Gates: Women Finally Acknowledged as Combat Troops

This IS big news for women. Women are just as patriotic as men, and bleed red just as they do.

Commission: Women should be allowed in military combat units PAULINE JELINEK • Associated Press • January 15, 2011 WASHINGTON -- Women finally should be allowed to serve fully in combat, a military advisory panel said Friday in a report seeking to dismantle the last major area of discrimination in the armed forces. The call by a commission of current and retired military officers to let women be front-line fighters could set in motion another sea change in military culture as the armed forces, generations after racial barriers fell, grapples with the phasing out of the ban on gays serving openly. The newest move is being recommended by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago. The panel was to send its proposals to Congress and President Barack Obama. It is time "to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," the members said. Opponents of putting women in combat question whether they have the necessary strength and stamina. They also have said the inclusion of women in infantry and other combat units might harm unit cohesion, a similar argument to that made regarding gays. And they warn Americans won't tolerate large numbers of women coming home in body bags. Those arguments have held sway during previous attempts to end the ban. Congress recently stripped the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly, and the Navy changed its rules during the last year to allow women to serve on submarines for the first time. Women are barred from certain combat assignments in all the services but face the broadest restrictions in the Army and Marines. Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of the advocacy group Service Women's Action Network, said the prohibition on women in combat "is archaic, it does not reflect the many sacrifices and contributions that women make in the military, and it ignores the reality of current war-fighting doctrine." Although thousands of American women have served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and been exposed to great danger -- 134 of them have been killed -- they have been largely restricted to combat support jobs such as medics or logistical and transportation officers. Defense policy prohibits women from being assigned to any unit smaller than a brigade whose primary mission is direct combat on the ground. The new report says keeping women out of combat posts prohibits them from serving in roughly 10 percent of Marine Corps and Army occupational specialties and thus is a barrier to advancement. "The Armed Forces have not yet succeeded in developing leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve," said the report. "Minorities and women still lag behind white men in terms of number of military leadership positions." Women generally make up about 14 percent of the armed services. Of the roughly 2.2 million troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 255,000 have been women, said Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez. Supporters of the change say women essentially have been in combat for years, even if they are nominally removed from it. "It's something whose time has come," said Lory Manning of the Women's Research and Education Institute. She said ending the ban would be "a logical outcome of what women have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Army and Marines have been essentially ducking the policy." She said, for example, that military officials have employed terms of art to skirt the ban, for example "attaching" women to a combat unit instead of "assigning" them. The new report says there has been little evidence that integrating women into previously closed units or military occupations has damaged cohesion or had other ill effects. It says a previous independent report suggested that women serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan "had a positive impact on mission accomplishment." Defense leaders have said they see the change coming someday. For example, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in September that he expects women to be let into special operations forces eventually, and in a careful, deliberate manner. The advisory commission recommends a phased-in approach. The Army is doing its own internal study of women in combat as well. Pentagon figures show that as of Jan. 3, 110 women had been killed in the war in Iraq compared with about 4,300 men. In the Afghanistan campaign, 24 women have been killed compared with more than 1,400 men. Lainez said the department will review the recommendations when the report is delivered. But regardless of what becomes of the policy, she noted that women will continue to be drawn into combat action, "situations for which they are fully trained and equipped to respond.

Biggest problems with the following article are 1) it ducks that fact that servicewomen have steadily been in combat, sometimes hand-to-hand, since there is no longer a defined Front Line, and, 2) the real reason they are nominally "attached", not "assigned" to combat duty is that women would then be officially entitled to combat pay, too! See how cleverly the Pentagon works things out to save its budget? Reminds me of when they refused our troops bulletproofed vests and trucks! BE A SKEPTIC.

Fmr. NOW Pres Chides Scalia for ERA Blindspot

[Ed. I always thought these folks were supposed to be Supremely Intelligent.]

HUFFINGTON POST

Former National NOW President Chides Supreme Court Justice Scalia for ERA Blindspot

Patricia Ireland

President, National Organization for Women (NOW) 1991-2001

Posted: January 11, 2011 01:45 PM

Equal Justice for Whom?

What's Your Reaction?

January 2011 has brought a strange spotlight on the U.S. Constitution. First, Justice Scalia pronounces that women are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Then Republicans recite the entire Constitution on the floor of the House.

