War on Women.
Unfortunately, rather than seeing this as a problem with ISIS with its extremist, fundamentalist slant on Islam, the commenters on this conservative blog pretty much paint all Muslims with the same broad brush.
As Reza Aslan and others have tried to make clear, we need to condemn the sexism and violence of ISIS and other extremist criminals without condemning the entire belief system of Islam or all 1.5 billion Muslims, many of whom practice benign versions of the religion. ISIS seems to think that the secular spoils of war are more important than the religious respect for women and girls. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Action Item: Hulu, the video streaming service, has been running anti-choice advertisements, but has refused a pro-choice advertisement on the same issue because "it's political". Logic? I don't see any. Please see http://act.weareultraviolet.org/... and sign the petition to ask Hulu to stop the censorship.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014:
Skinny shaming versus fat shaming: Everyday Feminism has a good article on skinny shaming (http://everydayfeminism.com/...). If you haven't heard of such a thing (I hadn't previously), please read the article. She covers many aspects of body shaming as a whole that I think are important to raise awareness. Women will certainly be much stronger as a group when we get over the cultural stereotypes of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" women's bodies. So fat shaming is bad and skinny shaming is bad because it comes from the same place of one group disparaging another in an attempt to be part of the in group at the expense of the out group.
What I found a bit problematic, however, is the author's attempt to say that fat shaming is worse. It may be, but so what? Do we only have the energy to protect the most hated, the most oppressed, the most disadvantaged? Can't we protect all the hated, all the oppressed, all the disadvantaged? So please, let's try not to compare and contrast. Love your body. Help others to love their bodies. Take care of the body you were given.
Sometimes even the cartoons are offensive: According to HuffPost Media today, the cartoon "Love Is..." last week stated, "Love is... knowing that 'no' means 'maybe' and 'maybe' means 'yes'. Yes, this is what has become of what used to be the cute little harmless cartoon "Love Is...," now drawn by Bill Asprey. The newspaper syndicator has apologized. Mr. Asprey has so far not been heard from, as far as I have been able to determine. I don't have to tell you that no means no and only yes means yes, do I? If you can't believe anyone would draw such a thing, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....
Wednesday, October 22, 2014:
Women politicians making war against women: From the National Journal Daily yesterday comes "Can Democrats Win a 'War on Women' Debate Against a Woman?" by Shane Goldmacher (http://www.nationaljournal.com/...). I'd have to say yes, yes they can. The author does not seem to understand that being a woman on the one hand and policies for women on the other hand are two different things. Of course we'd like to have more women holding political offices, all other things being equal. But things are not equal. Joni Ernst, the woman in question, is a right-wing nut job who would ban birth control and abortion if she had her way once elected. Vote for her opponent! There will be better women candidates in the future, ones who support the needs of other women.
A Faux News feast of misinformation: Posted on YouTube today (https://www.youtube.com/...) was another fact-free day of Faux News that concluded with Kimberly Guilfolye stating that young women don't "get it" so should not vote and should be excused from jury duty. Laura Clawson provided excellent coverage of this the next day. Please see her diary here, http://www.dailykos.com/.... Note that no mention was made on Faux News of how young men don't "get it". If anyone thinks 18-year-old men are sober and stable, please let me know in the comments; I'll go dig out my old college party photos. But you know that young adults are not always sober, don't you?
To be fair, Kimberly Guilfoyle has since said it was just a joke. For some reason, I find that unbelievable. But go to Laura's article above, if you wish, where she embedded that entire part of the debate in context, and judge for yourself.
In another truth-free moment in the same discussion, Greg Gutfeld erroneously states that it's a well-known fact that people become conservative as they get older. Well, it's a well-known myth. A study was done in 2012 (http://news.discovery.com/...) that showed that the opposite is true; people become more liberal as they age (thank you, tb92!). In a completely unscientific survey, I asked this question of readers at Kos, and the respondents were unanimous; we have all become more liberal as we age (thank you, everyone who answered!).
The blonde is Dana Perino, former White House press secretary for W. Objective journalist, not so much. She states that women's issues are economic and national security. OK, seems to me like everyone would vote for Democrats on that basis. The whole "unsafe" discussion is a matter of opinion, but the President seems quite strong on all fronts. Did America feel "safe" when W was in office; which was, by the way, when terrorists flew planes into our buildings? Did even The Five feel "unsafe" when President Obama's team successfully captured Osama Bin Laden? Not that President Obama really matters in Senate races, but they keep trying to pull him in.
