A Women's Questionnaire for Democratic Candidates
Run Date: 04/18/08
By WeNews Staff

Through the Democratic primaries, women have been divided between supporting Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Women's eNews readers, correspondents and editors submitted questions they'd like to ask the candidates to help decide how to vote.

Obama and Clinton

(WOMENSENEWS)--Women's individual life journeys refract our view of what constitutes "women's issues." As a voting bloc, women will determine who will be the next president. Women usually vote in higher numbers than their male counterparts--in the 2004 election, women were 60 percent of voter turnout--and to date, record numbers of women of all ages have voted in the primaries.

Breadwinners might dwell on the unmet need for high-quality affordable child care. Caregivers might talk about their social contributions being undervalued and having no safety net. Women in every walk of life who are not safe at home might focus on the failure of the legal system to offer better protection.


Power of the Women's Vote Forum, Bryn Mawr College
April 20, 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm
Power of the Women's Vote Forum - Bryn Mawr College, Thomas Great Hall

WVPA is proud to co-sponsor this event. Speakers participating in the forum include: Liz Abzug, Founder of the Bella Abzug Leadership Institute for Disadvantaged Women; Judge Ann Butchart, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; Joanne Epps, Professor of Law, Temple University; Risa Vetri Ferman, District Attorney, Ontgomery County Rita Henley Jensen, Foundation andamp; Editor-in-Chief of Women's eNews; Carol Tracy Executive Director, Women's Law Project; Senator Connie Williams, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Lynn Yeakel, Chair of Women's Health andamp; Leadership, Drexel University. Refreshments will be provided. Register by contacting sheila_mcdaid@comcast.net .

How will such concerns be met by the next president?

That's the big question behind all the following queries from readers, staffers and advocates gathered by Women's eNews.

This Sunday, April 20, two days before the Pennsylvania primary, Women's eNews will co-sponsor a nonpartisan forum on the power of the women's vote at Bryn Mawr College, just outside Philadelphia. Editor in chief Rita Henley Jensen will moderate the discussion among a family court judge, a law professor, a district attorney, a former member of Congress and the head of a women's legal rights organization. Representatives of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are expected to make appearances as well.

. . . . .

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn...

how many of you got to see erika falk on cspan this weekend? she was talking about her book, and how little media coverage of the women who have run for president since 1872 (eight) hasn't really changed much. (counting the seconds until the deniers weigh in)


Women for President

Media Bias in Eight Campaigns
Author: Erika Falk






A timely analysis of gender bias in press coverage of presidential campaigns

When Hillary Clinton announced her 2008 bid for president she was the Democratic front-runner. Despite this, she received less coverage than Barack Obama, who trailed her in the polls. Such a disparity is indicative of the gender bias the media has demonstrated in covering women candidates since the first woman ran for America's highest office in 1872. Tracing the campaigns of eight women who ran for president through 2004--Victoria Woodhull, Belva Lockwood, Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Patricia Schroeder, Lenora Fulani, Elizabeth Dole, and Carol Moseley Braun--Erika Falk finds little progress in the fair treatment of women candidates. A thorough comparison of the women's campaigns to those of their male opponents reveals a worrisome trend of sexism in press coverage--a trend that still persists today.

While women have been elected to the highest offices in countries such as England, Germany, and India, the idea that a woman could be president of the United States provokes scoffs and ridicule. The press portrays female candidates as unviable, unnatural, and incompetent, and often ignores or belittles women instead of reporting their ideas and intent. Since voters learn most details about presidential candidates through media outlets, Falk asserts that this prevailing bias calls into question the modern democratic assumption that men and women have comparable access to positions of power.

"With Hillary Clinton a serious contender for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Falk's book is timely."--Publishers Weekly

"The people running Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign probably haven’t made time to leaf through the University of Illinois Press’s most recent catalog. Too bad for them. They could have placed an early bulk order for Erika Falk’s Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns. . . . It seems like a book that Clinton’s staff would find useful – and not just as a projectile to bounce off the heads of members of the press corps." --Inside Higher Ed

" does an excellent job job of pointing out what has changed and what has stayed the same in media coverage of women's political participation (why, for example, always the preoccupation with clothes and hair!)."--Library Journal


. . . .

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catal...

I could go on with an extensive list, but these two will start. the reality is that many of the words used to insult women since the patriarchy were originally titles of goddesses, words of honour, and I wear them proudly. the last time a man called me a c***, I clasped my hand to my chest and gushed, "you called me a c***, that is one of the titles of the goddess. I had no idea you thought so highly of me. nobody has ever honoured me that much before". I guarantee he has never used that word again.