It is true that anyone listening to the Republicans' reading did not hear the word "women" anywhere in the equal protection clause. But then the word "corporations" did not pass their lips either, and corporations have been covered by the guarantee of equal protection since the Nineteenth Century. Corporations are nowhere mentioned in the First Amendment either. Yet, January 21 will mark the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United, which elevated constitutional protection for corporations' political speech to the level previously recognized only for natural persons. Apparently the omission of corporations from the First Amendment did not trouble Justice Scalia the way the failure to mention women in the Fourteenth Amendment does; he voted with the majority to extend the corporate right to free speech.

So, what's his problem with women? I couldn't begin to explain that. What I can tell you is what it meant when his was the prevailing view on the Supreme Court. Right up through 1971, the guiding principle on constitutional equality for women was "anything goes." Of course the Court put lipstick on it and called it the "rational basis" test; as long as discrimination was rationally related to serving a legitimate government interest, it passed constitutional muster. Any old rationale would do.

Illinois denied Myra Blackwell the right to practice law? No problem. "The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother." Women were also denied the right to practice medicine, work as bartenders (waitressing was fine) and myriad other jobs. Legislators "protected" women from higher paying jobs and the burden of voting. The Supreme Court said it was all good.

The justices' willing suspension of disbelief is illustrated nicely in a case denying women the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. Gwendolyn Hoyt challenged Florida's required special registration for women to serve on juries, and true to form the Court said, "No problem." After all, the justices opined, denying women equal constitutional rights was rational since in 1961 women were still "the center of home and family life." They apparently missed the irony that this particular center of home and family life had been convicted by an all-male jury of bludgeoning her husband to death with a baseball bat. She wanted some women on the jury who might understand how a wife could be driven to such things.

Justice Scalia may find this reasoning compelling. I venture to say most of us don't. Let us remember, however, that the Constitution only protects what five of the Supreme Court Justices say it protects. Women's assurance of "equality of rights under the law" continues to depend on who is elected to the White House and the U.S. Senate, something to keep in mind in 2012's elections. In the long run, however, we should keep in mind the need to add an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to guarantee equality between women and men in language so clear that even Justice Scalia cannot mistake it.

American Divide is Deeper Than we Imagine

Please recall that Equal Rights Alliance and ERA Education are both non-partisan organizations focussed on getting YOU the gender-equal treatment under the US Constitution--the ERA--that WE ALL deserve. DOES AMERICAN JUSTICE DEMAND the biblical Thou Art Thy Brother's Keeper and equality, OR NOT? The following explains partially why ERA is anathema to one side that they won't even hold hearings on it in the 6 states that file ratification bills every single year for years!

A comment from a reader of the NYTimes, Paul Krugman's article says

KT

NYC

January 14th, 2011

1:53 am

Paul Krugman has gotten it exactly right. The exhortations of the past week to cool down the rhetoric has ignored, or for political reasons, sought to minimize, the differences between the political parties, as though these fundamental disagreements were really merely a matter of abusive language and hot tempers. The Republicans are playing this game to force compromises on issues such as health care, depicting criticism as abusive and divisive, while the Democrats are trying to marginalize those on the far right who refuse to compromise on any issue. The real question, however, is not whether we should agree, but how we should disagree. Threatening violence, either directly or implicitly, should be out of bounds. Placing bulls-eyes on Congressional districts, bringing guns to political rallies, and telling your followers, "Don't retreat; reload," is implicitly threatening violence. Such metaphors don't belong in political discourse in a nation that is ruled by law; not merely on principle, but also because such rhetoric feeds the fantasies of the violent and unstable.

Yet the two views of America are real, and derive from the two faces of capitalism. On the one hand, those who have money do not merely want to keep all of it, but view the rest of us as mere commodities. We don't get health care because, in the view of the capitalist, nobody owes anybody anything. You either win, or you're a slave. That's the capitalists moral code.

On the other hand, there are those -- not merely Marxists, but humanists and progressive liberals -- who see profits as belonging to the communities in which such profits are made. American political and economic freedoms permit the entrepreneur to prosper; hence that entrepreneur owes a debt to the community as a whole. Further, workers are human beings, part of the national community, not mere chips that can be played to further enrich the already wealthy.

Whatever side you're on, you have to be on the side of the rule of law. When our forefathers (and the foremothers whispering in their ears) began the constitution with "We, the people," they turned the whole world upside down. Before that day, hereditary rulers decided, arbitrarily, who did what to whom. After that day, power derived from the people and, by extension, from orderly processes of law.

