t-tosti_vasey

January 20, 2013

Why We are Pushing for Ratification of the ERA (the Equal Rights Amendment)

Today at noon, President Barack Obama was sworn into office in a private ceremony.  Tomorrow, he will be publicly sworn in for and give his second-term Inaugural speech on the western steps of the US Capitol. He won his second term much to the efforts and votes of women and people of color.

We have come a long way since the 14th Amendment was ratified, ending slavery and adding people of color to full protections under our US Constitution.  Yet after all this time, the women who helped put President Obama into office for his second term do not yet have that same level of protection.

Women worked to end slavery and put men of color on the same constitutional footing as white, land-owning men. It’s now our turn.

I have been working with an amazing online group of women and men dedicated to equality for all. Our current effort is to gain 25,000 signatures on a White House ERA petition by February 10, 2012.  There are now three weeks left before this deadline is reached; so far, we have gathered over one quarter of the necessary signatures required.  When we reach the 25,000 signatures, President Obama’s administration has agreed to respond to our request to

Vigorously support women’s rights by fully engaging in efforts to ratify the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Many people have asked, “Why this amendment is needed,” or “Isn’t it already part of the US Constitution?”  The bottom-line question being asked, “Why should I sign this in the first place?”

One of my colleagues has put together a well-written, cogent argument to answer these questions and I asked her to submit a guest blog.

Marti J. Sladek graciously agreed.  Ms. Sladek is an attorney in Chicago. She owns “Speaking Up & Speaking Out” through which she speaks, writes and advocates on women’s issues, work, the law and public policy. You can find her on Twitter, Facebook and Linked In. Here’s what she has to say…

Yes, the Equal Rights Amendment is back. No, it is not already the law of the land, although 3/4 of Americans believe it is. A new generation of feminist leaders has joined and breathed new life into the fight to put equality and equal protection for women and girls into the US Constitution. The first version, written in suffragette days and resurrected by the 70s “women’s libbers’, was passed by 2/3 of Congress then fell three states short of the necessary 3/4 for ratification. That is why you see references to the “three-state strategy” in efforts to resurrect the Amendment.

There was very little activity surrounding the effort on this amendment for more than three decades. This raises questions about whether, even if three more states vote for it, the ratification would be valid, because the legislation that began it did not address whether there was a deadline; some say that after such a long dormancy, the issue was DOA. Others, including some formal legal opinions, say if no deadline was part of the law, then the amendment still lives. Note: if you want to refresh your knowledge on how the Constitution gets modified, read Article V.

One way or the other, we have to get it done. Justice Scalia himself underscored the need when he told a legal publication in the fall of 2011 that the 14th Amendment does not protect women as its intent was only racial equality.

Did you know that “gender” was inserted into some civil rights bills in the 60s as a protected class for discrimination purposes primarily in a failed effort to defeat civil rights legislation? So some of the protections we women have are somewhat accidental!

Lately, we have seen serious attacks on gains women have made through legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964–Title VII, employment discrimination; Title IX, discrimination in education at all levels; Title X, gender equity in health care, including reproductive rights–and even laws governing equal pay. Wisconsin rescinded their state Equal Pay Act last year. As we saw during the 2012 campaign season, efforts to limit or gut these and other civil rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act are underway at the state and federal level.

Courts have further eroded the impact of these laws. The Congress is less likely to overturn negative decisions from the Supreme Court than in even the recent past. Some GOP members who used to sponsor ERA have withdrawn support for fear of the Tea Party. New state legislatures could even try to rescind previous ratification of ERA! “Personhood” for embryos and eggs–but of course, not sperm–as well as restrictions on plain vanilla birth control, redefining rape, forced vaginal probes…the list goes on.

The arguments against ERA in the 1970s were speculative then and have been proven silly over the last thirty years. The horror of unisex washrooms? Give me a break: they exist all over the world, both public and in all our homes. Drafting women? No more military draft, and women are serving, yes, even in combat, albeit unofficially. The list goes on. And some bugaboos have been superseded by discrimination cases and the economic reality of women working outside the home. Plus the states that do have equal protection for females in their own constitutions are doing fine, thank you. It will be interesting, entertaining and angering to watch opponents claim, oh so wrongly, that we simply don’t need it.