Bitch – This became a naughty word in Christian Europe because it was one of the sacred titles of the Goddess, Artemis-Diana, leader of the “hunting dogs.”…In Christian terms, “son of a bitch” was considered insulting not because it meant a dog, but because it meant a devil-that is, a spiritual son of the pagan Goddess.” Women’s Encyclopedia of Myths & Secrets by Barbara G. Walker

Cunt – Derivative of the Oriental Great Goddess as Cunti, or Kunda, the Yoni of the Uni-verse. From the same root came county, kin, and kind. Related forms were Latin cunnus, Middle English cunte, Old Norse and Frisian kunta, Basque cuna. Other cognates are “cunabula,” a cradle, or earliest abode; “Cunina,” a Roman Goddess who protected children in the cradle; “cunctipotent,” all-powerful (i.e., having cunt-magic); “cunicle,” a hole or passage; “cuniculate,” penetrated by a passage; “cundy,” a coveted culvert; also cunning, kenning, and ken: knowledge, learning, insight, remembrance, wisdom. Cunt is “not slang, dialect or any marginal form, but a true language word, and of the oldest stock.” Barbara G. Walker – Women’s Encyclopedia of Myths & Secrets

Adam – Adamah, meaning “bloody clay,” though scholars more delicately translate it “red earth.” Barbara G. Walker – Women’s Encyclopedia of Myths & Secrets

http://www.ymib.com/daily-inspiration/insp...

time the word "black" is used, substitute "women"

you might, then, have some small idea of the destructive force that was, is, and continues to be, sexism and patriarchy in this country.

for the last several months here on DU, I have noticed a very interesting phenomenon. supporters of barack obama feel free to be as hateful, vile, vitriolic and downright ugly about hillary clinton as they please, but, nobody had better say anything negative, or even the least bit questioning, about their chosen one.

quite frankly, the sort of messianic fervor displayed by some obama supporters gives one pause. (for some reason, I was reminded of a line from heinlein's "future histories")

there are many on DU who vehemently deny that sexism still exists in this country, no matter how much evidence is provided. A couple of weeks ago, I briefly pointed out the sexism of our language.

Today, I simply want to say that all one has to do is look at the battle over reproductive rights. WHO is making the laws about women's bodies? men, for the most part. WHO truly runs the anti-choice groups, such as operation rescue? men, for the most part. WHO are the clinic bombers and murderers of clinic workers and doctors? men. WHO runs the religious groups that are so vehemently anti-choice? men.

remember this: each and every anti-choice argument has, as its core, a deep and profound hatred for women, for each of those arguments, whether religious, or secular, says that some THING, or some ONE, whether it is the sperm, the sperm donor, the church or the state, is more important than the woman. it doesn't matter how you dress it up, or justify it, or deny it, that is the basis of all the arguments.

it really is that simple.

having seen the comments here on DU, after being out of touch for several days, I made a point of reading some of wright's sermons and comments. the "chickens coming home to roost" had several very large kernels of truth in it. some of the rest was quite inflammatory, and offensive (hillary may not have ever been called ******, but she endured the sexism so many women of our years have, and continue to do, a fact he didn't find worth mentioning)

however, obama's comments, at least the ones on KO's program, were very worrisome. the very FIRST thing was his sidestepping of the direct question of "did you fire him, or did he step aside?" talk about mealy-mouthed "it was obvious he needed to step out of the spotlight" ugh. then his disingenuous comments about how wright NEVER preached anything like those comments when he was in the pews. please, that is not even credible, and, at least jonathan alter pointed that out, along with commenting that wright is known for this type of sermon.

this incident is very disturbing on many levels. I have had issue with more than a few of obama's remarks and attitudes, and this is simply confirmation of that.

the other jonathan comment that interested me was his saying that a candidate shouldn't be judged by the remarks of associates. if that is true for obama, it needs to be true for everyone.

venom spewing from so many, has me looking to make sure I haven't, somehow, been transported to that other site.

this all makes me very sad for the future of this party and this country.

"Lems Kristin Talkin Gender Neutral Blues lyrics"

I was walkin down the street one day

Reading the signs that passed my way

And after a while I started to see

That none of those words referred to me...

Good will towards men, all men are created equal,

Praise Him!


Well I asked some friends if they agreed

That they felt left out in the things they read

They told me yes, and added some more

And soon we all felt pretty sore

You got your Congressman, spaceman, sideman....