Yes, the Second Amendment permits us to bear arms. But "we, the people" creates a nation of citizens, not warlords. We are going to fight out the moral conflict that Paul describes in his article; but we're going to do that with argument, not automatic rifles. That's the lesson that should have been learned this week, and we'll be very, very unfortunate if it wasn't.

Small Workplace Gender Inequities have Big Consequences

Selena Rezvani

Selena Rezvani is author of the new book, The Next Generation of Women Leaders: What You Need to Lead but Won't Learn in Business School. Follow her on Twitter at @NextGenWomen.

A glass ceiling, by any other name...

Over the last 25 years we've heard different names for women's work predicaments : a maternal wall, a sticky floor, the mommy track, a labyrinth and, of course, the glass ceiling. Such monikers attempt to boil down in a neat, bite-size nugget some extraordinarily nuanced social dynamics. Has such language served to help women by uncovering veiled unfairness, or do these labels actually hinder progress?

That very question was raised recently at a women's leadership conference I attended. "Focus on the bright spots," one group argued, while another urged that we need to be candidly vocal about gender inequality in today's workplaces. I find myself seeing a need for more of both.

To be sure, today's workplace bias is not exactly the same as it used to be. You can still find an organization or industry that looks and operates like characters on "Mad Men," but for the most part, what hamstrings women at work today is far less overt. Micro-inequities, those seemingly insignificant events that exclude women or lessen confidence in them, are far more rampant. MIT's Mary P. Rowe has studied micro-inequities, calling them "fiendishly efficient in perpetuating unequal opportunity, because they are in the air we breathe.... Micro-inequities are woven into all the threads of our work life and of US education. They are 'micro', not at all in the sense of trivial, but in the sense of miniature." Rowe also points out that the "scaffolding" that supports today's workplace is built of these seemingly small events, many of which are hard-to prove and covert--and even, often, unintentional.

What does a typical micro-inequity look like? Imagine pitching your services to a man and woman working at the same company, and giving your eye contact--and attention--to the man. This happens, in part, because people assume that the man is more senior or more of a decision maker. Envision a department that's throwing a celebratory lunch to mark winning a new account. No one casts a suspicious eye when the young woman on the team is asked to order and fetch the food. And for anyone that's worked on the dreaded team project in graduate school, they will likely remember that it was a woman in the group that somehow became the note-taker or team secretary.

Without a doubt, some people still do and say outright sexist things. On my first day at one job, I remember asking a high-ranking male which way conference room 10 was, and was promptly told: "It's over there. I'm not surprised you don't know though-- women are spatially challenged." And more recently, I had lunch with the head of a well-respected publication who cracked the joke, "You want to know how women can make it to the C-suite? Marry the chairman."

It seems whatever our worldview of gender inequity is―including the perception that it doesn't exist―we find confirmatory data to substantiate our view. Think the world is teaming with sexism at work? Then most likely you'll look for it and find it wherever you go. Believe that all of this glass ceiling nonsense is a bunch of post-feminist jabber? You too will look for reasons to support your view. You will see singular examples of women who've attained power like Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi and assume progress for women is complete.

How do we proceed then? Interestingly, of the 30 successful women executives I interviewed for my book, all of them expressed that hurdles indeed exist for women, and yet they don't get mired in them. In an interview with Rosslyn

Kleeman, chair of the Coalition for Effective Change, for example, she noted, "There is a mistaken idea that barriers no longer exist, but there are still a lot. . . .Women need to find a happy medium between acknowledging the barriers that exist and forging ahead anyway."

Most any set of statistics will show that women still have strides to make in terms of gaining leadership status and fair pay, or finding workplaces that truly accommodate their caretaking realities rather than just tolerating them. Micro-inequities can be so hard to demonstrate that if we don't point out these irksome, distracting splinters under our skin, we sit ignorantly by, mistakenly waiting for relief. The reality for working women may not always be encouraging, but when we hush the dialogue, we go backward.

By Selena Rezvani

| January 11, 2011; 8:03 PM ET

Supreme Court Justice Scalia "ON OUR SIDE?"

About The Column

Women's eNews is the definitive source of substantive news--unavailable anywhere else--covering issues of particular concern to women and providing women's perspectives on public policy. It enhances women's ability to define their own lives and to participate fully in every sector of human endeavor .

ustice Scalia Makes the Case for E.R.A. Ratification

	By Women's eNews Contributors
Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment should give U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a standing ovation right about now. In widely quoted comments in the current issue of California Lawyer, Scalia said the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender. That boils down to the idea that women are not part of the Constitution. Bravo! That's just what supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment, known as E.R.A., have been saying for years. The E.R.A. is rather simple. It would guarantee the equality of rights under the law not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. It gives Congress the power of enforcement. Those who follow Scalia's decisions barely raised an eyebrow at his latest comments. He showed his view on sex discrimination in 1996 when he cast the sole vote in favor of the Virginia Military Institute's ability to discriminate against female applicants. Overall, his statements are less alarming than the media have trumpeted. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 as part of the Reconstruction Amendments and was the basis for the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, leading to the dismantling of segregation laws in the South. Support Not Universal In recent decades, the Supreme Court applied the amendment to laws that discriminate against women, although support for this interpretation is not universal. Other judges have not reinforced the application of the 14th Amendment to women's rights. The E.R.A. was introduced in 1923 into both houses of the U.S. Congress, which finally passed the legislation in 1972. Initially, ratification proved relatively easy as states rushed to approve the amendment. Progress slowed by the late 1970s and growing forces rallied against its passage. The national fight for the E.R.A. was considered dead in 1982 when a ratification vote fell short by three states of the 38 states needed. At that point, the seven-year time limit imposed by Congress had expired and all seemed lost. But a legal strategy to revive the E.R.A. was developed after 1992, when Congress ratified the 27th Amendment to the Constitution 203 years after its passage, opening the way for a similar time frame for E.R.A. ratification. In recent years, several states have added their own E.R.A. to their constitutions, and many of the arguments against the ratification, such as women in the military and same-sex marriage, are no longer relevant. 15 States Remain Currently, 15 states have not ratified the E.R.A. They are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Since 1995, bills have been introduced in six of the unratified states. Proponents for the E.R.A. point out that every constitution in the world written after World War II includes an E.R.A.-like statement that men and women are equals. Scalia's colleague Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a strong E.R.A. proponent, has urged citizens to lobby for the amendment's passage. "I would write the lawmakers of the United States in Congress and in the states to perfect the fundamental instrument of government in this regard for the sake of my daughter, my granddaughters and all the daughters in generations yet to come," she said in the 1998 documentary The Equal Rights Amendment: Unfinished Business for the Constitution. "I would like to see in our Constitution this clarion statement of bedrock principle--equal rights shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex." This article was contributed by Kimberly Wilmot Voss, Ph.D. who is an assistant professor in the Nicholson School of Communication at the University of Central Florida. She studies the media's representation of women, including coverage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Copyright © 2010 Women's eNews
	Comment On This Article Let Others Hear What You Have to Say!! Add To This Page by Leaving Your Comments!! (512) 827-0505 ext 2869 sandy oestreich Posted 3 Seconds Ago We of Equal Rights Alliance Inc are grateful for this article explaining that the 14th Amendment does not confer upon American females (or males) guarantee against sex discrimination which continues unbridled. ERA Inc is a national organization electrified by the idea and working 18/7 for ratification of the ERA by 3 more states by mentoring now-seven states filing ratification bills. Our updating site: www.2PassERA.org and new address, SandyO@PassERA.org are urging communication and/or linking with us in order to rouse the public and legislators in those states to ratify ERA asap! The ground is fertile for Women's Revolution as the IMF, the EU and UN all agree that wherever gender equality is the standard, the GDP grooowwws! Unleash us females, and speed America's recovery! A few caveats. 1) The 7 year time limit you mention turned into a 10 year one via Congress midway through ratifications, 1972-82. 2) ERA is still "viable and contemporaneous", and the source of nationwide articles for the 3-state strategy. 2) Please never use the word "dead" in reference to ERA. It was never declared dead, only moot, by the Supreme Court; some Constitutional amendments had time limits, some didn't. ERA's is contained only in its non-votable Proposing Clause and not in the ERA's Body. There are additional substantive arguments for ERA's legal vitality. Thus the ongoing march forward for the ERA in 7 states. Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment effort is not and probably never was about same-sex, or military draft. NO public arguments are relevant when it comes to the simple, moral American principle that all should be treated equally regardless of gender. This is not a gender war. It's a class war. Those irrelevancies are but smokescreens in an attempt to inflame constituencies against the ERA. They are raised expectantly by legislatures who fight mightily to keep Business Interests funding their campaigns, and extremist Special Interests happily voting for them! (Corporate America effectively bars ERA passage so that it doesn't get sued for its monstrous sex discrimination or have to pay equal wages with men's. Doing this 10 years gives us this perspective. Welcome to our www.2PassERA.org for full rebuttals at "ERA Rebuts Lies" and "Facts for Legislators" , and "Take Action" buttons at the top. Comment on our blog. But, come for the facts, and to link arms with us 300 000. Forge On WITH US, SandyOestreich, Founder-President ERA Inc; Fmr elected official; Co-author of internationally distributed pharmacology reference texts; nurse practitioner; biographied in Feminists Who Changed America

