Can Women be Sexist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

Misandry, sometimes called androphobia, is the hatred of men, for being men. While usually ascribed to women, it is also theoretically possible for males themselves to be misandrist. Unlike misogyny (a pathological aversion towards women), misandry has been little discussed or investigated. Some masculists maintain that misandry has been rampant for thirty years, due to feminist advocacy, and has become a social pathology. Some feminists believe that, while misogyny is a social disease, misandry does not exist. Others in both feminist and masculist camps consider the "war of the sexes" arising from traditional gender roles to be a powerful source of both misogyny and misandry.

This term is sometimes used interchangeably with misanthropy.

That's the definition as it appears right now on Wikipedia. I may go back and correct it, but most people will look at that and think it is correct. Let's clarify the terms. Androphobia means "fear of men," but is not equivalent to misandry, which means "hatred of men". Both are aversions, but they aren't really synonymous. Misanthropy refers to a dislike for people in general, and is not specific enough to clearly express the idea of an aversion just to males.

Sexism is a word that should never have been embraced by feminists. It's a bad frame. I believe it comes from either feminist or Marxist theory where the dominant hierarchical structure of patriarchy is defined by the violent and economic imposition of an entire set of oppressive practices: classism, racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, jingoism, etc. The "ism's" work together very well, but separate the term "sexism" and it becomes unclear. A more accurate term would be gender bias, which is still too non-specific, or misogyny, which it the most accurate. Other terms that are relevant, but not synonymous, are femicide (murder of women), femiphobia or gynophobia (both meaning fear of women).

If we go purely by the definition of the terms, any gender (I won't say both, because there are more than two) can be biased toward any other gender, including one's own. In colloquial usage, however, sexism means "oppression of women." In that context, feminists are not sexist, though a woman may be every bit a patriarchist, like Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter (both of whom should turn in their ovaries, IMO). Electing a woman like that to office doesn't count as affirmitive action - it's the same old shit in a deceptive, but equally poisonous, package.

I'm not going to deny that there are misandrous women - usually very extreme lesbian separatists or women who have been badly abused by men. They're rare, but they do exist. One of my favorite authors, Mary Daly, belongs to the former category and I have no problem with that. To paraphrase her writing, when you know what men have inflicted on women, what forgiveness can there be? Men like to leave comments and emails accusing me of belonging to that category, but that is simply inaccurate. I don't want to get rid of men - I adore men, and I love humanity.(Though those who know me will attest that sometimes I can stand people...) My hatred is reserved for patriarchy and its proponents of any gender. Only you, the reader, can decide if that includes you or not. If you've accused me of being a "Nazi" or a sexist, I'm talking directly to you.

Women have only ever asked for equality. I think that's a mistake, but that doesn't make me misandrous, just observant - I see the results of 6,000 years of male rule and it's appalling. I see remaining matriarchies and see peace, cooperation, sensuality, positive hedonism, mutual respect among the genders and a lack of all those "ism's" listed above. That sounds good to me. So good, in fact, that I have to question the judgement of a thinking person who prefers war, poverty, elitism, exploitation, oppression, and a sociopathic admiration of competition and greed.

The Women's Autonomy Movement is not anti-male. It is pro-female. We seek the simple right to sovereignty over our own bodies, and equal rights with all others. Yes, that will end the special "rights" and favoritism that men have enjoyed within a patriarchal system. That doesn't make you less. It makes you equal (i.e. no longer special). This is not an either/or dichotomy so prevalent in patriarchal structure. My gaining a fair and reasonable level of respect and opportunity takes nothing away from a man, it simply brings me up to his level. We stand on equal ground. Considering that women are more than half of the population, do the bulk of the work for least of the money, and are living in a state of war virtually everywhere on the planet including within our own homes, I don't think that's too much to ask, and how dare anyone suggest we continue to settle for less?!

From Women of Color Concerned About John Roberts

An Open Letter to Women of Color

Women of color listen up: we need to be concerned about what’s happening to the Supreme Court. President Bush has nominated John Roberts, yet another white male conservative, to sit on the highest court in the land. If confirmed, John Roberts will cast critical votes in cases that involve our fundamental rights, our freedom, and our lives.

Before President Bush named John Roberts, the public discussion focused on the ethnic and gender identity of a potential Supreme Court nominee. Everyone was talking about whether the nominee would be a white woman or a Latino male, both of which should be on the Court. But did anyone ever seriously mention a woman of color for the job? Controversial ideologue Janice Rogers Brown was floated by extreme conservatives, but she was never a real contender given that her nomination to the Court of Appeals set off a national fight over the filibuster and almost shut-down the U.S. Senate. Will women of color have to wait until a representative of each ethnic group and a substantial number of white women are nominated and confirmed before securing our rightful place on the bench?

Now that President Bush has named his nominee, the fact that he brings no diversity whatsoever to the Court has been subsumed by his status as a brilliant and merit-worthy candidate. By implying that John Roberts was the only “qualified” person for the job, however, the message rings clear in our ears: there were no women or people of color with the credentials worthy of sitting on the Supreme Court, according to this Administration.

One obvious explanation for the lack of diverse candidates is that the search was narrowed to people of color who reflect the conservative values promoted by the Bush Administration. In the end, however, we would rather have someone who promises to uphold our fundamental rights than see ourselves reflected on the highest court. Unfortunately, with John Roberts, we get neither.

John Roberts‚ record on women’s fundamental rights is particularly disturbing. He has held several high-ranking positions in the federal government, including Deputy Solicitor General and Special Assistant to the Attorney General, but in those positions, he failed miserably to protect - let alone advance -women’s reproductive rights and access to health care services. For example, John Roberts co-authored a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan that opened with the argument that “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” The brief went on to support the “gag rule,” which prohibits doctors and clinic counselors who receive Title X funding from providing women with the full range of information and options regarding their reproductive health.

Equally disturbing, John Roberts co-authored a “friend of the court” brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic in support of Operation Rescue, a notorious anti-choice group. In the amicus brief and during oral argument before the Court, he argued that Operation Rescue’s “military-style tactics” used to block women from accessing reproductive-health clinics did not amount to discrimination against women and that a federal remedy under a particular civil rights statute should not be available.

The Bush Administration and Roberts‚ supporters would love for us to believe that the Rust and Bray cases are just a bunch of legal gobbledygook with no real life consequences for us. But for women of color, those cases - as well as cases John Roberts may soon be deciding - have consequences that disproportionately affect women of color.

And the stakes go well beyond women’s rights and reproductive freedom. Voting rights, civil rights, affirmative action, and religious freedom are among the disputes the Supreme Court has resolved in recent years by razor thin margins and that have important consequences for communities of color. The emerging record shows that John Roberts was often on the wrong side of these issues too.

For instance, in memos written to the Attorney General in the early 1980s, he helped develop, support, and argue the Reagan Administration’s position to severely restrict the circumstances under which minority voters could bring a claim under the Voting Rights Act. He likewise criticized the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law permitting school districts to deny enrollment to children of undocumented immigrants. And, he defended legislation that would have stripped the Supreme Court of its ability to hear cases related to busing and school prayer.

So, where are our voices and our brothers’ voices? Why are African American, Latino, and Asian Pacific American communities silent around this nomination and the Supreme Court? The stakes are highest for us, yet we have failed to inspire and effectively mobilize ourselves and our communities. The Supreme Court will shape the legal landscape and our lives for generations to come. We must get involved. We must be heard. We must be accountable.
Signed,

Women of Color Concerned About John Roberts
Women of Color Concerned About John Roberts includes progressive women of color activists from Washington DC and New York

It won’t do Native American women not living under tribal jurisdiction much good, either. She doesn’t mention that Roberts only has 2 years experience as a judge. Are you telling me that there isn’t one woman of color on the bench with more experience than that? Anybody got a name we can send to Congress?

AlterNet: The Women's Room?

AlterNet

Transition House, New England's first battered women's shelter, has always been known for its cutting edge work helping women and children escape abusive homes.

Recently, however, the Boston-based 30-year-old organization has set a precedent that makes some feminist activists uncomfortable. The board has not only hired a man as the interim executive director, but they are doing a gender-neutral search for a permanent hire set to conclude August 30th.

About Women, a collective of psychologists and social workers who were instrumental in creating shelters (including Transition House itself) in the 1970s, see this as step in the wrong direction. They wrote the board of Transition House a letter last October protesting what they called a "flagrant violation" of the organization's founding principles to establish a space where "women could feel safe from male intrusion and could openly unburden themselves of the experiences of male violence they had undergone without fear of censure, criticism or inhibition by male presence."

This is just wrong. When you're dealing with women and children who have been terrorized by the man in their lives, sending them into a place run by a man defeats the idea of a safe house. This is a situation that needs to be a woman-only space to minimize trauma and let them heal. This is not an issue of fairness, it's an issue of oppression, of psychological need, and physical safety.

Reuel Marc Gehrect of the Weekly Standard says what they're all really thinking.

ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES:

"On Meet the Press, August 21, Reuel Marc Gehrect of the Weekly Standard said this:In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy."

The "social rights" of 53% of the population "are not critical to the evolution of a democracy."?! Does the phrase "taxation without representation" mean anything to this guy? How about "I AM NOT AN ANIMAL"? Actually, we're all animals, men more so than women it seems because they're TOO DAMNED DUMB to know that I am a person. I think, I breathe, I have my own ideas, my own opinions and I am not the property of a man or a government. A government of the people, by the people and for the people means WOMEN TOO!

Are we going to offer political asylum to women in Iraq since we've sent them back into slavery after decades of freedom? What a stunning, stunning failure, GEORGE! Way to fuck up what's left of a sovereign nation you blew all to hell for no good reason.

No wonder you're cutting aid to countries that won't agree to keep you unaccountable to the International Criminal Court. I see a war crimes tribunal in your future pal, and it can't happen soon enough.

"The true legacy of Margaret Sanger"-Ms.

One of the cover stories of Ms. Magazine this past summer dealt with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and what is all at stake for women's reproductive rights in this country, and the changing Supreme Court. And with Dubya nominating a guy like Roberts, yeah, it's going to be one f-ugly battle, and there is indeed a lot at stake for us, considering the man's stance--or more precisely--his disdain and contempt for women's rights, especially our right to be autonomous human beings, and in control of our reproductive destinies. Anyway, Ms. received a lot of letters and emails about the story, many coming from readers concerned with the future of Roe v. Wade (and possibly Griswald v. Conn.). One letter in particular was reprinted in Ms. Musings blog, citing the legacy of Margaret Sanger and women's reproductive empowerment.

[...]One of the letters was submitted to Ms. Magazine Online by Miriam Reed, author of Margaret Sanger: Her Life in Her Words (Barricade Books, 2003). It is reprinted in its entirety below:

In the summer 2005 issue of Ms. Magazine, Ellen Chesler refers to Margaret Sanger and her important work as birth control pioneer. Fortunate we are that Sanger worked so assiduously for birth control, but often overlooked is that birth control for Sanger was only a means to an end. The end was the freeing of the feminine spirit that it might fulfill its mission. And its mission?

To express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities (Woman the New Race [1920], pp. 98-99).

One is at times hard put to find the feminine element in American life today, with the gag rule in force, with American militarism holding sway (Sanger was a pacifist), with access to contraception as well as abortion for the indigent less and less available, with honest information on a woman's physiology and birth control methodology withheld from many young people.

As a dedicated consumer, by necessity, by custom, and by redilection, American women depend on corporate-produced contraceptives and corporate-produced food. When Margaret Sanger made The Pill possible, it served as an answer for those times. She never dreamed that pharmaceutical companies would become the powerful profit-driven machines that they are today. But what if women knew their bodies so intimately that birth control pharmaceuticals were unnecessary? What if women took the time and the initiative to recognize their cycles and mucus consistency and could control their conception with natural birth control methods? What if women taught this information to each other and to their younger sisters? What if women were no longer dependent on male-run corporations for these matters?[...]

Then their (corporations') allies in the political sphere will do their damnest to significantly limit or outright illegalize this new form of radical natural contraception teachings among women and girls. Penalties for 'thought-crimes' or printing "illict" materials come to mind. Censorship. We see this in another form when it comes to the issue of self-righteous, moral-supremacist, misogynist anti-choice zealots who wear white lab coats in pharmacies, who use their ideological and anti-women-reproductive-rights dogma to thwart women's access to their contraception--thus, thwarting women's attempt to determine their own reproductive destinies. Whenever women attempt to break away from traditional societal expectations and even dependency on male politicians and predominately male-institutions such as the corporate world and the field of medical science, never fear, there will always--and unfortunately so--be the more powerful and influential reactionaries there to sabotage all of their (women's) endeavors to independently empower themselves. It's a sad fact of life within a patriarchal society and male dominated political system.

For some years before Roe v. Wade, the Jane group in Chicago performed their own abortions. Learning to know your own body and demanding food that is locally grown does not require nearly as much courage. Women cannot be sent to jail for their consumer choices. But women would have to be educated by other than corporate advertising, would have to change their shopping habits, would have to engage within themselves the feminine spirit that Margaret Sanger sought to free when she was sent to jail for handing out contraceptives.

Birth control is only a means to an end. Woman's refusal to engage in a profit-driven global market but instead "to create a human world" is the true legacy of Margaret Sanger.

Shorter: Women's refusal to blindly go along with the traditionalist ideal of a woman's "duty and obligation" to society (ie: having as many children as society dictates, never mind if the woman is personally against having that many or personally having children at all--even if she's just a young twenty-something with no higher education or significant financial security), is a form of reproductive empowerment. In a nutshell, women standing up and being able to proudly say "I'm not going to have children when you tell me to," or "I'm not going to have children until I accomplish a, b, c," or "I'm going to decide how many children I have, not you," and/or lastly, "I'm never going to have children," with the aid of contraception and even legal and safe abortions, was the legacy of Margaret Sanger. Reproductive empowerment for women, which in case you haven't notice, is having to be fought for and demanded all over again. Women controlling their reproductive destinies and being treated under the Law as autonomous human beings is just that annoying to some people.

Roberts is NO friend of Women

He is instead, an *enemy of women and our fundamental rights to be equal and autonomous citizens* of these United States. His obnoxious misogynist comments, memos, and letters as a "young lawyer" under the Reagan Administration tells it all about him. Could he have grown up since then and changed his views about women and our rights and liberties? I doubt it, given that his wife is a member of "Feminist for [Fetal] Life", an absolutely false-"feminist" group that's the very antithesis of feminism and women's liberation, and he is still anti-women's-reproductive-rights. He is the epitome of the enemy of women's rights and liberties--especially our fundamental right to reproductive freedom and autonomy, and if the Senate Judiciary Committee does not take notice of this, expose him for his misogyny, then the women and even girls of this country will be in great peril of having their rights and liberties rolled back. As Echidne of the Snakes reminds us...

John Roberts, A Friend Of Women?

Probably not exactly. Roberts's early career shows a distinct tendency towards doubting the wisdom of equal rights for women. For example

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

In internal memos, Roberts urged President Ronald Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly objectionable"; and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women the same as men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."

Roberts's thoughts on what he called "perceived problems" of gender bias are contained in a vast batch of documents, released yesterday, that provide the clearest, most detailed mosaic so far of his political views on dozens of social and legal issues. Senators have said they plan to mine his past views on such topics, which could come before the high court, when his confirmation hearings begin the day after Labor Day.

Given that Roberts is to take the seat of Sandra O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, it is interesting to note that

As a lawyer in the Reagan White House, John Roberts scoffed at the notion of elevating Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to chief justice as a way to close a political gender gap, calling it a "crass political consideration."

On another topic, Roberts, who was nominated as a justice by President Bush last month, advised the White House to strike language from a description of a housing bill that referred to the "fundamental right to be free from discrimination." He said that "there of course is no such right."

The comparable worth theory of pay was one used by some states for determining wages and salaries in jobs traditionally held by one gender alone. It tried to address the kinds of problems that arose when a state would pay a nutritionist for children a lot less than someone who fed animals in a zoo, just because the former was more likely to be a woman than the latter and therefore had lower paying alternatives to the state employment. The idea was to list all the tasks that comprised a job and to price each of them independently of the market forces to arrive at final earnings scales. The nutritionist and the zoo employer might end up getting paid roughly the same salaries under such a scheme. This would create more work for the state and also possibly problems in the labor markets (lots of people wanting to be nutritionists, not that many wanting to work as animal feeders in zoos), and hence wasn't always popular even among liberals.

So attacking this particular theory doesn't necessarily mean that Roberts was opposed to women being treated better by the labor markets. Though it may mean just that. It's hard to know. What is fairly obvious from the above quotes is that Roberts was a flippant young lawyer with no understanding of women or their economic concerns. He was also obviously a full-blown conservative.

The important question is what Roberts is like today, as a middle-aged wingnut lawyer. Will he still oppose anything even faintly smelling of gender equality? Does he still think that there is no fundamental right to be free of discrimination? Does he believe that replacing O'Connor with Roberts is not based on "crass political considerations"? Is he a covert agent for the U.S. Branch of International Misogynists United? Remember that we are going to have this guy ruling over decisions for the next thirty years or so. Do we want him deciding on the rights of our granddaughters? Or the lack of such rights?

What are his views on abortion? Roberts refuses to give them. Don't we have a right to know how he would decide on a case that might overturn Roe vs. Wade? That Roe vs. Wade is currently established law is irrelevant for someone in the Supreme Court. Yet that is the answer Roberts has given: that he can't comment on established law.

And what else do we know of Roberts's views on women? Our friendly queen of the wingnuts, Phyllis Schlafly, argues that Roberts must value women more now as he married a feminist. Who is openly pro-life. And George Bush married a librarian, so whom people marry may not tell us very much about their general opinions.

I feel very dissatisfied with all I have learned about Roberts. Like after having an inadequate restaurant meal with a large check at the end. I want more food for thought. Or I want to cancel the check.

He is not only unsatisfactory to those of us who value our rights and liberties, but a serious threat to us, our future, and future generations of women and girls in this country should he be confirmed.

The Other Half By BABATUNDE OSOTIMEHIN

New York Times:

"Though data show that girls and women are far more vulnerable to infection than men, we have yet to summon the courage and the political will to empower and protect them.

In Nigeria, and across sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, epidemics are already feminized. For example, nearly 58 percent of Nigerians with H.I.V. are female. What's more, in virtually every region of the world, infections among girls and women are rising sharply.

For example, a major partner, the United States government, enthusiastically promotes abstinence until marriage as the main way for young people to avoid H.I.V. infection. Abstinence is one critical prevention strategy, but it cannot be the only one. Focusing on abstinence assumes young people can choose whether to have sex. For adolescent girls in Nigeria and in many other countries, this is an inaccurate assumption. Many girls fall prey to sexual violence and coercion. Many others are married off very young, as young as 13 or 14, long before they are psychologically or physically ready. Abstinence is not an option for these girls, nor is getting their partners to use condoms. It is unacceptable for a woman or girl to ask her partner to use one in our part of the world. In Nigeria, only 23 percent of the men and 8 percent of women use condoms regularly, and, as elsewhere, almost none of them use condoms with a spouse or primary partner."

[emphasis mine]

I REPEAT:

Focusing on abstinence assumes young people can choose whether to have sex

Focusing on abstinence assumes young people can choose whether to have sex

Focusing on abstinence assumes young people can choose whether to have sex

If you're molested, prostituted, sold, married-off at a young age or raped by a UN "Peace Keeper", abstinence is not an option. Condoms may not be either, but at least put the information out there.

Sex should be one of life's great joys. It wouldn't be fatal if Saint Ronnie had done his job when he had the chance, and George is making it worse. How many people have to die for this Administration's superstition and bigotry?

N.O.W.'s request to testify at Roberts' committee hearing

The National Organization for Women recently sent a letter to Senator Arlen Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee, requesting that the organization's reps be allowed to testify at Bush's anti-women nominee Roberts' confirmation hearing. Oh and what all would N.O.W. have to say about Roberts? Could it be his opposition to women's rights back during the Reagan Administration? Perhaps NOW President Gandy's letter could provide a little bit more detail in the case against the very much anti-women-rights Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts.

[...]Gandy's letter states: "After a thorough examination of the available record of the nominee, NOW has concluded that his confirmation represents a danger to many of the rights for which we have worked so hard. . . . To confirm John G. Roberts to fill the seat [O'Connor] held for 24 years would jeopardize the full range of established women's rights. Through our testimony, we hope to apprise the committee of the basis of our strong opposition to this nominee."

NOW's opposition to Roberts is based on his statements and record on a number of issues related to women's equality and civil rights. His recently-released comments on pay equity indicate a cavalier attitude toward economic justice for women, and a disdain for women (even Republican members of Congress) who stand up for their rights. During his career, Roberts has argued to restrict Title IX, the equal education law for women and girls, and to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act; he has objected strenuously to federal affirmative action programs; he has disparaged the landmark Violence Against Women Act; and he has been an active proponent of "states' rights."

When the federal government has moved to protect or expand civil and individual rights, Roberts has frequently objected; however, when the federal government has sought to limit rights, Roberts has been supportive, especially where restrictions on reproductive rights are concerned. His work for the Reagan administration contains some of the most disturbing news for women, particularly in that area. As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in NOW's case against Operation Rescue and other violent blockaders, supporting Operation Rescue and individuals who violently blocked access to women's clinics. In another case, Roberts co-authored a brief arguing that: "[W]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion. . . . finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

"If Roberts succeeds in overturning the fundamental right to privacy, we will lose much more than abortion," says Gandy. "We will also lose birth control, emergency contraception, and the right to make personal decisions without government intrusion."

Gandy concludes: "Not only is Roberts not the moderate some are making him out to be, he is a throwback to the 1950s when it comes to women's rights."

Well thanks Ms. States-the-Obvious. Nothing gets past you does it? Well if anyone is going to speak up for the rights of women and call into question Roberts anti-women-rights past during this hearing it would be N.O.W. Since it sounds as if the Dems and everyone else will just gloss over Roberts' disturbing legal records and memos disdaining women's rights, such as reproductive rights, Title IX, and sex discrimination, like it was nothing. After all, we all did crazy things during the Reagan Administration, so give the guy a break, right? Well I and others won't, but the Judiciary Committee probably will. Damn. And here I thought we valued women's rights just as if they were human rights and basic civil rights and liberties.

Gay Rams, Lesbian Swans, & Queer Penguins: The Summer of Love

Gay News From 365Gay.com

Make a copy of this and keep it on hand for anyone you encounter who thinks homosexuality only happens in humans. It's a perfectly normal variation.

Why Women's Rights ARE Human Rights

The-Goddess:

" I want to stand for the rights of all people, not just women, but certainly I believe in rights for women everywhere. "

I bumped this up from comments, not to pick on anyone, but because as a feminist, I hear this line from Progressive men all the time. I understand that you want rights to apply to everyone - so do I. What men don't seem to get is that the state of women is the state of the species.

Women are 53% of the population. The primary care of children falls almost universally on the Mother. Most of the people who live in poverty are women, and therefore so do their children. 80% of the people hurt in a war are women and their children. This is not an exaggeration, not an accident and it is not inconsequential. Women do not start wars.

We don't represent a majority vote in the decision-making body of any major power on the planet. We have least access to power, and control least of the money, in spite of doing most of the grueling, repetitive and filthy work in the world for little or no pay. If there's shit or vomit to be cleaned, food to be raised or prepared, a child, an invalid or an elder to be cared for, 99% of the time, it is a woman that does it.

This image we have of Big Daddy going to work and bring home the bacon is bullshit in most of the world. Men in Africa lose weight when the crops need tending because they won't prepare food for themselves while the women are tending the fields 16 hours a day. That rice you had with your Chinese take-out was almost certainly farmed by a woman's hand, and she was probably paid little or nothing for doing it. Your clothes were likely sewn in a sweatshop where women are forced to have abortion, work as prostitutes, sew as slaves and their "masters" receive awards from the likes of Tom Delay. Go to a bar, or a gathering place in any town or village, and you will find men socializing while the women are at work.

Yes, women in America and Western Europe don't have it quite so bad. We deal with issues like equal pay for equal work, and being held back from success in our chosen fields in spite of ability and accomplishments solely because of our gender. We should be grateful that we are allowed to earn more than men in the two professions where it's permitted: Prostitution and Modeling. 2 out of every 3 of us will be sexually violated or beaten in our lives by men unlikely ever to face prosecution, and we aren't safe being out alone at night, and we'll have trouble even getting a job if we're old or fat or not very attractive, but that's better than being systematically raped by soldiers, our genitalia carved by broken glass and our virginity sold to the highest bidder before we've even reached puberty. Some great deal.

Patriarchy is a vile institution. Patriarchal, monotheistic religions support the brutalization of women around the globe. The wars being fought right now can ALL be traced to greed and patriarchy. The rights of men are assumed in all but a very few, tiny cultures. When a man says "I'm in favor of all human rights, not just the rights of women" I hear him saying that my rights still don't matter as much as his - that he won't for a second allow me to have an iota of attention or concern that does not include him. He thinks he's being "fair" - I think he's being egotistical and presumptuous.

I don't know most of the people who will read these words, but I know one thing about every one of you. You came from a woman's womb. You had a mother. These rights were are talking about are the rights she did or didn't have. They're the rights your lover, wife, sister, daughter will or will not have. Will it really diminish you NOT to be first, once in your life? Are you so dependent on your male privilege that I can't have a problem that doesn't touch YOU and still have it matter? Doesn't the phrase "if one of us is not free, then none of us is free" include me, too?

When we talk about Women's Rights, those rights are inclusive. They include the welfare of children - YOUR children - and they directly impact the quality of your life. Men's privilege has traditionally not affected the lot of women. The wife of the richest, most powerful man may still be a raped, beaten, starved slave. A family with a free, well-paid, respected mother is a happy, strong family.

I know that some men work very hard. I know I will never know what it is like to be a man. I also know that women have experiences that will never touch men. A man may talk about abortion, but he will never be pried open and vacuumed or scraped, nor will he be ripped apart by an exiting baby. He has the option, most times, as to how involved he will be in the care of that child. Only the rarest of women has any choice in that matter, and she will be punished socially, professionally or financially in ways that will never affect a man, in spite of her lack of options.

There's nothing "fair" in this situation. The genders don't start from equal positions in any aspect of their lives. Don't expect me to bend over backward to be fair to you. Life already bends me to breaking. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is - fairness is just an idea to you. This is my body and my life we're talking about. Considering that you have all the advantage in the situation, I'd think you ought to be able to be a "man" about it, and understand that sometimes it just isn't about you, and that's o.k., too. The minute you try to put me "back in line", champion what's "fair" or consider the disposition of my uterus as a subject of barter, even in an election (are you listening, Kos?), you have joined the ranks of my oppressors.

Please sign this important petition

I just signed this petition. Please join me by clicking here.

Dear Mr. Bush, On August 3 you said the soldiers who were killed in Iraq, "died in a noble cause." Cindy Sheehan's son Casey died in Iraq, but she takes no comfort in your words. She wants to meet with you to ask you directly: Why did my son die? What was the noble cause that he died for? We, the American people, urge you to meet with Cindy Sheehan to answer her questions.

I just signed this petition. Please join me by clicking here.

100,000 March to Keep the Vote Alive in Atlanta | Democrats.com

100,000 March to Keep the Vote Alive in Atlanta | Democrats.com

Follow that link and look at that picture. That's THOUSANDS of people marching in Atlanta to "Keep the Vote Alive". Haven't seen shit about this in the media, have you? Spread the word - people are taking to the streets. I hope thousands show up in Crawford, so the local police can't possibly handle them.

Urgent: Join Cindy Sheehan in her stand at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas

August 7, 2005


Dear Morgaine,

Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq, is holding vigil in Crawford, Texas until she gets a meeting with George Bush. She has some simple questions to ask him: “Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for? If the cause is so noble, why don’t you send your twins?” She also has a clear demand: “Honor our sacrifices by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from a war based on lies and deceptions.”



On Saturday, as Cindy marched towards the ranch where Bush is vacationing for 33 days, she and her supporters, including CODEPINK cofounder Diane Wilson, were stopped by local sheriffs, who pushed them into a ditch with fire ants in 100 degree heat. Cindy was undeterred: “I am not leaving until I meet with George Bush and he answers my questions about the death of my son. This is the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq,” she said, (read more ).



Inspired by the power of Cindy's determination Diane pledged that CODEPINK would join her in solidarity by staging a hunger strike. Diane has already begun her fast and many of us are making our way to Crawford to join her, including Ann Wright, former US Army colonel and senior diplomat who resigned after 35 years of service because of the Iraq war (Cindy, Diane and Ann all have powerful essays in our book Stop The Next War Now (read more ).

Knowing that every day lives are being lost in the war on Iraq, Cindy, Diane and Ann have taken an uncompromising position. This is a powerful moment in our struggle that cannot be overlooked by any of us who care deeply about the lives that are being wasted in this immoral war. When we are given the opportunity to witness someone else’s courage in the face of struggle, it is a gift. An even greater gift comes when we are presented with the possibility of joining boldly in that struggle.

Here are ways you can stand with them click here for more info

• Come to Crawford or donate money or miles so others can come
• Fast in solidarity from home
• Spread the word by contacting the press
  

This vigil and fast follows in the footsteps of all those throughout history who have taken extreme action, putting their own needs aside to save our humanity. We are reminded of another great soul, Robin Cooke, former British Foreign Secretary who, in 2003, resigned from Blair’s cabinet in protest of the invasion of Iraq. Cooke died on Saturday, but his courageous example lives on for all of us to follow until the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq.


In solidarity,
Dana, Farida, Gael, Jodie, Medea, Nancy, Rae, and Tiffany

P.S. Please join us in Washington DC on September 24-26  as we rally for the troops to come home and make sure you list your reason to get out of Iraq on onemillionreasons.org  and pass it on to others .

To help sustain our work and actions, please consider making a donation  to CODEPINK today.

Action of the Day: Current TV

Al Gore’s new vision for interactive television is on air now! Current.TV allows you to participate by providing content and rating what you want to see. Write to them at feedback@current.tv and tell them what you’d like to see.

Do you want more politics? How about Karl Rove? Information on Election Reform? Code Pink for Peace?

I’ve requested that they balance all of the Deepak Chopra segments by featuring Starhawk and her Reclaiming tradition of political activism.

http://www.starhawk.org/        http://www.reclaiming.org/

It’s supposed to be your channel – tell them what you want, or make your own video and submit it! Let me know what you do, so we can spread the word.

Peace!

Via Planned Parenthood.....

Just the predictable, arrogant refusals of Bush Administration--which we can always count on happening--when it comes to releasing important information to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning a judicial nominee's past records. True, we already know a great deal about Roberts' anti-Roe, anti-women's-reproductive-rights legal history, still, it is important for the Senate Judiciary Committee to know as much as possible when it comes to any nominee's past, especially when they have questionable ties to extremist groups such as the violently anti-choice and anti-women Operation Rescue group. (as I said, via Planned Parenthood)

New York, NY — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today expressed outrage at the Bush administration's refusal to provide documents requested by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, related to Judge John Roberts's time in the Office of the Solicitor General.

"This is an outrageous decision and one that raises the question, what are they trying to hide?" said Karen Pearl, PPFA interim president...

What's there to hide? Probaby the proverbial skeleton in Roberts' closet that could possibly ruin his chances of being confirmed by the committee, and the administration doesn't want them, or even us, to find out about it (not that we don't know already that he's *anti-women and anti-women's-reproductive-rights*). Or perhaps there is nothing more to Roberts than we already know, and the administration is just being arrogant and stubborn as usual, as a part of their "we're presidential damn it, we don't have to answer to you, we have a mandate" sense of entitlement.

..."Vetting life-time appointments to the nation's highest court is a critical Senate duty, and the Bush administration is impeding the nomination process by denying access to crucial information. The American people deserve to know where Judge Roberts stands on critical issues and the Senate cannot confirm him without full access to his records, especially on important matters including women's health and safety and Americans' privacy rights."[...]

As if women's health and privacy rights were on this administration priority list--certainly not women's right to autonomy or reproductive rights, or even apart of their political ideology. Ahem, some cases in point; the Patriot Act, Bush's "Partial Birth Abortion Ban"--which is merely subterfuge for slowly but surely rolling back women's reproductive rights, his administration's misogynist Global Gag Rule, and him nominating anti-choice lapdogs such as Lester Crawford to head the FDA. And do remember that the Bush Administration isn't answerable to anyone because of Dubya's "mandate" and sense of entitlement. (rolls eyes) Now for the other P.P. story, another example of Republicans shamelessly using the tragic events of September 11 to justify any outrageous ad hominem comment and remark towards a group of people. In this case, Karen Hughes to pro-choice activists.

Karen Hughes, a former political advisor to President Bush, was recently confirmed as the State Department's top public relations official.[...]

In a stunning breach of diplomacy last year, Hughes made headlines when she compared the million pro-choice activists who attended the March for Women's Lives to the September 11 terrorists.

When asked about abortion rights the day of the march, Hughes told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I think after September 11, the American people are valuing life more ... and I think those are the kind of policies the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really, the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life."

This inappropriate and insensitive use of the September 11 tragedy was particularly outrageous given that millions of women and men had traveled to Washington to march precisely because they value life.

In fact, the lives of women everywhere are threatened daily by policies instituted by the Bush administration.

Improving the U.S. image will be a challenge for Hughes, in part because of the administration's anti-choice foreign policies. These include but are not limited to

--imposing the global gag rule

--defunding UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund

--promoting "abstinence-only until marriage" policies as HIV-prevention

--attempting to break global consensus on reproductive health and rights at the United Nations

Despite requests from pro-choice activists and members of Congress, Hughes never apologized for her comments attacking pro-choice marchers. This does not augur well for her new career as a diplomat.

Oh of course it does! Look at Bolton, Santorum, Cheney, Rove, and Congressional necon-Republicans. No one, when it comes to this particular brand of Republican, is responsible, nor held culpable for their words or actions. She'll do just fine. It's amazing how much bullshit and anti-women shit Republicans and this administration can get away with saying and doing.

Pro-Christian-Theocracy Sunday Returns!

On August 14, outspoken fundamentalist Christian leaders and their neoconservative wingnut political cohorts will be hosting yet another Justice Sunday--this time, Justice Sunday II. Also known as Pro-Christian-Theocracy Sunday. All in support of, you guessed it, *anti-choice, anti-women* Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, and other judges and politicians of faith who are supposedly "under attack" because of their faith. What_bullshit! We can expect more of the "oh, they're picking on him because he's a man of faith! Blessed are the persecuted Christians...," nonsense. It's the man's record that worries some of us, and I could care less about his faith or lack thereof. He could worship toasters for all I care, so long as he didn't impose that on the rest of us by using the Law and politics in order to do so. (via N.O.W.)

The Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn., will host the Family Research Council's "Justice Sunday II - God Save the United States and this Honorable Court" on Sunday, August 14. This follow-up to "Justice Sunday - Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith" will be broadcast live in churches across the country, and carried on hundreds of radio and "Christian TV" stations, and via a live webcast.

The theme is "How activist judges subvert the family, undermine religious freedom and threaten our nation's future."

NOW objects to this cynical use of churches to promote a highly partisan message. The right wing is trying to claim that feminist and progressive groups are opposed to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts because he is a man of faith. These cronies of George W. Bush are implying, as they often do, that liberals cannot also be people of faith. Their "one faith fits all" dogma is insulting.

By holding this event in a church and broadcasting it to churches across the country, political extremists are also making clear that they will use evangelical religion to promote ultra-conservative Supreme Court nominees and trample on women's rights. The separation of church and state will also become history if their agenda succeeds.

Speakers at the event will include Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX), Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), Bill Donohue (Catholic League), Bishop Harry Jackson (Hope Christian Church) and former Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), among others, and are featured on their web site.[...]

Background Information on Select Speakers:

Tony Perkins
Tony Perkins is President of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council. Perkins is a former member of the Louisiana legislature, where he was author of the nation's first "Covenant Marriage Law." He hosts a weekly national radio program, "Washington Watch Weekly," and sends daily updates to tens of thousands of grassroots activists. In 1996, Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 (allegedly for his small mailing list), as campaign manager for a right wing candidate - who was later fined for trying to hide the payment to Duke. In 2001, Perkins addressed one of America's leading white supremacist organizations, the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), successor to the White Citizens' Councils which battled integration in the South.

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX)
Tom DeLay is the Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. He has a pattern of repeated legal and ethical scandals. As The New York Times reported, "Almost every Republican in the House owes Mr. DeLay for something - a job, a piece of legislation or a large campaign contribution." He is being investigated for campaign finance violations associated with his TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) and international trips with lobbyists. He has said, "A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide structure, to provide stability."

Dr. James Dobson
Dr. James Dobson is a conservative psychologist who hosts a daily radio show called Focus on the Family on over 6,000 radio stations. In 1977, he founded a non-profit organization of the same name of which he is currently chair of the board. His programs are estimated to be heard by more than 200 million people every day. The Family Research Council is the political arm of Focus on the Family. Dobson is one of the most influential evangelical leaders in America today.

Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, has been a national leader of the conservative movement since 1964. She rose to prominence while opposing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) during the 1970s and early 1980s. Since then, she has been a regular spokesperson against progressive causes, particularly women's rights and LGBT rights.

Sen. Zell Miller
Zell Miller is the former Democratic senator and former governor of Georgia. Miller was appointed to Georgia's open Senate seat in 2000 and his conservative conversion gained strength. In 2004, he published A National Party No More, a tirade against the Democratic Party. He endorsed Bush for the presidency in 2004 and gave a keynote address at the Republican National Convention in New York last summer. He has become the Republican's symbol of what they call the "out-of-touch Democratic Party."

Hilarious. In a nutshell, wingnut politicians and judges of faith are "under attack" because they can't impose their religious views on the rest of us via the Law and politics. The poor things. They're angry because they can't use politics and the Law to force their bigoted, misogynist, anti-reproductive rights, puritanical, superstitious, patriarchal, Medieval, anti-sexual liberation, extremist Christian, anti-science, anti-medicine, anti-academia, anti-LGBT civil rights/liberties, anti-multicultural, and pro-Church-Married-to-the-State agenda on the rest of us. Good!

Help Protect 700 Women

Dear Readers!,


I am writing today to ask you to take one simple action to protect women from violence. Please, join me in signing the 700women.org petition.

Every day 700 women are assaulted by their intimate partners--and four are murdered.

In September, Congress will consider the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which is the most important legislation ever enacted to protect women from domestic violence and sexual assault.

If it is not reauthorized, victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and the organizations that support them are at risk of losing aid and protection.
Please, join me in supporting the reauthorization of VAWA. It's simple and important - and will only take you a minute. Click here: http://www.700women.org/
Follow This Link to visit the website.
****************************************************************************
Some email systems do not support the use of links and therefore this link may not appear to work.
If so, copy and paste the following into your browser:
http://www.700women.org/site/lookup.asp?link=9775
****************************************************************************

Morgaine Swann

Our so called "right to privacy".....

Not a day has gone by since Roberts' nomination and I don't receive some "take action" or "alert" email from NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Organization for Women, and Save Our Courts. The emails always have some recently discovered memo, letter, or comment made by Roberts himself concerning his opposing position on the Roe v. Wade and Conn. v. Griswold rulings, along with other civil rights and liberties issues. The man truly is a *threat to women's right to autonomy and reproductive freedom.* As if his close ties with violent anti-choice groups such as Operation Rescue and him even arguing on their behalf in cases such as Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, weren't unsettling and disturbing enough. But now, some more memos (oh joy) citing that Roberts doesn't really view the right to privacy to be fundamental for American citizens. (via NARAL Pro-Choice America)

Today's Washington Post reports on a memo regarding the landmark 1965 Supreme Court ruling that legalized the use of birth control by married couples under a right to privacy. According to the records, Roberts’ memo “to the attorney general on Dec. 11, 1981, summarized a lecture six years earlier by then-Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University, which touched on the same theme. Griswold's lecture, Roberts said, devotes a section to the so-called ‘right to privacy,’ arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade.” [WashingtonPost, 8/3/2005]

And from that Washington Post article....

[...]Separately, new documents released by the National Archives from Roberts's tenure as a senior adviser to the attorney general during the Reagan administration make clear that he was deeply skeptical of the court's recognition of a citizen's fundamental "right to privacy" -- the legal concept that underpinned its historic 1973 decision upholding a right to abortion.[...]

The new documents disclosed by the archive that reflect Roberts' skeptical views regarding a "fundamental" right to privacy include a lengthy article on judicial restraint that he apparently drafted for publication in a journal of the American Bar Association under the name of then-Attorney General William French Smith, his boss.

The article approvingly quoted from a dissenting opinion by Justice Hugo Black in a 1965 court decision, in which the majority held that a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives was unconstitutional. Black's opinion, as cited in the draft, complained that the court had used "a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional." The draft article said that "the broad range of rights which are now alleged to be 'fundamental' by litigants, with only the most tenuous connection the to Constitution, bears ample witness to the dangers of this doctrine."[...]

[...]A second memo, sent by Roberts to the attorney general on Dec. 11, 1981, summarized a lecture six years earlier by then- Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University, which touched on the same theme. Griswold's lecture, Roberts said, "devotes a section to the so-called 'right to privacy,' arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade."

The words "so-called" do not appear in Griswold's lecture. But Roberts drafted a letter to Griswold, signed by Smith, saying he was cheered that Griswold made "many of the same points" that the administration had about these matters.[...]

Now with Nancy Keenan's, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, own statement regarding Roberts' view on the right to privacy, which I will agree is "extremely troubling."

“That John Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to the highest court in the nation, should refer disparagingly to our ‘so-called right to privacy’ is extremely troubling. The right to privacy is central to our American ideals of liberty and personal freedom, and it’s something most Americans cherish,”....“The more we learn about John Roberts’ judicial philosophy, the clearer it becomes that he is not the right choice for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. With each new piece of information the White House’s artfully constructed façade falls farther away, and the real John Roberts comes into clearer view – a career activist who would bring a clear ideological agenda to the Supreme Court.[...]"

Oh the scary, scary times in which we live. These may have been past comments and letters made by Roberts long before he was even a judge, however, who's to say that someone's history doesn't repeat itself, while the person's identity has taken on a whole new incarnation....Supreme Court Justice Roberts. He is a *threat to women's right to autonomy and reproductive freedom.* And from the National Organization of Women, see Roberts' profile, and the President of NOW, Kim Gandy's biweekly column.

Justice for Linda Loaiza!

Via President for Life, Sheelzebub of Pinko Feminist Hellcat, a very real story of corruption, violence, and misogyny that allowed a *raping, misogynist-shit* to be acquitted for abducting, raping, torturing, mutilating, and beating a young Venezuelan woman, Linda Loaiza.

Imagine that you are 18. You have your whole life ahead of you. One day, you are kidnapped and held prisoner. Your captor rapes you repeatedly, beats you so badly that your skull is cracked, starves you, grinds out cigarettes on your face, cuts off your lower lip and a nipple, and slashes your genitals. You are held for four months, until the cops rescue you.

You'd get justice, right? No one would let someone like your assailant walk the street, right?

Apparently they would in Venezuela. Linda Loaiza has found this out the hard way.

In July of 2001, 18-year-old Linda Loaiza was rescued by the Caracas police in Luis Carrera Almoina's apartment. She had been repeatedly raped and brutally tortured for four months; she was found in a state of severe malnutrition, with her earlobes destroyed, a nipple cut out, cigarette burns all over her body, multiple cranial fractures, and bruises and cuts on her face and genital area. After undergoing nine operations, Linda is still recovering. The lifelong physical effects of her ordeal include cataracts, impaired hearing, reduced movement, facial scarring and an inability to bear children.

The accused perpetrator, Luis Carrera Almoina, had been previously arrested for torturing his then partner in 1999. He is the son of a Gustavo Carrera Damas, who at the time was president of a major university in Caracas. After being detained and put under house arrest, Carrera Almoina attempted to flee with the help of his father. He was captured the next day, and his father was later charged with obstructing judicial action.

The judges, all eager to protect a golfing buddy--or at the very least, a fellow upper-class man and his son--dragged their feet and refused to try the case. The case was deferred 29 times,and 59 judges declined to hear the case. The statute of limitations was coming up--and Carrera Almoina was in no danger of being prosecuted.

So Loaiza went on a hunger strike. On the steps of Venezuela's highest court.

So the finally tried the case. You'd figure either Almoina would be sent to prison or acquitted, and that would be the end of it, right?

Oh, no. Think again. No one in the court was interested in his trial.

In an attempt to exploit an outrageous piece of the Venezuelan Penal Code which calls for a reduced sentence for crimes against sex workers, Carrera Almoina's defense claimed that Loaiza was part of a prostitution ring. If sentenced to jail time, Carrera Almoina would have only have had to serve a fifth of the normal sentence. No evidence was presented in support of these claims, and Loaiza has consistently denied them. Nevertheless, on October 21, 2004, the judge acquitted Carrera Almoina and his father of all charges, citing a "lack of evidence”, and ordered an investigation of Loaiza, her father and sister for prostitution.

Because, you know, kidnapping, raping, mutilating, torturing, starving, and bludgeoning someone is A-OK if they're hookers. They don't have feelings 'cause they're not human. Or something like that. Besides, I'll bet all women lie, so making her and her family an example via witch-hunt is just part of due process.

Loaiza and her attorney immediately appealed the ruling. In a statement, Loaiza affirmed, "I'm determined not to give up and to keep fighting for justice. I think many women in Venezuela and in the whole world have been through similar experiences and keep their suffering in silence for fear of the torture they will have to once again undergo, this time in the hands of the judicial system.” The district attorney supported the appeal, and had already noted irregularities during the trial, including illegally submitted evidence by the defense.

The Venezuelan women's movement, including PLAFAM, IPPF/WHR's member association in Venezuela, mobilized to raise awareness of the case and to provide legal and emotional support to Linda Loaiza in her fight for a new trial. On April 12, 2005, the seventh court of appeals annulled the verdict and called for a new trial. PLAFAM continues to raise awareness in the media and in public forums so that the same delays and corrupt measures will not be employed again.

Go here to send a message to the Venezuelan Judiciary and demand justice for Linda Loaiza.

Misogynist violence, and the political and legal corruption that perpetuates and enables it, must be *stopped* if all women and girls are to be treated and recognized as human beings and citizens--with inalienable civil rights and liberties--by both society and their governments.

Two Million for Roe: Join the Roe Call

Dear Friend,

Do you want John Roberts to reveal his views about the right to
choose abortion before the Senate votes on whether to elevate
him to the U.S. Supreme Court? If you're like more than half of
Americans, your answer is a resounding yes. Join us in demanding
that he answer the question.

Sign the Planned Parenthood Two Million for Roe petition today
at the link below and be listed among millions on our "Roe
Call."
http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/roberts_roeCall2?rk=D7zsO_71fXiRW

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic...and Roberts

Just some more evidence of Roberts' threat to *our right to autonomy and reproductive rights*, should he be confirmed. By now, everyone by now has been briefed on the gist on Roberts past anti-Roe legal history. He argued on the behalf of anti-abortion protesters many times. But in one case in particular, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Roberts argued on the behalf of Operation Rescue, who claimed within their defense that they "weren't opposed to women, but were opposed to abortion". Riiight, it's never about the women. (via Planned Parenthood)

In 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court heard Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, a case in which anti-abortion protesters, including the leadership of the extremist group Operation Rescue (OR), challenged an injunction against their activities, which included blocking access to health care facilities in the Washington, DC, area.[...]

The injunction being challenged by anti-abortion extremists was based on an 1871 civil rights statute that provided protection against private conspiracies, such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) preventing blacks from exercising their new-found freedoms. Applying the KKK Act to anti-abortion violence was a perfect match. It helped cast OR and other such groups in the same mold as the KKK, the difference being that in this case it was women who were being prevented from exercising a relatively new freedom.

But there were problems. Earlier Supreme Court cases had held that that for the KKK Act to apply outside the context of race, there had to be evidence of an "invidious, class-based animus" by the perpetrators against the victims. In this case the perpetrators were OR and similar groups, and the victims were women seeking abortions, as well as the clinics and their staffs. The central legal question became: Are these extremist anti-abortion groups acting with an "invidious, class-based animus" against women when they block clinics or is their animus directed just at abortion and not at women?

At the time that Bray was being heard by the Supreme Court, there was an epidemic of blockades and attacks on abortion clinics. Yet the United States filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief on the side of the extremists, arguing that the KKK Act should not apply to them because the protesters were opposed to abortion, not to women. The court agreed.

Really? Who else can become pregnant and choose to have an abortion? Who are the people deciding that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Who are the people wanting to enter the clinic and obtain its services? Who are the people entering these clinics who are specifically demonized and slandered with hateful slurs such as "whore--who is bound for Hell", "babykilling bitch", "sinful slut who should have kept her damn legs closed," by these anti-choice extremists? Who are the people who these extremist scream and threaten as they leave clinics? Yes, that's right. There is no misogyny with these "pro-lifers". They love women. Yes they love women so much that they want to control, terrorize, legally and politically oppress, restrict their civil rights and liberties, devalue their humanity, and shame them! In fact it's never about hurting the women--it's about protecting the babies. (and I suppose protecting women from themselves, because women just don't know any better about their own bodies and their own lives--bullshit) Besides, once a woman becomes pregnant what's the point of even recognizing her as a human being deserving of any civil rights and liberties--or any respectful attention for that matter? But if a woman deviates from the "pro-life" paradigm that pregnancy is something that women should go through and enjoy no matter what......then we finally acknowledge her existence, and damn her for her "slutty, babykilling" deviation.

[...]The case was argued twice. John Roberts argued it the first time. Deciding not to distance the government from the conduct of the extremist groups would have been well within Roberts' purview.[...]

As if Roberts' past legal activities couldn't get even more disturbing. The U.S. filing an amicus on behalf of the anti-choice extremists definitely reminds us where our government stands when it comes to women's right to autonomy, and their right to be protected from these terrorists. Very unsettling. These anti-choice extremists are *misogynist terrorists!* And those who would give clumps of cells and fetuses rights and protections over the already alive woman who is carrying it within her uterus and nourishing it with her body--and even sacrificing her body or even her life, *are misogynists.* You politically and/or physically deny her the ri