Why do we need Equal Rights Amendment? Because, as we have seen, state and federal laws can be changed relatively easily. Because the courts do not give as much consideration to gender as they do to race, which is specifically mentioned in the (amended) constitution. When a government body has a policy that tends to treat one race differently than another, there is a high level of scrutiny: they have to have a truly compelling reason to get away with that kind of discrimination, along the lines of legal analysis for violating freedom of speech. Gender only gets “intermediate” scrutiny. Just a pretty good reason for treating women differently suffices. ERA could well change that.

Likewise, that kind of “logic” is reflected in analysis of issues such as sexual harassment, civil cases that generally involve private employers, landlords, etc. When a person is singled out because of race, called names, etc. the cases reflect the presumption that such conduct was unwanted and is inherently offensive (the “N” word for example). In sexual harassment, the victim must meet an initial of burden of proof that the inappropriate behavior (the “B” or even “C” word) is unwelcome and creates a hostile work environment, an extra legal hoop to jump through compared to other kinds of discrimination. The ERA could help change that, too.

So the ERA is NOT “just” symbolic, as important and critical as the symbol is. Think the symbolism is not important? Then think of how we wear religious icons as jewelry, or wave the flag on the Fourth of July. And think of that symbolism as we try to tell emerging democracies to give a fair shake to women. Such hypocrisy when we don’t have equality even on paper here! How do we explain this to them, let alone our own daughters and granddaughters? (I had a tough time trying to explain this in Cuba where women have had legal equality for decades, albeit aligned against cultural machismo; A Cuban legislator advised me, “Keep fighting!”)

The ultimate decision is with the States, generally your state legislatures. Believe it or not, it is buried in committee again if it exists at all in many states and was actually defeated in Arkansas, Florida and Virginia in the last two legislative sessions. The old red herrings about gay agendas, ordaining women as pastors in conservative religions, and, in Virginia, admitting women into the Citadel military academy prevailed. Or simply “too costly” or “not a high priority.” Even in a blue state such as Illinois, it doesn’t get out of committee despite being reintroduced year after year in the General Assembly; ironically, Illinois put gender equality into our new state constitution in 1971 but did not pass the federal one in 1982–go figure!

For those who think all this women’s rights stuff is passé here, think about something that struck me recently. My Mom is still alive, old but going strong, and an active voter in a swing state. (Oh, how we agree to disagree on politics!) Women got to vote in the federal election for the first time in HER lifetime, only one generation back. How far have we really come, baby? I believed back-in-the-day that I would be around long enough to see a woman in the White House, long enough to see the Constitution specifically address my rights. I have waited long enough. Have you?

ERA words button

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

This is all it says; why such controversy?

So… take a moment, go to http://wh.gov/P6gP, sign in (or create) your White House account, and then sign the petition.  Once done, please spread the word to your friends, colleagues, and family to do the same.

January 6, 2013

White House Petition for the ERA

The Equal Rights Amendment was originally proposed by Alice Paul in 1923 after the 20th Amendment giving women the right to vote.  It has not yet become part of the US Constitution. It is time to put pressure on the White House to help get women included in our premiere document of rights.

What is the full text of the ERA? Here it is:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

What does the ERA do? Basically, it clarifies the legal status of sex discrimination in the courts and would raise women’s legal status to the same level of constitutional protection that men and people of color receive.

The ERA was introduced into Congress every session since 1923 until it passed in 1972.  Amendments to the Constitution require three-fourths of all states to ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the US Constitution.  It currently sits three states shy of reaching this threshold and has been at that point since June 30, 1982, the date by which Congress said all state ratification had to occur.

Since 1982, the ERA has been reintroduced in every session of Congress. In the 112th Congress (2011-2012), two sets of ERA ratification bills were introduced. S.J.Res. 21 (lead sponsor, Senator Robert Menendez, D-NJ) and H.J.Res. 69 (lead sponsors, Representative Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, and Representative Judy Biggert, R-IL) is the bill  that would have started the process all over from the beginning.

A second bill introduced by Representative, now Senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)—H.J.Res. 47—is a much simpler bill. It would remove the ERA’s ratification deadline and make it part of the Constitution when three more states ratify. There are 15 states that have not ratified the ERA. They are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

This route, often called the Madison amendment route or the three-state process, follows the 203 year route taken by the 27th amendment. That amendment was originally introduced by James Madison in 1789 as part of package of the proposed Bill of Rights amendments. There was no time limit placed on passage and in 1992 this amendment became the 27th amendment to the US Constitution.

Legal opinion supports the conclusion that the Constitution does not impose a time limit for ratification of amendments because states only ratify the text of the amendment, not any proposing clauses.  The time limit placed into the ERA bill passed in 1972 and the extension passed in 1979 was one of the proposing clauses. The other proposing clause states that the amendment goes into effect two years after the ERA is ratified by three-quarters’ of the states. With the passage of the Madison Amendment 203 years after it was first proposed, this argument against sun-setting an amendment was strengthened.

Both sets of ERA bills failed to pass once again in the 112th Congress and are expected to be reintroduced in the 113th Congress. As I previously said, getting three more states to ratify the ERA using the Madison amendment route is a shorter and somewhat easier route to place women in the Constitution and to afford them the constitutional protections that men and people of color receive.  President Obama, using his bully pulpit can help make this happen.

President Obama has created a petition on the White House website. He has said that he will respond to any petition that receives 25,000 or more signatures within a one-month period. There is currently a petition on the website calling on President Obama to “Support and Advance the Equal Rights Amendment, originally introduced in 1972.” The petition deadline is January 17,2013.

Here is the link to the petition. Please click, sign in to the website (you will need to create an account if this is your first time here), and then add your name to the petition.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/support-and-advance-equal-rights-amendment-originally-introduced-1972/JPFwT541

And once you sign the petition, ask your friends, family, and colleagues to sign as well. If we can get this to go viral, then President Obama will respond.

Thanks.

January 3, 2013

Petition to End Rape Immunity in India

Avaaz is organizing a global petition to help reduce the incidence of rape in India following the rape and death of the 23-year old medical student in New Delhi. According to their website Avaaz “is a global web movement to bring people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere.”

This international human rights organization has created a petition that will be delivered to Indian Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde. Mr. Shinde will be meeting with other government officials on January 4 to discuss the issue of India’s rampant rape crisis. There is some fear that without global pressure—as well as the internal pressure—little may come from this meeting. Here’s what the petition says:

For too long, violent criminals have attacked India’s women and girls with no fear of consequences. It is time to bring an end to the war on women. We call on you to take immediate action to set up fast-track courts for victims of sexual violence across the country, and take every step necessary to protect India’s women and ensure justice is done.

As of 11:25 am Eastern Standard Time, 37,342 people from around the world have signed on to this call for reform. If you are interested in joining this global chorus, please go to the Avaaz petition site and sign on.

Thanks.

January 2, 2013

The Indian Gang Rape-Murder Just Scratched the Surface

This is a great summary of the history of gender-cleansing in India in the wake of the gang rape and murder of the 23-year old female medical student in New Delhi, India.  It was written by feminist Phyllis Chesler, Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at City University of New York. Thought I’d share her thoughts with you.

The Indian Gang Rape-Murder Just Scratched the Surface.

 

January 2, 2013

Fiscal Cliff, Sandy, VAWA and Congress’s Adjournment

Last night, I stayed up to watch the final vote on the Biden-McConnell compromise Fiscal Cliff bill in the US House of Representatives on C-Span. The final vote was 257-167 on the bill. Most of the Republicans voted against the bill and most of the Democrats voted for the bill.

No one on either side of the aisle was particularly happy with this compromise. Yet it was a bipartisan vote, albeit a reluctant one. As economist Joseph LaVorgna of Deustche Bank said after the vote,

“Nothing really has been fixed. There are much bigger philosophical issues that we aren’t even addressing yet.” 

Concerns that were raised by the progressive Democrats who voted against the bill include:

This deal mostly focused on tax cuts, leaving the issue of spending cuts to be handled about two months from now.  This will lead to another fiscal cliff as we butt up against the debt ceiling just like did in August 2011 as well as the sequestration fight that was put off because of this vote.

  1. This deal mostly focused on tax cuts, leaving the issue of spending cuts to be handled about two months from now.  This will lead to another fiscal cliff as we butt up against the debt ceiling just like did in August 2011 as well as the sequestration fight that was put off because of this vote.
    1. The debt ceiling fight will likely occur as early as February when we hit the $16.4 trillion federal borrowing limit so the government can keep paying its bills.
    2. The sequestration battle will occur in March as a direct result of the three-month delay of dealing with spending cuts that was written into the Biden-McConnell bill.
  2. Tax cuts were made permanent while funding for unemployment, a delay in cutbacks on Medicare payments, and an extension of the Farm bill that stopped the price of milk from automatically doubling are only temporary.  As Rep. Rosa DeLuca (D-CT) said on the floor, this bill did not do enough to benefit working families.
  3. Only those making above $400,000 ($450,000 for federally recognized marriages) rather than those making above $250,000 will see an increase in their marginal tax rate. This reduces the amount of additional revenue for balancing the budget. As Senator Tom Harkin said during the Senate debate, “the billions lost by raising the threshold to $400,000 will come out of the pockets of grandparents and working families across the nation.”
  4. As a result of this bill, now law, even more draconian cuts to government-sponsored programs will ultimately be seen.  This includes funding for programs like education for our children, job training, and other critical supports for the middle class. And more funds for emergencies are likely to disappear or will be quashed as with what happened with the Sandy relief bill immediately after the fiscal cliff vote.

Philosophical questions about what the federal government should or ought to be paying for can be seen, for example, in two issues of concern to families across the country. Both of these issues failed to be addressed by the House of Representatives before they adjourned just after midnight this morning. They must now start negotiations all over again when the new 2013-2014 Congressional session begins on Thursday, January 4, 2013.

The first issue the House failed to fully address was the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA is the law that provides funding to the Office of Violence against Women (OVW), to law enforcement, and to the judicial system to deal with all forms of interpersonal violence such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA was originally created in 1995. The bill must be reauthorized every 5 years. This means that the last reauthorization should have occurred in 2010! The hold back? Rather than improving the bill, many members of Congress, particularly Republicans in the US House of Representatives called for both cutbacks in funding and in who will be covered.

Over a belief that any person experiencing interpersonal violence be protected, the US Senate stood firm and refused to consider the exclusionary House VAWA bill that eliminated coverage of college students, immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBTQ people. Since the House refused to take up the Senate bill, reauthorizing VAWA will now have to start all over again in both houses when the new Congress convenes. Meanwhile victims and survivors of interpersonal violence are surviving on a temporary funding basis through March 2013 to cover anti-violence programs to save and improve their lives. Additionally, with the new “fiscal cliff,” – i.e. sequestration – will result in nearly 200,000 fewer victims receiving lifesaving and cost-effective services if both VAWA and sequestration are not resolved by March.

The second issue that the House failed to address was emergency appropriations to assist the victims of last October’s Super Storm Sandy. The vote on the fiscal cliff bill occurred at about 11:45 pm last night. Immediately after that, the Presiding Chair of the House, Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), called for one-minute speeches. The second speaker was Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). He announced that Speaker of the House John Boehner had pulled the bill and that as a result there would be no emergency funding for the victims of Hurricane Sandy forthcoming from this session of Congress.

At that point, Representatives from both parties from across the country began speaking out in anger and frustration that the people who were victimized by this natural disaster would not receive the emergency funding desperately needed to put food and warm housing over their heads at this winter time. Here are some of the comments made some of the Representatives of both parties on the floor and again this morning:

“This Congress is apparently leaving town without responding to [the Sandy] emergency. I am deeply disappointed … and the people who have been damaged by Sandy, including Gov. [Chris] Christie, a Republican, and Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo, a Democrat, should be deeply disappointed, and yes, angry, that this Congress would adjourn without addressing the pain of our fellow citizens.” – Steny Hoyer (D-MD) in his opening comment.

“To those who say FEMA has not yet disbursed all the funds it has to assist families and businesses, I would tell them, they deeply underestimate the damage in these areas and the wide range of assistance required to alleviate the pain and suffering.” – Steny Hoyer (D-MD) in a comment made about nine hours later in response to Rep. Eric Canter’s (R-VA) remark that funds weren’t urgently needed.

“I can’t imagine that type of indifference, that type of disregard, that cavalier attitude being shown to any other part of the country.” – Peter King (R-NY)

“I don’t think I’ve ever been as angry as I am tonight. For us in the Northeast to be treated this way is absolutely unconscionable. Tonight I am ashamed. Shame on you, Mr. Speaker.” – Eliot Engel (D-NY)

“It is with an extremely heavy heart that I stand here, almost in disbelief and somewhat ashamed. It’s inexcusable. And I am here tonight saying to myself, for the first time, that I’m not proud of the decision my team has made.” – Michael Grimm (R-NY)

For more comments from other representatives and a video of what happened, check out the ABC News article and video.

Adjournment without dealing with pressing issues of our citizenry. Philosophical differences resulting in gridlock and endangerment to people across the country. We need to stop throwing people under the bus. Shame on the 112th Congress!

We need to have a Congress that cares. Hopefully the new 113th Congress will be more willing to see and work on the concerns and needs of our country.

That’s my wish for the New Year.

December 29, 2012

Violence against Women and Children: A Worldwide, National, and Local Epidemic

Violence against women and children is a worldwide, national, and local epidemic.

Yesterday, a 23-year-old medical student died in a Singapore hospital of injuries she sustained December 16, 2012 in a gang rape and severe beating on a bus in New Delhi, India. She was attacked by six men who took turns raping her and beating both her and her male friend, stripping both of them, and then throwing them off the bus.  This is just one of many forms of femicide that have occurred in India, which include rape, sexual assault, honor killings, killing of girls 5 years and younger by starvation and violence, and dowry-related murders, among others.

This is just part of the world-wide epidemic of violence against women.  According to One Billion Rising, one in three women will be beaten or raped during her lifetime.  According to the United Nations,

Violence against women takes a dismaying variety of forms, from domestic abuse and rape to child marriages and female circumcision. All are violations of the most fundamental human rights.

Forms of violence vary by country, from sex-selection abortions in countries that value men over women, to female genital mutilation that leaves women maimed and traumatized, to forced marriages, to sexual harassment and intimidation at work, to trafficking and prostitution, to rape, incest, domestic violence, murder, and rape as a weapon of war. Some of this violence occurs within the family home.  Some of this violence occurs within the community.  And some of this violence is perpetrated by the state.  It can be physical, sexual, and/or psychological.  All forms are traumatic and in some instances, deadly.

UniFem’s data on violence against women is even starker than that presented by One Billion Rising.  They report that up to 70 percent of women and girls experience sexual or physical violence during their lifetime. Among women ages 15-44, the incidence of this form of violence – mostly perpetrated by husbands, intimate partners, or people the women know – accounts for more disability and deaths than occur from cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war combined.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports a pervasive problem of “intimate partner violence (IPV).”  This is defined as rape, physical violence, and stalking by a current or former intimate partner, either gay or straight of either sex or gender identity.  On average, 24 people experience some form of IPV every minute in the US.  This is over 12 million women (mostly) and some men each year, including 1 million women who are raped each year.

This violence occurs against both children and adults.  The majority of victims are women and girls, but they also include some men and young boys, such as the young boys here in Centre County, PA who were victimized by former PSU football coach Jerry Sandusky.  As a women’s rights activist, I have been speaking out against all forms of violence against women and children since at least 1994.  You can see a history of the local issues on the National NOW website here, and here as well as in The Nation.

There is a question that this info raises in my mind. What is the status of protections to reduce violence against women locally, in the US, and around the world? The picture/answer to this question is not great.

Locally, two cases of violence have made national news.  The most well-known case is that of former PSU football coach Jerry Sandusky; he was found guilty on 45 of 48 charges related to child sexual assault and is now essentially serving a life sentence in the state penitentiary.  Penn State University received a 60 million dollar sanction from the NCAA for failure to properly handle intimate partner violence, particularly child sexual abuse  within the Athletic department, and Judge Louis Freeh issued a scathing indictment against PSU’s upper administration, the Athletics’ department, and the Board of Trustees for covering up, failing to protect potential and actual victims of sexual violence, and failing to provide appropriate board oversight. And the University could face severe fines for failure to report IPV incidences to the US Department of Education under the Clery Act.  Despite these sanctions, violence on campus still continues.  The other case is the murder here in Centre County of PSU alumna Amy Homan McGee in 2001 by her husband, Vincent.  What happened in this domestic violence case was made into a 2010 PBS documentary titled “Telling Amy’s Story.”

These cases are just two examples among many that occur here at the local level. According to the State College, PA police department, there were 76 reported cases of domestic violence and 29 cases of sexual assault in the borough alone in 2011-2012.  Yet the incidence appears to be much higher.  According to the Centre County Women’s Resource Center, over 1,000 people in the county were known to be affected by domestic violence and another 200 reported being sexually assaulted throughout the entire county during the same time period.

To assist victims of stalking, domestic violence, and sexual assault, our local community created a county-wide task force of service providers and advocates to assist, education, and advocate for the reduction and elimination of all forms of IPV.  This task force has been in existence for 20+ years.  This task force is doing a decent job of working on IPV issues and providing services and education to the community, but is now facing ever increasing funding issues.

Funding for programs at the local level come largely from state and national governments.  Both levels of funding are in jeopardy.  Here in PA, for example, Governor Corbett eliminated General Assistance funding for everyone on August 1, 2012; a larger plurality of the recipients of this very limited funding were women fleeing domestic violence who used the minimal monies available to find housing for themselves and their children.

At the national level, Congress has failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provides funding to the Office of Violence against Women (OVW), to law enforcement, and to the judicial system to deal with all forms of IPV.  VAWA was originally created in 1995.  The bill must be reauthorized every 5 years. This means that the last reauthorization should have occurred in 2010!  The holdback?  Rather than improving the bill, many members of Congress, particularly Republicans in the US House of Representatives are calling for both cutbacks in funding and who will be covered.  We are now at a standstill since, appropriately, the US Senate is standing firm on ensuring that all victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking – including college students, immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBTQ people – are covered.  The new session of Congress will convene in January 2013 and an entirely new bill will have to be crafted.  Meanwhile victims and survivors of IPV are surviving on a temporary funding basis through March 2013 to cover anti-violence programs to save and improve their lives.  Additionally, the looming “fiscal cliff,” sequestration will result in nearly 200,000 fewer victims receiving lifesaving and cost-effective services.

And returning to the international level, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has a clear statement that all countries that have signed the treaty take “appropriate” steps to eliminate violence against women and girls.  The US signed the treaty in 1980 but never ratified it.  India ratified CEDAW in 1993, but as can be seen from recent events there, doesn’t enforce this obligation.

So where does this leave us?

Action is needed.  We need to get out on the streets and call for full funding of programs designed to reduce and eliminate violence.  Eve Ensler is organizing One Billion Rising on February 14, 2013.  Her call states,

We are calling on ONE BILLION women and those who love them to WALK OUT, DANCE, RISE UP, and DEMAND an end to this violence.

It is a one-day strike and an “invitation to dance” that calls for the end of all forms of violence against women and children. If you are interested in joining women and those who love them from around the world, you can download the One Billion Rising toolkit to plan your event here.

You can also take action by telling leaders here in India as well as here in the US and in your state that enough is enough.

  1. Tell the Indian Prime Minister to meet the three demands of the women of India – 1) talk directly to the women of India about how you will deal with this violence, 2) begin expediting cases against Indian politicians who have records of alleged rape and other charges of violence against women, and 3) immediately reinstate Police Woman Damayanti Sen who was fired after she protected a gang-rape victim;
  2. Contact your US Representative and US Senators. Tell them to immediately introduce a new bill similar to the 2011-2012 Senate bill (S.1925) that covers ALL victims of violence.  This needs to be passed before March 2013 when the temporary funding extension that passed in November ends.  The new bill needs to be comprehensive and include all current victims of violence as well as battered immigrant women, Native American Women, LGBTQ persons, and violence survivors on college campuses.  You can find out more information about this issue on the National NOW website, including several links to action alerts on VAWA.  Also, tell your US Senators to finally vote for and ratify CEDAW without any reservations.
  3. Learn more about what your state’s laws and funding for programs on violence against women provide.  A good source of information for each state can be found on the OVW website; there is a page on that website that links you to resources in each state.  Once you get to your state’s links, you should be able to find action alerts and information to help improve funding and programs within your state.
December 25, 2012

Season’s Greetings and Peace and Harmony to All

(Picture of our Shohola Peace Bell)

Season’s Greetings to everyone.
To those who celebrated Hanukkah December 8-December 16, “Happy Hanukkah!”

To those who celebrated Ramadan last July and August (July 19-August 18) and will be celebrating it in 2013 from July 9 to August 7, “Ramadan Kareem!”

To those who celebrate Christmas either today or on January 6, “Merry Christmas!”

To those who celebrate Kwanzaa December 26-January 1,  “Umoja (Unity), Kujichagulia (Self determination), Ujima (Collective work and responsibility), Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics), Nia (Purpose), Kuumba (Creativity), and Jmani (Faith).”

To those who celebrate the 2013 Chinese New Year of the snake (my birth-year symbol, btw) on February 10, “Wish you or bless you New Year’s progress!”

I’m sure I missed someone’s celebration of peace, family, and community.  So to you, I wish you “Happy Holidays!”

And to everyone, “Have a joyous, prosperous, and, especially, a Peaceful New Year!”  May it be one of tolerance, acceptance, friendship, positive interactions with others, and an end to violence of all kinds.

December 17, 2012

Gendered Racism or the Treatment of Black Women who Speak Out

This afternoon I read an article about what I would call Gendered Racism in an online magazine called The Root.  The article is titled “What Really Makes Black Women Angry at Work.”  It is about a black meteorologist (Rhonda Lee) who was fired for speaking out on for an attack on her looks and about Susan Rice’s anger over her treatment by Republicans.

Ms. Lee was a TV meteorologist at KTBS-TV in Shreveport, LA who respectfully responded on the TV station’s Facebook page to attacks on her looks and how she wears her hair.  Her statement appeared after the station refused to respond to these attacks. This refusal was a very different response than that taken by another ABC affiliate in LaCross, WI that allowed Morning Anchor Jennifer Livingston—a white woman—to defend herself on-air when she was attacked in a similar manner.

Ms. Rice, the current US Ambassador to the United Nations, told President Obama and the nation last week that she would not accept a nomination to be the next US Secretary of State once it “became clear that [her] potential nomination would spark an enduring partisan battle.”

Here’s a snippet from the article in The Root:

The reception and treatment of black women can be vastly different, as evidenced by Lee’s case and the railroading of Rice. Race can complicate an already complicated situation and perhaps add another layer of stress to the workplace. Why should Lee have to endure criticism about her appearance that is directly related to her racial and cultural heritage as opposed to being evaluated on her performance?… Rice had to bow out of the running for the secretary of state position in order to avoid the difficult prospect of defending herself — and perhaps being perceived as coming off as belligerent — against a campaign aimed to block her from the job.

That Rice can be discouraged from pursuing the position — a job for which she perhaps has prepared for some of her adult life — is troubling. In a similar way, there’s Lee’s reality — a black woman who got fired from a job because, God forbid, she stood up for herself. Even though Lee used a friendly tone and took the road less traveled by many Americans — a respectful response — she has been
punished and portrayed as an angry black woman. When it came to Rice, she faced harsh assessments about her competency and ultimately had to stand down.

Gendered racism is the intersection of two forms of discrimination—that of sexism and racism.  It is the discrimination of a subset of people within each of these groups of color and gender. It can also be called double discrimination.

The actions by the GOP on Ms. Rice’s work and by KTBS-TV on Ms. Lee for standing up for herself are both acts that are, as The Root article states, attempts to silence black women in the workplace.

Acts like these are hurtful to women of color.  They send the wrong message that bullying is ok; that prejudice is ok; and that when women, particularly women of color, stand up for what’s right, it’s ok to silence them in any manner you can think of.  This, in my opinion, is discrimination pure and simple.

As part of The Root article, there is a link to a change.org petition to the KTBS-TV calling for them to rescind that decision.  I signed that petition.

I also went searching for a petition that condemns the GOP attacks on Susan Rice.  Although the petition was created before Ms. Rice said she would not seek the Secretary of State position, I still think the petition is apropos. So here’s the link for that one in case you want to sign it as well.  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/743/502/475/stand-with-susan-rice-against-gop-attacks/.

 

December 16, 2012

My Holiday Gift-Giving Wish

During this holiday season, I’m hoping my friends and family will join me to help raise funds for The National Organization for Women Foundation through Causes Wishes. My donation page is located at http://wishes.causes.com/wishes/495188.

I chose The National Organization for Women Foundation because the NOW Foundation provides educational outreach and information to the public that focuses on a broad range of women’s rights issues. These include economic justice, pay equity, racial discrimination, women’s health and body image, women with disabilities, reproductive rights and justice, family law, marriage and family formation rights of same-sex couples, representation of women in the media and government, and global feminist issues.

Please consider giving to my Holiday Wish, and together we can make the world a better place. Any donation is fully tax-deductible. If you can’t afford to donate, I’d really appreciate if you’d share this request with your friends.

Note, the Causes Wishes program is run on Facebook by Network for Good. They have a link on their website to the NOW Foundation’s GuideStar report showing that they are a legitimate charitable organization. If you do not have a Facebook account you can donate through GuideStar’s donation page or directly to the NOW Foundation.

Thanks so much! Happy Holidays!

December 14, 2012

Talking to Children

Tragically this morning, at least 20 young children and 7 adults were shot and killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and home of the alleged shooter in Newtown, CT. This is a very sad day for the families and community of Newtown as well as with the rest of the country. My heart goes out to these families.

And my concern also goes out to all of the children across the country who hear about what happened and start questioning “why,” “could this happen at my school,” “who can we trust,” etc. Parents and other that deal directly with young children may also be asking similar questions.

How do you answer these hard questions when violence occurs like this? What do tell your child or the children next door?

As a member of the Board of Directors, I have a connection with one woman who works directly with children. Her name is Nancy Baskett. She also serves as a member of the National NOW Board of Directors. Her main job is as a 4-H Extension Educator in Pierce County (Tacoma), Washington. After this tragedy this morning, she emailed out a help sheet entitled “Talking to Kids About Violence, Terrorism, and War.” I’m posting the link to this help sheet so that those of you who read this can use it and/or spread the information in case you have any children that are asking questions.

Highlights from this sheet include the following suggestions:

  • Listen to the kids and don’t overwhelm them with what you know
  • Ask them what they are worried about, what information they have and don’t have, and encourage them to share their thoughts and feelings
  • Listen and listen some more
  • Model open discussion
  • Ask thoughtful, open-ended questions that can’t easily be answered with a yes or no
  • Ask clarifying questions about what the kid means since their ideas of violence may be very different from yours
  • Answer the questions they ask to the best of your ability.
  • Acknowledge their feelings and don’t deny or play down either the seriousness of the situation or the feelings they present
  • Help them to feel physically safe. This includes:
    • Maintaining normal routines and schedules
    • Stop them (or yourself) from stereotyping people from different backgrounds, cultures, or countries
  • Help kids maintain a sense of hope by helping them to take action when they feel the need to do so. This could be things they want to do like writing a letter or finding their own unique way to support their schoolmates or communities either locally OR in this case, providing support for the kids in Sandy Hook, CT.

There are many more suggestions on this help sheet. Please take the time to read and help others.

This is a sad day in the lives of everyone. Please take a moment to hug your family and friends. And listen.