Abnormal HORRORS OF WAR that ERA would Fix !

The height of sex discrimination is rape. Expecially at the hands of your military colleagues. When passed, the Equal Rights Amendment can enforce, at last, laws against rape. Please Join us in this monstrous Fight against subjugation/ horrendous episodes of savage discrimination against women. Those who sit by and watch and do nothing...well, as Madeleine Albright says, "There's a special place in hell for women who do that." Paraphrased. Sandyo@PassERA.org. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Military won’t release rape records, ACLU says in lawsuit

By The Associated Press, John Christoffersen
Monday, December 13th, 2010 -- 9:32 pm

Stumble This!

111Share

Sexual assault pervades the military, but the Pentagon refuses to release records that fully document the problem and how it is handled, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups said in a federal lawsuit that seeks access to the records.

Tens of thousands of service members have reported some form of sexual assault, harassment or trauma in the past decade, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in New Haven against the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The plaintiffs include the Service Women's Action Network, the ACLU of Connecticut and Yale Law School students.

The groups that filed suit want information on the number of acquittals, convictions and sentences, the number of disability claims related to sexual trauma that were accepted and rejected, and the number of sexual harassment complaints. The records are needed to determine the extent of the problem and what has been done to address it, the groups say.

"The government's refusal to even take the first step of providing comprehensive and accurate information about the sexual trauma inflicted upon our women and men in uniform ... is all too telling," said Anuradha Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of SWAN. "The DOD and VA should put the interests of service members first and expose information on the extent of sexual trauma in the military to the sanitizing light of day."

The Department of Defense does not comment on pending lawsuits, a spokeswoman said. A message was left Monday with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The government prosecutes 8 percent of military sex offenders, while 40 percent of civilian sex offenders are prosecuted, according to the lawsuit. Post-traumatic stress disorder claims related to sexual trauma are often denied for failing to prove the case, even when men and women in uniform have been diagnosed with the disorder, the lawsuit said.

The Department of Defense said there were 3,230 reports of sexual assault involving military service members as victims or subjects in fiscal year 2009, an increase of 11 percent from the prior year. The report said part of the increase stemmed from a social marketing campaign aimed at preventing sexual assault.

The lawsuit contends sexual assaults are nearly twice as common within military ranks as in civilian society, and surveys show that nearly one in three women report being sexually assaulted during their time in the military.

About 80 percent of unwanted or threatening sexual acts are not reported, according to the lawsuit. Victims who report abuse to their superiors often face social isolation, retribution and counteraccusations, the lawsuit says.

Sexual abuse is the primary causes of PTSD among female service members.

"Much of the information about the extent and cost of the (military sexual trauma) problem, along with the government's reluctance to prosecute offenders and treat victims, is not in the public sphere," the lawsuit states. "The public has a compelling interest in knowing this information, given the potential enormity of the problem, the emotional and financial cost that it imposes on military service members and the increasing number of women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq."

ACLU lawsuit: Military won't release rape records

Conn. ACLU lawsuit says military refuses to release records on rape, sex harassment cases

ERA Needs Your Opinions

Posted from TMU, The Majority "United"... wish it were true that American women as the majority WOULD unite ! We could GET IT ALL done! We COULD GET THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT PASSED if only American females would join for Free with Equal Rights Alliance. That's the corporation that works for men and women alike so that bestial behavior from corporations and the legislators who kow tow for campaign funding WOULD STOP! We work 18/7 for you for going on 10 years to clang the gates shut on such official ignoring of blatant sex trafficking, sex discrimination, and mortifying acts against mostly women. Don't shut your eyes, says Betty Jean Kling the producer of Free-Me-Now radio blog. Catch her Monday and Wed. nights at 10 pm by calling into 347 838-8011.

Here's how she kicked off her Wed. January 5th show in NJ featuring the Equal Rights Amendment with our own Sandy Oestreich and the religious "conservative" trying to free religious women from complementarianism, her friend Jocelyn Andersen.

Equal but never less again: Fighting among ourselves, who really won here gals?

Posted on January 5, 2011 by freemenow

Another Rant By: BettyJean Kling

Equality and no more is not too much to ask. But accepting less again is certainly too much to tolerate. Fighting among ourselves ladies has cost us seats! Who really won here gals? We sure didn’t- we got the short end of the stick yet once again! When will be realize that we are the majority and we are not represented fairly and it’s our own damned fault?

You would think we might learn from minority groups. They don’t always agree on every issue but they agree they are not going to be mistreated and accept less. So they UNITE and work together on those things that matter and they get their rights, and they get better treatment because they fight for it rather than wait for someone to hand it to them. We women have fought with many to help them get what every human has a right to- but we fail miserably when it come to women’s rights! We are just too busy fighting among ourselves!

Women – the majority – can’t seem to get together on fighting for our humanity because we are polarized into two political camps. We act is though we are programmed like Stepford wives. To hear each side tell it – the other is to blame. Let each side tell you how far their ideology has brought us in the long run, sure we have come a long way baby, we can vote, and smoke and run nearly naked to our hearts content but then look at the numbers who represent us and see we lost ground where it counts.

Nearly 5 of us is murdered daily by an intimate partner, 96 more are battered with little recourse. We can abort our unborn but are less able to keep our children and our homes safe while our abusers and pedophiles get control of our children and the court systems let family courts take women to jail for trying to protect them.

This year – more and more of us are graduating College and more and more of us are working and paying taxes at a lower rate of pay and still we are not fairly represented. Everyone gets their rights even non citizens get better rights then women. Try talking trash about any other human and the walls will come tumbling down but you can say anything about a woman. You can depict her in anyway you want – naked – hanging in effigy – in bestiality- call her a whore or a Bitch—no one cares so long as you don’t attach a minority slur to it.

Wake up ladies – we are women first and foremost – we are not minority groups – we are The Majority and we are being wronged and like sheep led to slaughter we tolerate it because we are woman against woman instead of the majority united.

Wake up!

Here the live show we aired as TMU founder BettyJean welcomed 2 women from www.TheMajorityUnited.com – both board members and an unlikely duo, met and came together to become great friends because of uniting for the sake of all WOMEN.

Jocelyn Anderson, speaker, author, and survivor. Jocelyn is a Christian, a Conservative, fighting for the ERA amendment and Sandy Oestreich is a Democrat, a Liberal, also fighting for the ERA amendment. Don’t tell me it can’t be done – it can- if it isn’t – it’s your fault because it is not impossible – you just won’t do it.

The show is downloadable and on demand:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/freemenow/2011/01/06/the-majority-united

Hear us discuss where TMU and WOMEN are going this year to empower women across this nation to gain equality and representation in our government – in employment and in fair and equitable treatment in media and advertising.

Do you realize that women lost 6 seats in the last election? We are the Majority 52% – why are we taxed without representation and allowing it? Women ran- why didn’t we vote for them- were they less qualified then the bums and the crooks who have made a lifelong career out of stealing our money for up to the last 50 years?

We need to field more women for 2012 AND WE NEED TO SEE TO IT THEY WIN. Field them from both parties and from no party let’s get some representation- some parity– unite the majority and let’s be heard from. We work – we pay taxes- now let’s start representing ourselves.

This is what the majority united looks like! Click on WOMEN to read the bio on these women and more about the groups in the coalition!

Jocelyn Andersen/ Freedom for Christian Women’s Coalition
www.freecwc.com

Sandy Oestreich / Pass ERA Org, Equal Rights Alliance Inc., and ERA Education Inc. www.2PassERA.org

i

ERA Clears the Air on Wrong Interpretation of the !4trh Amendment vis a vis Equal Rights

Regretfully, we had to send a letter to National NOW as they disagreed with Supreme Court Justice Scalia. It is extremely rare that we agree with him, but when he said the 14th Amendment leaves women unprotected constitutionally, we must agree. Though it is a common mistake, here's the letter we sent to National NOW. Not just to point fingers at them, but to ask them immediately to make public correction as it is central to the 7 ERA-active states, trying to ratify ERA. This is something ALL ERA devotees must know by heart to counter inaccurate legislative arguments against ERA. Letter to our very special champions of ERA, National NOW continues as follows. Please commment at the end. Thank you.


Happy New Year!

Dear Terry O'Neil and all Sisters for ERA,

One of the most widely disseminated and ERA-dissembling errors is that:

THE 14TH AMENDMENT DOES PROTECT AMERICAN WOMEN/FEMALES. This is untrue and inaccurate. Please correct this major error that undermines one of our top arguments of the states trying desperately to ratify theirs! The national Equal Rights Alliance, based in Florida, recognizes that it is an easy mistake to make. We spend long hours before state legislatures trying to disabuse them of this incorrect perception that serves their denial purposes so well: "You women don't NEED another amendment. You already HAVE the 14th Amendment", they say, wrongly.

Written in 1868, it DOES NOT protect women and girls; it protects only men and boys, as intended. Constitutional lawyers agree that if you read down to the 2nd section, though not simply stated, it is clear that the 14th Amendment is a MEN-ONLY AMENDMENT. "...all Persons" is defined in the 2nd section as ALL MEN. Please read Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg's statements on this.

The second section of the 14th Amendment deliberately leaves out women when it comes to equality as at the time women were considered "chattel" --possessions of men--along with slaves and children. It has been applied in one or more extreme sex discrimination cases, but is weak and leaves us vulnerable. FEMALES DESERVE THEIR OWN CONTRACT WITH OUR NATION. It is our birthright.

This is the exact reason American females REQUIRE A NEW AMENDMENT, the ERA, so that we get Honorable Mention alongside men in the U.S. Constitution, our proposed codified contract with our nation!

We strongly urge that National NOW retract this announcement publicly and change it correctly, and send that around the nation to all NOW chapters and to all legislators in states where the Equal Rights Amendment is being discussed: Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas, Virginia (tba 2011), and Nevada! Remember, we just need 3 of them to ratify so that ERA passes into the US Constitution; state ERAs lack backbone. All the active states are based on the 3-state strategy that has legal substantiation and has , instead, power to bring about passage WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES not by starting all over for 100 more years.

Sisters, if we are serious about the ERA and serious in our support for the now-SEVEN states struggling mightily every single day over long hours, and in my case withstanding death threats to lobby pro bono for the ERA, we MUST STAND TOGETHER IN SOLIDARITY AND SUPPORT, singing the same song accurately. We must correct this as we have enough to do correcting of Special Interests' lies.

Equal Rights Alliance, our Board, our 300,000 supporters, and I do appreciate all that you do for us and all Americans.

Please respond to our emailed message. Thank you.

Sandy Oestreich, Founder - President of the now-national Equal Rights Alliance, Inc., and ERA Education, Inc.
Fmr. elected official; Professor Emerita; Nurse practitioner; Co-author of internationally distributed pharmacology reference texts, etc.

The President of the United States Fights Violence Against Women via Council on Women and Girls (intro matter left in place to assist related search

• Get Email Updates
• Contact Us

Go to homepage.

• The White House Blog
• Photos & Videos
• Photo Galleries
• Video
• Live Streams
• Podcasts
• Briefing Room
• Your Weekly Address
• Speeches & Remarks
• Press Briefings
• First Question
• Statements & Releases
• White House Schedule
• Presidential Actions
• Executive Orders
• Presidential Memoranda
• Proclamations
• Legislation
• Pending Legislation
• Signed Legislation
• Vetoed Legislation
• Nominations & Appointments
• Disclosures
• Visitor Access Records
• Financial Disclosures
• 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff
• 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff
• Ethics Pledge Waivers
• Issues
• Civil Rights
• It Gets Better
• Defense
• The Way Forward in Afghanistan
• Disabilities
• Economy
• Financial Reform
• Innovation
• Education
• Educate to Innovate
• Higher Education
• Race to the Top Commencement Challenge
• Energy & Environment
• A New Foundation
• Deepwater BP Oil Spill
• Ethics
• Family
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Foreign Policy
• Trip to Asia 2010
• Haiti Earthquake
• Speech in Cairo
• Health Care
• Homeland Security
• Immigration
• Poverty
• Rural
• State Fair Tour
• Seniors & Social Security
• Service
• Taxes
• Tax Cuts, Unemployment Insurance and Jobs
• Technology
• Urban Policy
• Veterans
• Women
• Additional Issues
• The Administration
• President Barack Obama
• Vice President Joe Biden
• First Lady Michelle Obama
• Dr. Jill Biden
• The Cabinet
• 2010 Video Reports
• White House Staff
• Interim Chief of Staff Peter Rouse
• Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina
• Deputy Chief of Staff Mona Sutphen
• Senior Advisor David Axelrod
• Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett
• Executive Office of the President
• Other Advisory Boards
• About the White House
• Interactive Tour
• History
• White House Rooms
• White House Art
• Presidents
• First Ladies
• The Oval Office
• The Vice President's Residence & Office
• Eisenhower Executive Office Building
• Camp David
• Air Force One
• White House Fellows
• President’s Commission
• About the Fellowship
• Current Class
• Recent Class
• Staff Bios
• White House Internships
• The Story
• About Us
• Program
• Apply Here
• Submit a Recommendation
• Tours & Events
• Holidays 2010
• Kitchen Garden Tours
• 2010 Easter Egg Roll
• Inside the White House
• Our Government
• The Executive Branch
• The Legislative Branch
• The Judicial Branch
• The Constitution
• Federal Agencies & Commissions
• Elections & Voting
• State & Local Government
• Resources

Home • The Administration • Council on Women and Girls

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

• CWG Home
• About the CWG
• What's New
• White House Support
• Council Members
• Resources
• Contact Us

Subscribe

An Event to End Violence Against Women

Posted by Valerie Jarrett on October 27, 2010 at 05:10 PM EST

• Play/pause
• Mute/unmute
• Rewind and stop

Read the Transcript | Download Video: mp4 (249MB) | mp3 (24MB)

This afternoon, we marked Domestic Violence Awareness Month with the President and Vice President by highlighting the Obama Administration’s unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse.

For almost 30 years, the month of October has been a time to renew our commitment to ending one of the most tragic and senseless crimes in this country. We were honored to be joined today by a diverse audience from big cities and small towns, from tribes, women’s organizations, survivors, domestic violence and sexual assault advocates, fatherhood programs, law enforcement agencies, and faith communities, all joined by a common purpose- to end violence against women.

President Barack Obama, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, speaks at a Violence Against Women awareness event in the East Room of the White House, Oct. 27 2010. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Violence is still a significant barrier in many women’s lives, and the Obama Administration is committed to taking concrete action to end domestic violence in this country. One-in-every-four women experiences domestic violence during their lifetimes and more than 20 million women in the U.S. have been victims of rape.

Members of the audience listen as President Barack Obama speaks at a Violence Against Women awareness event in the East Room of the White House, Oct. 27 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Children suffer, too. Joe Torre, legendary baseball manager, spoke today about growing up in an abusive household; being afraid to come home when he saw his father’s car parked in front of the house; and how he found refuge in baseball.

Issues like this one remind us that there is still work to be done if we’re going to make the promise of America real for every American – including women. That’s why, last year, President Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls. He gave the Council an important mission – to make sure that all federal agencies consider the needs of women in every policy, in every program and in every piece of legislation he supports. Because of our focus on women and girls across the Administration, we have unprecedented coordination in the fight against domestic violence.

Today, the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, Labor and FDIC announced new initiatives to protect victims of abuse and provide resources for families and communities to prevent abuse. Domestic violence and sexual assault are not just criminal justice issues – the scope and far-reaching effects of violence require a coordinated response across the Federal government.

The initiatives announced and highlighted today demonstrate a broad, comprehensive response to reducing violence against women. Specifically, these concrete actions include steps to:

• Protect Children and Break the Cycle of Violence
• Improve Legal Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence
• Increase Sexual Assault Arrests and Successful Prosecutions
• Help Victims Regain Housing and Financial Independence

As the President said today:

Those are just a few of the steps we’re taking. But the bottom line is this: No one in America should live in fear because they are unsafe in their own home – no adult, no child. And no one who is the victim of abuse should ever feel as though they have no way to get out. We need to make sure that every victim of domestic violence knows that they are not alone; that there are resources available to them in their moment of greatest need. As a society, we need to ensure that if a victim of abuse reaches out for help, we are there to lend a hand.

That’s not just a job for government. That’s a job for all of us. Thanks to all of you for the work you do in our communities. This Administration is going to stand with you in this fight every step of the way.

Additional details on how the Obama Administration is working to end violence against women can be found by downloading the fact sheet: Obama Administration Highlights Unprecedented Coordination across Federal Government to Combat Violence Against Women (pdf).

Valerie Jarett is Senior Advisor to the President and Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls