Saturday morning I was on the Cape. My cell phone rang; it was a reporter from the Poughkeepsie Journal wanting my reaction to McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
I told the reporter that i did not know here,BUT vice presidential candidates in the past have only had at most a plus or minus 2% impact--the minus 2% was for Nixon's choice of Spiro Agnew,the plus 2% was for the FIRST major party choice of Geraldine Ferraro to run on Mondale's ticket in 1984.
And, as of today, news surveys have shown NO significant movement of voters towards the McCain camp.
While we may may more attention to who the vice presidential candidate is, credit Cheney for this, I do not believe that Palin will have the desired affect.
Palin will not attract women voters--she is NOT a feminist by any stretch of the imagination. Just because she is a woman,does not mean women will vote for her. Women are not monoliths that McCain, and other men, think we are.
She does solidify McCain's conservative religious right camp more than he does. The Evangelicals are ecstatic!
Here is NOW's statement re:Palin http://www.now.org/press/08-08/08-29.html
Monday, September 1, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Pay
Yesterday I did a workshop on Feminism and Eleanor Roosevelt for the Eleanor Roosevelt center at Val Kill's Girls Leadership Workshop (GLW)--28 bright, vibrant, up to any challenge young women from around the globe.
We spent a lot of time talking about equality. They were all taken aback that women are not paid the same as males for the same jobs. Women make on average 76 cents to the male dollar--that is white women--women of color make less: black women make 62 cents, Latinas make 53 cents. And, at the rate we are going since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, it will be another 47 years or so before pay equity may be achieved because the act is NOT enforced. And even when it is enforced we have found that there are other obstacles.
Most notably the recent failure in the Senate of the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act. The bill was written to correct for last year's punitive (re)reading of the EEOC laws (See Ledbetter V Goodyear Tire Co): employees have to act within 120 days of the first instance of discrimination even if they are not aware of said discrimination until years later.
Pay equity seems very far away.
Especially when women are supporting their families--today even in dual parent households two incomes are necessary to make ends meet. Mike Hein called households in Ulster County with incomes of $50-60,000 the working poor--especially in light of the high cost of gas, home heating oil, and the increasing cost of food (not to mention medicine and health care).
How women came to be paid less than males is rooted in our capitalistic and patriarchial society. In the 1890s when the concept of working wages for families were first introduced, the focus was on the male "breadwinner's" wage--he was suppose to earn enough to support his family or his potential family. Women in the workforce where only earning supplementary monies--pin money. Overtime this working wage has gotten translated into the minimum wage. (Holly Sklar has a good website on the real cost of minimum wage--http://www.letjusticeroll.org/).
It is rooted in our glorification of capitalism--business must make a profit, if the cost of supplies are too high, the cost of labor is what can be cut to ensure profits. This glorification of capitalism does so without holding the businesses responsible to be good citizens--paying their fair share of taxes, for instance; or turning record profits on the backs of consumers and employees.
So, what can we do? Part of the campaign is to make women and men aware of the disparity. Another is to give women a political voice--we already know that there are more women democrats than male democrats in Ulster County; we need more women in elected and appointed office.
We need to grow women leaders!
We spent a lot of time talking about equality. They were all taken aback that women are not paid the same as males for the same jobs. Women make on average 76 cents to the male dollar--that is white women--women of color make less: black women make 62 cents, Latinas make 53 cents. And, at the rate we are going since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, it will be another 47 years or so before pay equity may be achieved because the act is NOT enforced. And even when it is enforced we have found that there are other obstacles.
Most notably the recent failure in the Senate of the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act. The bill was written to correct for last year's punitive (re)reading of the EEOC laws (See Ledbetter V Goodyear Tire Co): employees have to act within 120 days of the first instance of discrimination even if they are not aware of said discrimination until years later.
Pay equity seems very far away.
Especially when women are supporting their families--today even in dual parent households two incomes are necessary to make ends meet. Mike Hein called households in Ulster County with incomes of $50-60,000 the working poor--especially in light of the high cost of gas, home heating oil, and the increasing cost of food (not to mention medicine and health care).
How women came to be paid less than males is rooted in our capitalistic and patriarchial society. In the 1890s when the concept of working wages for families were first introduced, the focus was on the male "breadwinner's" wage--he was suppose to earn enough to support his family or his potential family. Women in the workforce where only earning supplementary monies--pin money. Overtime this working wage has gotten translated into the minimum wage. (Holly Sklar has a good website on the real cost of minimum wage--http://www.letjusticeroll.org/).
It is rooted in our glorification of capitalism--business must make a profit, if the cost of supplies are too high, the cost of labor is what can be cut to ensure profits. This glorification of capitalism does so without holding the businesses responsible to be good citizens--paying their fair share of taxes, for instance; or turning record profits on the backs of consumers and employees.
So, what can we do? Part of the campaign is to make women and men aware of the disparity. Another is to give women a political voice--we already know that there are more women democrats than male democrats in Ulster County; we need more women in elected and appointed office.
We need to grow women leaders!
Friday, July 25, 2008
Notes from The not quite ready for impeachment hearings
Our Maurice is quoted in this article about the not quite ready for impeachment hearings:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/25/10614/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/25/10614/
Monday, July 21, 2008
Ideology vs Reality
Ideology should not trump reality, truth, medical soundness and a woman's right to control her reproduction:
1. A 2005 South Dakota law that is being challenged in court requires doctors to read a script to women seeking abortions--even though some of the statements in said script are false and medically unproven:
The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
“The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
“By having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.”
The law also requires physicians to provide “a description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected, including depression and related psychological distress” and “increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.”
The patient must sign each page of the state’s required messages, certifying that she understands them.
questions she asks or explanations she seeks, as well as the physicians’ responses, must be placed in writing and added to her permanent medical record.
A violation of the law is a Class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by 30 days in jail and/or a fine of $500.
[Italics, mine for emphasis.]
I must've missed something in all my readings of the U.S. Constitution. . .
As for the court challenge: on Monday the South Dakota District Court deferred a decision on a request for a preliminary injunction in the case of PPMNS v Rounds until the court has an opportunity to review all of the evidence and arguments developed and presented (Guess they are slow readers in SD!).
I guess the law makers in South Dakota do not think that the women in their state can think, and need to be protected from making a decision about their own bodies, even if it means doctors have to lie to them in order to protect them. . .
2. Meanwhile, back at the duderanch that is the WhiteHouse, the HSS ruling that changes the definition of some forms of contraceptives from birth control (including pills that do not allow for the fertilized egg to be impanted in the uterus, IUDs and emergency contraception) into abortions, and thus, not fundable by the federal government has caused Senator Clinton to write a response:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/21/an-outrageous-attempt-bush-adminstration-undermine-womens-rights
1. A 2005 South Dakota law that is being challenged in court requires doctors to read a script to women seeking abortions--even though some of the statements in said script are false and medically unproven:
The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
“The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
“By having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.”
The law also requires physicians to provide “a description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected, including depression and related psychological distress” and “increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.”
The patient must sign each page of the state’s required messages, certifying that she understands them.
questions she asks or explanations she seeks, as well as the physicians’ responses, must be placed in writing and added to her permanent medical record.
A violation of the law is a Class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by 30 days in jail and/or a fine of $500.
[Italics, mine for emphasis.]
I must've missed something in all my readings of the U.S. Constitution. . .
As for the court challenge: on Monday the South Dakota District Court deferred a decision on a request for a preliminary injunction in the case of PPMNS v Rounds until the court has an opportunity to review all of the evidence and arguments developed and presented (Guess they are slow readers in SD!).
I guess the law makers in South Dakota do not think that the women in their state can think, and need to be protected from making a decision about their own bodies, even if it means doctors have to lie to them in order to protect them. . .
2. Meanwhile, back at the duderanch that is the WhiteHouse, the HSS ruling that changes the definition of some forms of contraceptives from birth control (including pills that do not allow for the fertilized egg to be impanted in the uterus, IUDs and emergency contraception) into abortions, and thus, not fundable by the federal government has caused Senator Clinton to write a response:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/21/an-outrageous-attempt-bush-adminstration-undermine-womens-rights
Gendered Pay Gap
Many people disparage the very gendered pay gap--saying things for instance that women choose the lower paying jobs, that women put their family and hobbies (!) in front of better pay--hmmm one would think that better pay would be good for families. . .
Here is an article which refutes those claims:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807160011
Here is an article which refutes those claims:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807160011
Friday, July 18, 2008
Proposed Funding Ruling
The Bush administration is proposing that all healthcare providers receiving federal aid will certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control (because certain people are defining the beginning of life from when an egg meets sperm). This is one more step away from healthcare providers really providing healthcare for women.
On the flip side, is there support for the children thus conceived so they may have a productive life--you know adequate pre-natal care, healthcare, child care, education???
Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign "written certifications" as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Voice your opinion directly to the Sec. of HSS:
HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt . Contact Information
Office Phone: 202-690-7000
Email: mike.leavitt@hhs.gov Fax: 202-690-7203
Correspondence Secretary: 202-690-6392
(Outside of the DC/metro area call tollfree 877-696-6775 -- ask to be transferred to the Secretary's office.)
On the flip side, is there support for the children thus conceived so they may have a productive life--you know adequate pre-natal care, healthcare, child care, education???
Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign "written certifications" as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Voice your opinion directly to the Sec. of HSS:
HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt . Contact Information
Office Phone: 202-690-7000
Email: mike.leavitt@hhs.gov Fax: 202-690-7203
Correspondence Secretary: 202-690-6392
(Outside of the DC/metro area call tollfree 877-696-6775 -- ask to be transferred to the Secretary's office.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)