But I never heard a no house husband!


Well some men came by and a fight began to grow:

"You girls are so dumb you just don't know,

These here are called "generic words"

They're meant to include both the bees and the birds."

Well gee fellas, how am I supposed to know?

I certainly don't feel included!


Ok said I, if that's so true,

I'll just use "woman" to cover the two

"It don't make a difference to us," they said

"If you wanna use woman, go right ahead."

I said, thanks, that's really sisterly of you

Glad to see you believe in sportswomanship!


"Now hold your horses," they started to cry.

I think I'll hold my mares, said I.

"You're leavin all of us guys behind."

Why no, we're all part of womankind.

So don't fret friends, take it like a woman

You'll get used to it, just like we all did!




There has been much discussion--and denial-about sexism, here and, good heavens, even in the media.
Today I am going to focus on one aspect of sexism--language.


During the third wave of the women's movement (60's and 70's), we spent a great deal of time and energy working on gender-neutral language, to replace the so-called "generic"--but always male--terms and expressions. "ChairMAN", "congressMAN", mailMAN", . . .man, . . . . man, . . ..man (feel free to fill in the blanks). There was even a commercial years ago that featured milk-giving cows with male voices. There was no term for a woman who did not wish to be identified by her marital status, until Ms.

Gradually, perception and language shifted, and we heard "chairPERSON", "congressPERSON" or "representative", "mail carrier", etc., and s/he. In recent years, however, I have noticed the return of male-oriented language, even in such esteemed places as the NYT. There are more examples every single day. Women are referred to by their marital status again, and women with titles such as "senator" do not have that honorific used. Think how many times you hear "Mrs. Clinton", rather than "Senator Clinton", although she is hardly the only one.

Think about how many words and phrases that describe or refer to women are used as insults-- "you throw like a girl", "that is girly", "sissy". The list goes on and on. Women are referred to as "ho's" and many other unflattering, insulting terms.

Language expresses our thoughts, our cultural imprints, our deepest biases. Pay attention. Open your ears, and your minds, it is all around you. Do NOT tell us to "be quiet", or that we are making it up, or to "get over it". Think about it.

(I checked urban legends, but didn't see anything


Financial Skullduggery

If Hillary wins in 2008 and Bill is 'appointed' to fill her Senate seat and either live to retire 'they' (together or alone) would get two US Presidential retirement checks, two US Senate retirement checks, and a retirement check from the State of Arkansas . About the only thing they MIGHT NOT get is a Social Securitycheck....but I wouldn't bet on it....

I understand ole Bill has earned $40,000,000 in the past six years.

W hat a guy!

AND THE REST OF THE STORY... Hilarious Rotten Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the 'Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,' which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible a after only 4 years?)

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that?

It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York . Makes sense!

They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life.

Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence 'had' to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff -- and, this is all perfectly
legal!

Rights vs. Rights: An Improbable Collision Course

PIONEERS Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass worked together on abolition, but then had a bitter split over who should be first to get the right to vote — women or blacks.

Bettmann/Corbis
TWO MOVEMENTS Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem with Jesse Jackson, superstars of their eras.
BARRING some seismic scandal, unforeseen late entry (“Al Who?”), or unlikely surge by John Edwards, it is wholly inevitable that the race for the Democratic nomination will end next August in an epochal first.

Either Senator Barack Obama will be the first African-American or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major American political party. One of them will take the stage at Denver’s Pepsi Center, specked with confetti and soaked in history as a culminating figure of one of the great ideological movements of the last century — civil rights or women’s rights.

To this point, both Mr. Obama and (to a lesser degree) Mrs. Clinton have been diligent in trying not to identify too closely with either movement. Mr. Obama rarely mentions his race explicitly, leaving the heavy rhetoric of his groundbreaking potential to his wife, Michelle (who in a speech in November spoke of lifting “that veil of impossibility that keeps us down and keeps our children down”). Mrs. Clinton has made more direct appeals to mothers and daughters and “making history,” but has for the most part predicated her candidacy on the masculine virtues of toughness, resolve and her extensive experience in the (male-dominated) realm of politics and government.

Still, whether the candidate wants the mantle or not, whoever wins the nomination will be bestowed (or bludgeoned) with the hopes and legacy of a movement. The victory will be a benchmark moment for the American promise of equality, and the Democrats will add to their partisan quiver a feel-great story that could buoy them in the fall. “Americans are looking for a way to break barriers,” Karl Rove said last week in an interview with National Public Radio (not that Mr. Rove, President Bush’s chief political maharishi, is at risk of helping either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton do this). “They would love to elect a woman president; they would love to elect an African-American president.”