Ms. Perino also mentions that previously, the two big mouths of Republican then-senators Akin ("that's really rare, if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down") and Murdoch ("I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen"), per Ms. Perino "helped make it look like birth control was the most important issue to voters". As if their comments were just mistaken differences over birth control, not minimization of the trauma of pregnancy subsequent to rape. No, Ms. Perino, Republicans didn't lose the last election over issues of birth control. They lost over their persistent determination to control women's bodies regardless of the circumstances. They might lose this election over issues of birth control.
Action Item: Nevertheless, the worst of the Faux News screed was the dismissive commentary, "young women shouldn't serve on juries or vote". If you agree that this is bad, please go to http://act.weareultraviolet.org/... and sign the petition!
Thursday, October 23, 2014:
Concern regarding the future of abortion in North Dakota: According to Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/...), "North Dakota Is Quietly Preparing To Enact The Most Radical Abortion Measure In The Country". They state that, while the bill's sponsor has clearly declared that this measure was intended to challenge Roe v. Wade, now the bill's supporters are claiming that it does no such thing. In contrast, the bill's opponents are concerned that the effect will be like that of any other personhood law. The measure states (https://vip.sos.nd.gov/...), “The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.” The vague wording may give it a better chance of passing, but may result in a variety of unintended consequences, including interference with fertility treatments and even organ donation.
UPDATE: As of October 25, 2014, as reported in a Think Progress update, a new poll shows that the bill has 39% support, 45% opposed, and 16% undecided. So there's still concern that it could pass.
Slanted coverage in a North Dakota newspaper: In a related story, the local Grand Forks Herald headlined their article, "Group of 60 doctors say 'Measure 1 is good for North Dakota'," and first up is a photo of these doctors and their statement that they "don’t fear it will lead to the wide-ranging unintended consequences its opponents have discussed". Finally, buried in the third from last paragraph in a 21-paragraph article, the author admits that "the North Dakota Medical Association said it opposes Measure 1 because of its 'unknown effects on the patient-physician relationship,' adding the 'vaguely written' and 'unclear' language is open to interpretation". I counted 90 clinics, practice networks, and hospitals throughout North Dakota on the NMDA Web site (http://ndmed.org/...), but the newspaper emphasizes the opinions of 60 doctors over the professional association who speaks for a vastly higher number. Hmm, biased much?
Friday, October 24, 2014:
Email from Gloria Steinem: I received a fund-raising appeal from Gloria Steinem today on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They must know we're getting tired of the appeals for donations. So they are bringing out their celebrities for one more go-round. If you're pro-Democrat and haven't given all you want yet, you might be interested in this one. For those who might be too young or sheltered to know who Gloria Steinem is, she was one of the outspoken leaders of the feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s, and co-founder of Ms. Magazine.
I think her email is worth reading even if you are not interested in donating. It's great commentary on the 2014 elections and controversies. Here's Gloria Steinem's message:
The outcome of this election will be determined by one factor:
Women.
And that scares the Republicans half to death… but not enough to make them actually change their anti-women policies. They still refuse to pass Equal Pay laws. And they’re still perfectly comfortable denying women their basic human right to make decisions about their own bodies.
Instead they’re relying on tired, sexist tropes to appeal to us. Women will only vote if voting is like dating, getting married, or breaking up. At least that’s what Republicans seem to think.
This election is our chance to show them that their relentless sexism will not stand -- in fact, it will cost them their seats in Congress.
That's why I’m emailing you today. I need you to step up right now and make sure that Republicans who rely on sexism will lose on November 4th.
Are you in?
Action Item: If you want to donate one more time and have not received this email, then you can go to the DCCC Web site. They also have an Action Center page,
http://dccc.org/... where you can sign petitions, answer a survey, and sign up for free stickers. Fun!
Winning the War on Women?: We'll end with some good news for today. A North Carolina grandfather stopped three home invaders from raping his 19-year-old granddaughter (http://www.counton2.com/...). While the would-be rapists were distracted by the granddaughter, her grandfather pulled out a gun and shot all three. One was killed and two were injured. The injured home invaders were caught when they went to the hospital to be treated for their gunshot wounds. Unfortunately, the grandfather was also critically injured. Various news headlines characterize this as firing some winning shots in the war against women. Debatable. But OK. At least one man will never rape again, and I'm sure the 19-year-old granddaughter is relieved. Go, grandpa, and best wishes to the whole family!
Saturday, October 25, 2014:
I've spent so much time finalizing the above that I haven't had time to look at the news today! And I want to post this diary ASAP. So I will be back later with an update with today's TWitWoW headlines.
UPDATE: October 25, 2014:
War on the War on Women: Medialite, among others, reported today "Debate Audience Groans at Dem Candidate for Bringing Up 'War Against Women'" (http://www.mediaite.com/...). They have a short segment of the recorded debate on their Web site. It sounded suspiciously non-spontaneous as I listened to it. So I went looking for the full video of the debate. I found it at http://www.mytwintiers.com/... the television station that sponsored the debate. Clearly, the audience was asked to stay quiet during the debate but was getting a little rowdy toward the end, when the War on Women topic came up. Finally at the end of the debate they showed the audience, which made things a bit clearer. This was not an undecided audience. This was an audience full of people with signs for Tom Reed and Martha Robertson, the two candidates. The Reed supporters were in the front of the audience and at the end, when everyone could finally make noise, they were much louder and rowdier. So obviously the War on Women topic was laughed at, not by independents or Democrats tired of the discussion, but by Tom Reed supporters. It's actually the laugh that proves our case. For no other issue was any part of the audience so disrespectful. But the conservative media is painting it as, "nobody wants to hear about this any more". I offer the link above for anyone who wants to watch or listen to the debate. You might be able to skip to the end for the shots of the audience. But unless you're hooked on politics, if you can't get the slider to work (I couldn't), I recommend just taking my word for it; that's an hour of my life I'll never get back. There weren't any other real surprises here, in my opinion.
Lawyers for potential college rapists: According to the conservative Web site hotair.com (http://hotair.com/...), two lawyers feel that colleges kicking possible rapists off campus even if they have not been convicted in criminal court is a problem. These civil procedures, of course, have a lower standard of evidence than a criminal prosecution, preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus the victim, even if she cannot prove her case sufficiently for a criminal trial, will not have to confront her alleged assailant on campus. I feel this is appropriate, these lawyers feel that it is not. They explain some of the abuses. I can imagine that abuses of the system happen occasionally, but I doubt that this is a very big problem.
The author lists the tired old bogeymen of women who can't face bad decisions (would that be bogeywomen?): Women who might not be thrilled with their date but just decide to get it over with and shut him up; women who are tipsy drunk but not blacked out and still actively participate; women who wake up in the morning in a guy's bed and then decide it was a terrible idea. He worries about all these types of women who might prosecute a man for rape rather than face regrets.
Meanwhile, I worry about how many women can afford lawyers to pursue justice through their colleges? Will this end with only women from wealthier families able to have their accused rapists kicked off campus?
Slate (http://www.slate.com/...) took an extensive look at the issue of false rape reports in 2009 (you can imagine how difficult it is to make a clear determination of how often these happen) and concluded that the rate of false charges is about 8-10%. They also cite estimates that 60% of rapes are never reported. So clearly there are problems in both directions. That 10% is a terribly high number if you have done nothing wrong. And of course if some women pursue charges when nothing happened and that is proven, then that in turn makes it more difficult for real victims because they are less likely to be believed.
So there is no perfect solution. I encourage women to come forward and go to the police (or a hospital for evidence collection) as soon as possible if they have been raped, in order to gather evidence so that their case will be solid. I also of course encourage women not to cry wolf, to know what they want and to not apologize or feel guilty if they had a little more fun than intended, and to not make false accusations against anyone for any crime.
But here's what is not the solution: The hotair author concludes that "Yes Means Yes is insanity". That is surely the wrong way to go. Previously he mentioned that to give consent, you have to be aware of what you're doing, i.e., not blacking out from alcohol or such. But then he muddies this in his final paragraph: "There has to be a 'No,'.... Forcing your will beyond that 'no' is what defines the crime [of rape]". The message comes out mixed at a time when we need to be clear. An inability to say no because a woman is incapacitated, or an inability to say no because of terror at the perceived consequences, also has to be taken under consideration. Men need to wait for a positive yes and if unsure, then continue to communicate until a woman's desire is clear.
Certainly we need to continue this conversation. As the Slate author concludes: "This is a problem that a men's rights movement shouldn't trump up. And also one that feminists can't dismiss."
7:45 PM PT: One final Action Item: If you want to buy Malala's book and you don't want to support large corporations, you might try buying from Good Reads, http://www.goodreads.com/.... Malala also has her own Web site, http://www.malala.org/... where you can read about her current activism, read about others active in the education-for-girls movement, donate to her cause, and so on.