. . . . .


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/weekinre...

Women Are Never Front-Runners by gloria steinem


THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?

If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
. . . . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/...

seriously, who here thinks seriously, as I do, that there isn't going to BE any election in november? or that, even if there is, and the dems win, that the lunatic illegally squatting in the people's house isn't planning on going anywhere?

paranoid? perhpas. but every day of the repukes holding the white house since ronnie ray-gun, I have thought about this, and am only surprised it hasn't actually happened yet.

on the other hand, I think about the last harry potter book, where, when someone expresses surprised that voldemort hasn't declared himself minister of magic, it is pointed out that he is, in effect, said minister, but not in clear view of the public. so, perhaps openly declaring martial law, instead of just bringing it in in increments, is what is going on.

(cross-posted from women's rights forum)

one front in the ongong war against women)

if you missed last night's "NOW" on pbs called "Child Brides: Stolen Lives", I urge all of you to go to the website, and either read the transcripts or watch the video

a horrifying look at the patriarchal practice of child brides, and what is being done to eliminate this practice



About the ProgramChild Marriage FactsMaria's JourneyFive Days in NigerEducationTake ActionHow You Can HelpFor EducatorsReact


Who is affected?
What are the effects of child marriage?
What can be done to prevent child marriage?
Learn more
Sources

» See also: Expert Q&A


Who is affected?

More than 100 million girls in the developing world will be married during the next 10 years.

Although the definition of child marriage includes boys, most children married under the age of 18 years are girls.

While the practice has decreased globally over the last 30 years, it remains common in rural areas and among the poorest of the poor.

In Southern Asia, 48%—nearly 10 million—of girls are married before the age of 18.

In Africa, 42% of girls were married before turning 18.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, 29% of girls are married by age 18.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/341/facts.htm...

(google "congo rape" and be prepared to be horrified

Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War


By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Published: October 7, 2007
BUKAVU, Congo — Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist, cannot bear to listen to the stories his patients tell him anymore.




The New York Times
Soldiers and militiamen have raped women around Bukavu.

Every day, 10 new women and girls who have been raped show up at his hospital. Many have been so sadistically attacked from the inside out, butchered by bayonets and assaulted with chunks of wood, that their reproductive and digestive systems are beyond repair.

“We don’t know why these rapes are happening, but one thing is clear,” said Dr. Mukwege, who works in South Kivu Province, the epicenter of Congo’s rape epidemic. “They are done to destroy women.”

Eastern Congo is going through another one of its convulsions of violence, and this time it seems that women are being systematically attacked on a scale never before seen here. According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country.

“The sexual violence in Congo is the worst in the world,” said John Holmes, the United Nations under secretary general for humanitarian affairs. “The sheer numbers, the wholesale brutality, the culture of impunity — it’s appalling.”\
. . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/af...


AMY GOODMAN: President Bush made a strong statement about rape and genocide at a UN Security Council meeting on September 25th.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Maybe some don't think it’s genocide, but if you've been raped, you think it’s -- your human rights have been violated. If you're mercilessly killed by roaming bands, you know it’s genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush was talking about the violence in Darfur, Sudan, but he made no mention of another crisis in Africa: the long and ongoing wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Between 1997 and 2004, up to four million people died in the conflict. That's according to the latest mortality survey carried out by the International Rescue Committee and published in the British medical journal Lancet. The IRC also estimates today, three years later, 38,000 people continue to die each month.

Today we focus on a particularly brutal aspect of the ongoing war in the DRC: the war against women. Speaking to the New York Times, John Homes, the UN Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, called the sexual violence in the Congo “the worst in the world.”

Christine Schuler Deschryver is a Congolese human rights activist. She lives in Bukavu in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the violence against women is the worst. She came into our firehouse studio last month. I asked her to describe the situation in her country.

CHRISTINE SCHULER DESCHRYVER: In Congo, since ten years ago, the war started in ’96. After the genocide in Rwanda in ’94, all the one who made the genocide arrived in Congo and stayed there in camps. And in ’96, when the war started, they went out from the camps and went inside the forest, and then they started killing and raping the Congolese population. Three years ago, we had the report from International Rescue Committee that already four million people died in Congo, so it's one of the most --

AMY GOODMAN: Four million?
. . . .

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid...