ERA BlogNews 4 YOU !!

From Our Friend, Bernadette...

2011-09-16T16:58:00.000-07:00

[Ed., sorry our ERA inc blog was forced into 3 month hiatus by Google's messup. We're BACK now, happily. Please comment anytime. SandyO@PassERA.org]

USA Could Be Just 3 States Away from ERA

By Bernadette Cahill

WeNews commentator

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Celebrations of Women's Equality Day are getting a little empty without passage of an ERA, says Bernadette Cahill. With a bit of help from Obama we could be just three states away. Join United 4 Equality and help pass HJ Resolution 47!

(WOMENSENEWS)--Nearly a century ago, women campaigning for the vote stood in the freezing snow, the blazing sun and the pelting rain outside the White House silently holding banners asking, "Mr. President, How Long Must Women Wait for Liberty?"

Now, as Women's Equality Day rolls around yet again tomorrow--celebrating 91 years of U.S. women's right to vote--the message of those banners needs resurrecting, but with a modern twist.

They should read: "Mr. President, How Long Must Women Wait for Equality?"

If President Barack Obama would get behind House Joint Resolution 47, his answer to us all could be: "Not long at all."

Rep. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, chose the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day to introduce the resolution last March. It seeks to remove the deadline from the original 1972 bill on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that passed both houses of Congress and was ratified by 35 states before the deadline expired in 1982.

The deadline was not part of the original ERA and by 1982 it had already been extended by three years.

HJ Resolution 47 would require passage by a simple majority of both houses.

After that, ERA ratification would need only three more states.

Those votes could come from any of these holdouts: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

The ERA states: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex. In 2011, it's hard to think what lawmakers in these states should find controversial about that.

Are YOU 'Against it'?

2011-07-23T21:12:00.001-07:00

Split your sides with this video!

Remind you of any particular group of Good ol Boys bent on destroying a certain country?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0

MORE HORRORS AGAINST SERVICEWOMEN!

2011-07-23T20:13:00.000-07:00

[Ed., I haven't Snopsed this yet, but wanted to alert you all. sandyo, ERA Inc]

Service Women's Action Network

July 22, 2011

Dear Friends of SWAN,

Our efforts to hold military leadership accountable for rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment in the ranks are making significant headway both in terms of litigation and legislative reform. However, bias against victims and a desire to sweep incidents under the rug remain a continued threat to victims and an obstacle to institutional progress.

I want to talk to you today about the issue of Personality Disorders. In recent weeks, SWAN has been hearing from increasing numbers of active duty women and men whose careers have ended after reporting their rapes and assaults. In these cases, servicemembers have been sexually assaulted, and then almost immediately after reporting their attacks, have been diagnosed by military medical providers with a "Personality Disorder."

Why should we care? Personality Disorders make one ineligible for military service as well as veterans' benefits. Rape and assault survivors who are diagnosed with this condition are then routinely discharged from service. Their careers end practically overnight.

What I want to emphasize here is that Personality Disorders are pre-existing conditions that do not appear out of the blue. As we have seen with combat veterans, sexual assault survivors are often times misdiagnosed with Personality Disorder, instead of being properly diagnosed with PTSD or another medical condition that accurately reflects their symptoms.

Let's be clear. In the cases we are talking about, at both Military Academies and throughout the military itself, these are not diagnoses that correlate with the facts of a servicemember's military or medical record. In fact, all evidence suggests in these cases that the diagnosis of a Personality Disorder is meted out to a military sexual assault survivor as retaliation. It appears to be a way for the military to get rid of troops who are simply reporting a violent crime committed by a fellow servicemember.

SWAN is working with legislators to ensure that the military will never again be able to get rid of sexual assault survivors as if they are dead weight. But we need your help. If you would be so kind as to forward these questions to your networks, so that we can properly examine and identify cases of negligence, we would be truly grateful:

Are you a veteran who suffered a sexual assault while in the military and was subsequently diagnosed with a Personality Disorder by military medical personnel and discharged because of it?

Do you consider your diagnosis itself to be a form of retaliation related to your sexual assault?

Have you been denied VA benefits because of this diagnosis?

Have you unsuccessfully attempted to have this diagnosis changed or removed from your records by consulting with another military doctor, a VA doctor, or a private mental health provider?

Have you successfully had the diagnosis removed from your records and still had your disability claim denied by the VA even though you have another diagnosis (such as PTSD) that is related to military sexual assault?

If you answered YES to the first question AND any subsequent questions, please contact us at peersupport@servicewomen.org with your story.

Many thanks for your continued support,

Anu Bhagwati

Executive Director, Service Women's Action Network

(Photo by Leah Hogsten)

NEW ERA organization in Jacksonville FL ! Give a Look-SEE asap!

2011-07-22T16:44:00.000-07:00

http://apps.facebook.com/eranowus/Petitions/Sign/44

http://www.facebook.com/pages/ERAnowUS/173287672717645

Submit, Woman...Powerful book by a wife abused by pastors and ministers. MUST READ

2011-07-22T15:33:00.000-07:00

[Ed., ERA Inc has a policy against publicizing others' enterprises. We agreed to break this in this instance as it is a powerful story by minister-husband-abused Jocelyn Andersen, a strong supporter of our Equal Rights Amendment work. Her book is Submit, Woman. Well worth your while through libraries or purchase whether you are questioning your own abuse or just simpatico.] Go, Jocelyn!!

The Warrior Dash

For the next seven months I will be training for the Warrior Dash. The Warrior Dash is a 3 1/2 mile physical challenge attended by thousands. I will be running for ERA.

Why, you ask, is a 55 year old grandmother of eight planning to compete in a mud-crawling, fire-leaping, extreme run from hell?

Well, I’ll tell you....

I will be sludging through the murky waters of “Alligator Alley” in support of the Equal Rights Amendment, which simply reads: Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex….

Do I think I might win? Not likely, but I will happily dash down river in the “Rio Run” in support of Florida families who are cheated of over $4000 per year in income because many Florida wives and mothers still only make 72 cents on the dollar as compared to men.

Do I think I will finish? You bet. I will gladly venture into unknown murky waters in the “Slithering Swamp” in support of every Florida girl and boy who is living in an under-privileged household because their mothers do not receive fair salaries or career advancement opportunities simply because they are women.

I will joyously speed through hundreds of tires in “Knee High Hell” in support of the 3 in 7 retirement age women in Florida who must continue working or live in poverty because they were unable to pay enough into pension plans and social security due to equal pay laws not being enforced.

I will ecstatically scale my way through the thick palmettos in the “Palmetto Prison” in support of fair salaries and career advancement opportunities in support of women.

I will delightedly hustle up and over giant straw bales in “Hay Fever” in support of necessary protection from violence against women

I will cheerfully maneuver over the cargo nets in the “Cargo Climb” in support of a Constitutional Amendment which will secure the birthright of equal treatment for male and female alike. Laws, state ERAs, the 14th Amendment are no guarantee.

I will enthusiastically fight my way through the water and gale force winds in the “Treacherous Typhoon” in support of mobilizing, organizing, and publicizing the swelling need for America’s Equal Rights Amendment which is already in place in every nation created since WWII!

I will zealously sprint to the summit on “Hell’s Hill” in support of propelling society forward by unleashing the talent and energies of ALL people, working together for a civilized society.

I will eagerly leap over the warrior fires of the “Warrior Roast” to enhance the dignity of all humankind by proclaiming equality of women and men under the law in perpetuity.

And I will humbly scramble beneath barbed wire in “Muddy Mayhem” in support of every Florida citizen who does not have equality under the Constitution based on his or her sex. Both sexes should get Honorable Mention in the Constitution representing the citizens’ contract with the United States of America.

Women's Rights + Men’s Rights = Equal Rights = Human Rights

http://jocelynandersen.blogspot.com/2011/06/warrior-dash-for-era.html

One Really Beautiful Idea

2011-07-20T21:33:00.001-07:00

Sonia Fuentes

show details Jun 28

Friends:

Do you know about kiva.org? You can make loans of from $25 up to poor women around the world who are in business. I choose women to give my loans to and pick a country where the value of the money isn’t fluctuating (kiva.org gives you that info for every loan sought) and so far I haven’t lost anything. When $25 is repaid, I make another loan.

Best,

Sonia

Why Aren't YOU at Work for Passing ERA now??

2011-07-20T20:18:00.000-07:00

[Ed., SandyO. It's awfully easy to read this and write ERA pronouncements and urge everyone else to DO something about the ERA! YOU are the everyone else. We of the national Equal Rights Alliance Inc. have been working VERY hard for you for free for ERA ratification for 10 years now! Get off the couch, go to your computer and seek out 2PassERA.org, our site which is paid for by donations from others. Find out what's really going on, who benefits from ERA (male and female alike, all), which states have ratified and how easy it SHOULD BE to get 3 more states ratified and ERA passed into the US Constitution!

But, WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DO IT ALONE to the tune of others humming "I wish I had the ERA..". WE NEED YOU, EVERYONE to take up the shovel and start digging with your Sisters. There are SEVEN states filing bills: Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, Nevada, Illinois and other states with plans. Find answers to how to pitch in in your own state to help PROPEL THE ERA at SandyO@PassERA.org. We will HELP you get started--one of our is mentoring. Step up to the plate, Sisters, ERA needs you. Seriously.]

Barbara Hannah Grufferman

Writer, speaker, expert on women's issues, and author, "The Best of Everything After 50"

GET UPDATES FROM Barbara Hannah Grufferman

From Hope to History: It's Time to Pass the Equal Rights Amendment

Posted: 07/ 1/11 11:18 AM ET

React

Amazing
Inspiring
Funny
Scary
Hot
Crazy
Important
Weird

Lady GaGa , Michelle Obama , Women's Empowerment , Oprah , Politics , President Obama , Carolyn Maloney Rep. Carolyn Maloney , Equal Rights Amendment , Feminist.Com , Gloria Steinem , The Best Of Everything After 50 , Wal Mart , Constitution , Era , Feminism , Now , Senator Robert Menendez , Women , Women's Rights Movement , Women News

share this story

472

Get Women Alerts

Submit this story

My two teenaged daughters want to know why we have failed them. They want to know why -- in 2011 -- the U.S. Constitution still does not state that men and women are equal.

What do I tell them?

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and against the almost 1.6 million women who were part of the class action suit and who had been systematically denied pay and opportunities to advance within the company on par with their male colleagues. My daughters shook their heads in disgust.

And then this: a small article publicizing that Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) reintroduced the Equal Rights Amendment at an event in Washington D.C. Yes, the same ERA that was introduced 88 years ago, and which has never gotten the 38 states necessary for ratification (only 35 came through) to make it a permanent part of the Constitution. Had I not seen that on Huffington Post, I never would have known that it had just been reintroduced. And the only major media coverage I've seen was on the Rachel Maddow show. My daughters looked at me as though it were all my fault.

Not only do the major media ignore this story year after year, but most people I interviewed didn't know the status of the ERA, or even the actual words of the amendment. According to EqualRightsAmendment.org:

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 by Alice Paul, to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA was passed out of Congress in 1972 and has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, it is possible that the ERA could become the 28th Amendment. The ERA could also be ratified by restarting the traditional process of passage by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by legislatures in three-quarters (38) of the 50 states.

The actual words of the simply stated amendment as written by Alice Paul are:

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

Women (and men) in this country should be (and are) outraged, appalled, and angry at the utter lack of attention it has received. The ERA is probably the one amendment to our Constitution that could actually stop big companies like Wal-Mart from paying and promoting people based on sex... and it was not headline news, even on the heels of the Supreme Court debacle. Passing the ERA could very well be the beginning of the end of the war on women.

Trying to gauge how people are feeling, I put this question out on Facebook and Twitter -- Did you know that the ERA was just reintroduced and do you even care? -- and here are just a few of the many comments I received from all over the country (reprinted with their permission):

Of course I care! Equal work for unequal pay is one of the major disparities left between men and women's rights.

Elizabeth Flynn

I did not know! I was just telling my son and his girlfriend (ages 24) about the original ERA last week. I remember being utterly shocked, dismayed, depressed and disappointed that it did not pass the first time around. And it really opened my eyes to inequality. It's time.

Linda Landis

For a long time after ERA died (thanks largely to Utah, my home state) I thought it no longer mattered. Equality was settled, time to move on. What has happened just since last November in the War on Women has made it imperative that we get this done.

Jann Steckel Swanson

We women must stand united. We must care and we have to incite a rumble and be heard. Equal rights for all should be a given.

Vickie Stahl

I teach high school history and my students are always shocked to learn that women are not equal. We have quite a discussion on what it means and why it did not pass.

Donna Monica Krause

And this from a man who has two young daughters and would like to see the ERA become a reality this time around:

Women are getting paid less for the same jobs as men, they still must break glass ceilings, and they are being violently attacked and assaulted by males at home and at jobs and constantly face men who are bullies. The ERA can and should be passed by Congress and ratified by the states before the November 2012 elections. It is time for women to unite and demand that the ERA be part of the Constitution. Every member of the House and Senate should be called on immediately before July 4th to add their names as co-sponsor of the ERA. The time for excuses is over.

Brad Berger

For those of us who feel deeply about the ERA, this is what we should be asking:

Where are the powerful men and women who could -- with a few encouraging words -- get people out in the streets, writing letters to government leaders, energizing us to fight to make this a reality? Nancy Pelosi? Michelle Obama? In fact, where is President Obama? The White House website posted an "official" position on the ERA which I found disheartening indeed. Tina Tchen, the Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, wrote a blog about how President Obama has "a proven track record of supporting the ERA" and how then-Senator Obama in 2008 was "a sponsor of a joint resolution ratifying the ERA... " Yes. That's one of the reasons we voted for him to begin with. But what is President Obama doing now that he is in the position to help turn the ERA from fantasy into fact? And, Oprah, if you are reading... we all know what you could do.

There are some who may believe the ERA is an outdated concept put forth by the original vanguard of the women's movement, and one that is no longer relevant. The truth, in fact, is quite the opposite. It has never been more important, essential and urgent than it is now. Women are still making 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes, and there are even fewer women on boards and in senior management than in previous years. There is a War on Women happening in this country, make no mistake. The time has come. No more excuses, no more waiting. And no more Supreme Court decisions like the one handed down about Wal-Mart.

Marianne Schnall, founder of feminist.com, and author of the beautiful book, Daring to Be Ourselves, wrote this to me in an email:

It feels to me like unfinished business to have the ERA left unratified, especially when it is about something as fundamental as establishing the equality of men and women under the law. The fact that women are still so underrepresented and underpaid in this country is evidence that we still need this protection. This is an opportunity to create a historic milestone.

Let this be a call to action: Groups are being formed around the country, and on the Internet, to help get this ratified once and for all. It's a simple decision: If you believe the ERA should become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, consider doing the following:

Contact your local government leader and tell them you will not back down until the ERA is ratified
Go to Facebook pages such as ERA Now and Equal Rights Amendment to get up-to-date information
Share this article and get others as energized as you

Don't let another year go by. Let the pride we have in our country -- as we celebrate the 4th of July -- extend to our belief in equality for all. If we work together, we can turn hope into history, and show our daughters and sons that we will not fail them... again.

1944 De ja vu: Lunatics against the ERA

2011-07-20T05:12:00.000-07:00

1944 !
And, now, 67 years later...the same lunatic fringe against equal treatment for 52% of America's population!

WOMEN ARGUE EQUAL RIGHTS AT CHICAGO,
THEN HEAR MAN CALL IT 'LUNATIC PROPOSAL'

CHICAGO, July 17 - More numerous, more
official and more vocal then ever before in the
history of the party, Democratic women got off
to a lively start in the pre-convention program,
in the renewal of an old feud before the reso-
lutions sub-committee this afternoon.

Mrs. Emma Guffey Miller, of Pennsylvania,
captained the advocates and Mrs. Dorothy Mc
Allister, of Michigan, the opponents of the
proposal to insert an equal rights amendment
plank in the platform. Each introduced depu-
ties of important feminine organizations who
submitted statistics and arguments to the
twenty-two men and women sitting non-
committally to hear all comers.

Then Marvin Harrison of Cleveland, under
the aegis of the National Consumers League,
waded right into this feminine fracas, swinging
his arms and some pungent phraseology to
emphazize his protest at inclusion of what
he termed, "this lunatic proposal." He
pleaded that the Democratic Party "may be
saved from endorsing, on a 'me, too' basis,
this plank which the Republican party put into
its platform, I believe, without much discus-
sion." Mr. Harrison said, "We work on a family
unit and women do need special protection."

Favorable action on the proposal was
urged by Mrs. William Dick Sperberg of New
York for the General Federation of Women's
Clubs ; Mrs. Marion Mulligan and Miss Matilda
Fenberg, who appeared respectively for the
National Federation of Business and Pro-
fessional Women and the National Association
of Women Lawyers, and Dr. Bertha Van
Heusen, for the Central Board of the
American Women's Medical Association.

Speaking against the proposal were
Miss Linna Bresete of the National Cath-
olic Welfare Council and Mrs. Raymond
S. Simons, representing the National
League of Women Voters. Besides, Mrs.
McAllister read into the record opposition
statements of Philip Murray, president of
the C.I.O. ; of the National Board of the
YWCA, of the National Council of Jewish
Women, and of the American Association
of University Women.

=================================
NEW YORK TIMES JULY 18, 1944
=================================

Equality48@aol.com

Florida Legislators who have NEVER cosponsored ERA !

2011-07-19T14:23:00.000-07:00

LET’S Let's get these legislators names OFF THIS LIST.

Pick out the names of your own Florida state legislators from this list.

Call your County Supervisor of Elections or go to www.Leg.state.fl.us to get their phone numbers.

Make an appointment w/them or the Legislative Aide.

Email SandyO@PassERA.org for what to say at the brief appointment in their local offices.

Watch them squirm as they try to answer YOU, their VIP constituent, why they haven't sponsored Equal Treatment for all Americans Regardless of Gender, the ERA!

See if you can get them to commit to cosponsoring the next Session.

Then pass on the info to SandyO@passERA.org.

THIS is THE most important action you can take for ratifying the ERA, trust me! sandyo

ACCORDING TO OUR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL DIRECTOR, TARA LAXER, here are the names of the renegade Florida legislators who have never co-sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment ratification bill since 2003!

Here are THE NAMES WHO HAVE VOTED AGAINST ERA by their silence, have refused to co-sponsor after years of our lobbying them-- please post this information to others via email and also use on any literature that may serve to educate the voting public as to where a candidate stands on women’s rights: **

FLORIDA SENATE: *JD Alexander, Thad Altman , Jeff Atwater, Carey Baker, Lee Constantine, Victor D. Christ, "Charlie" Dean, Alex Diaz de la Portilla, Paula Dockery, (Mike Fasano, Don Gaetz; BUT BOTH OF THESE DID VOTE FOR IT RECENTLY!) Rudy Garcia, Andy Gardiner, Mike Haridopolos, Joe Negron (Chair 2010 #1 Committee), Steve Oelrich, Durell Peaden Jr, Garrett S. Richter, Ronda Storms (SHE HATES ERA), John Thrasher, Alex J. Villalobos (Chaired Judiciary Committee both times bill heard in Senate, and so HE VOTED FOR IT TWICE!), Stephen R. Wise.*

FLORIDA HOUSE: *"Sandy" Adams, Janet H. Adkins, Kevin C. Ambler, "Tom" Anderson, Gary Aubuchon, Leonard L. Bembry, "Mack" Bernard, Ellyn Setnor Bogdanoff, Esteban L. Bovo Jr, Debbie Boyd, Rachel V. Burgin, James Bush III, Dean Cannon, Jennifer Carroll, "Chuck" Chestnut IV, "Gwyn" Clarke-Reed, Marti Coley, Larry Cretul, Steve Crisafulli, Janet Cruz (elected mid-term), Carl J. Domino (Chair 2101 #1 Committee), Chris Dorworth, Brad Drake, Eric Eisnaugle, Greg Evers, Anitere Flores (SHE'S WORRIED THAT IT WILL FOSTER ABORTIONS! but ERA doesn't regulate that, nor same-sex anything!), Clay Ford, Erik Fresen, "Jim" Frishe (HARD RIGHTIST!), Matt Gaetz, Bill Galvano, "Rich" Glorioso, "Eddy" Gonzalez, Tom Grady, Denise Grimsley, Adam Hasner, Alan D. Hayes, Doug Holder, Ed Hooper (REFUSES ME), Mike Horner, Matt Hudson, Dorothy L. Hukill, Kurt Kelly, Paige Kreegel, John Legg, Marcelo Llorente, Debbie Mayfield, Charles McBurney, Seth McKeel, Dave Murzin, Bryan Nelson, Marlene H. O'Toole, Jimmy Patronis, Pat Patterson, Scott Plakon, Ralph Poppell, Stephen L. Precourt, "Bill" Proctor, Lake Ray, Ron Reagan, Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda (ANOTHER WHO BELIEVES ERA = ABORTION!), "Doc" Renuart, "Ken" Roberson, Maria Lorts Sachs, "Rob" Schenck, Ron Schultz, William D. Snyder, Kelli Stargel, Dwayne L. Taylor, "Nick" Thompson, Perry E. Thurston, John Tobia, Baxter G. Troutman, Charles E. Van Zant, Will W. Weatherford, "Mike" Weinstein, Trudi K. Williams, John Wood, Ritch Workman.

Our HERO, Eliz Warren, Dumped by Obama !

2011-07-19T08:24:00.000-07:00

[Sandy: This is a courageous, brilliant woman whose hand at the helm of the Agency she created might have corralled and protected consumers' interests like nothing else! She should have been the one nominated by our President Obama as a recess appointment if he was afraid of the battle. We applaud her unruffled composure on CNN in a post-dump interview. As we mourn, she reminded us that the Agency has already been hamstrung to impotence by rules no other Agency is bound by!]

Congressman Who Harassed Elizabeth Warren Showered With Donations From Banks And Predatory Lenders

Source: Think Progress

Congressman Who Harassed Elizabeth Warren Showered With Donations From Banks And Predatory Lenders
By Lee Fang on Jul 18, 2011 at 2:10 pm

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) gained infamy in May when he went on a childish tirade against Professor Elizabeth Warren, who is currently setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a special adviser to President Obama. McHenry, a former College Republican hack, repeatedly accused Warren of lying about the agreed-upon time for testimony she gave before Congress.

According to a ThinkProgress analysis of new campaign finance data released on Friday, McHenry received $63,800 from lobbyists and executives from banks, mortgage companies, payday lenders, pawn shop executives, and other predatory lenders in the last three months alone. Notably, much of the campaign donations from payday lenders came on a single day, April 20, 2011:

– Advance America PAC: $10,000 on 4/20/11
– Dennis Bassford, CEO of the Seattle-based payday lender MoneyTree: $4,600 on 4/20/11
– Sarah Bassford: $2,700 on 4/20/11
– Community Financial Services Association of America PAC (trade association for payday lenders): $5,000 on 4/20/11
– Checksmart Financial LLC PAC, an Ohio-based payday lender: $2,000 on 4/20/11
– A. David Davis, CEO of Ohio-based payday lender Check-n-go: $2,000 on 4/20/11
– Jared Davis, CEO of Ohio-based payday lender Axcess Financial: $2,000 on 4/20/11
– Roger Dean, CFO of Axcess Financial: $500 on 4/20/11
– EZCORP PAC, a Texas-based payday lender: $2,000 on 4/20/11
– Natl Pawnbrokers Assoc. PAC: $2,000 on 4/20/11

The surge of payday lender money to McHenry on a single day suggests the congressman had a campaign party with opponents of Warren. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is tasked with policing and regulating dozens of predatory lending practices. A few weeks after the predatory lending campaign money started flowing to McHenry, he used the hearing with Warren to berate a leading consumer advocate.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/18/271075/mche... /

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT NOW. THANK YOU.

Update on Congressional ERA bills 2011

2011-07-14T22:14:00.000-07:00

[small editorial comment: For thoroughness and accuracy, the following article must be corrected to note the names of the 4 of us ERA state leaders who worked for a year and a half together to create and propel ERA's US Congressional HJRes 47. They are Camille Moran (LA), Jean Landweber (WI), your own Sandy Oestreich (FL, national), and Carolyn Cook (DC) whose idea it was. It is unfortunate that there seems to be an ongoing habit of neglecting to mention of the other 3 feminists who worked hard at creating the path for HJRes, the necessary documents, and in Landweber's case, secured the actual creator and Sponsor of the bill, US Cong. Tammy Baldwin. The web sites and Facebook pages of three of the four United For Equality members above have also been omitted in the listing below. We believe it is only courteous and feminist to acknowledge all contributors to this major effort.]

Barbara Hannah Grufferman, Huffpost

Writer and speaker on women's issues, author, "The Best of Everything After 50"

Will America Kill the Equal Rights Amendment?

share this story

573

Get Women Alerts

Submit this story

I wrote an article last week -- "From Hope to History: It's Time to Pass the Equal Rights Amendment" -- that generated hundreds of comments and thousands of shares. Why? Many readers were dismayed and confused to learn that this simply worded sentence is still not in the U.S. Constitution, even after 88 years:

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

Readers who believed the Equal Rights Amendment had already passed through Congress to become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution years ago were shocked. The amendment, first written in 1923 by Alice Paul, was, in fact, approved by Congress and sent to the states in 1972 with a ten-year deadline for ratification, but by 1982, supporters had managed to sign on only 35 of the 38 states needed to add the amendment to the Constitution.

Some who are not in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment claim it is redundant and unnecessary, often citing the 14th Amendment, which they say already protects the rights of women. It does not. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly stated that the 14th Amendment was never intended to protect women. It was only intended to protect race. Federal and state law cannot protect citizens who are not protected under the Constitution. He made this remark in January 2011:

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.

Sensing that people are as confused about the issue as I am, but just as eager to turn the promise of the Equal Rights Amendment into a reality, I interviewed key thought leaders who are directly involved in efforts to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

Why do we need the Equal Rights Amendment?

Laws can be repealed. Judicial attitudes can shift. We continue to see demonstrable cases of systemic gender discrimination -- even in this day and age when women have come so far. Establishing the clear unambiguous language of the Equal Rights Amendment into the U.S. Constitution would have a real impact on our national consciousness. Our democracy rests on the principle of 'liberty and justice for all.' We need the ERA to ensure that this concept applies equal to women.

-- Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who reintroduced the Equal Rights Amendment on June 22nd, 2011.

Women in the armed services are fighting on the front lines in two wars to protect and defend a constitution that does not protect and defend them. The U.S. strongly urged Iraq and Afghanistan to include women in their new constitutions as they rebuild their societies; yet we have not led by example.

-- Carolyn A. Cook, founder and CEO of United 4 Equality, and author of the HJ Res. 47 resolution, which calls for Congress to officially remove the time limit for ratification of the ERA.

First, a movement has to move and the women's movement will only grow and thrive if it keeps on pushing for policies such as the ERA -- which is nothing more than the American value of fairness and equality under the law. Second, because even though it hasn't passed yet, every time we have made it an issue, women have advanced in myriad ways. And third, we must pass it because it is the right thing to do. No cause is lost when it is the right thing to do.

-- Gloria Feldt, activist, and author of No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power.

What are the options for getting the Equal Rights Amendment passed once and for all?

There are two strategies that are currently being pursued by those who support the Equal Rights Amendment:

Rep. Carolyn Maloney explained it this way:

I have introduced the full 'start-over' ERA in each Congress since I arrived because the rights of women deserve to be constitutional. This Congress, I introduced H.J.RES 69 with over 155 original cosponsors. This would re-set the ratification count at zero and start the ratification process over again. In addition to the 'start-over' strategy, there is the 'three-state' strategy, which would put the ERA in our Constitution when an additional three states ratify, which, when added to the original 35 states, add up to the necessary 38 ratifications. However, some Constitutional scholars believe that this approach would violate the Constitution and would likely be subject to a challenge which would likely win in court and invalidate the entire ratification. Nevertheless, I support both strategies and believe in doing anything that will increase the chances that the ERA will be included in the Constitution.

To address the issues inherent in the "three state strategy," Carolyn A. Cook spearheaded a resolution which she authored (HJ Res. 47) urging Congress to remove the time limit for ratification in the final three states needed. According to Carolyn,

It is a far more efficient, fair and likely-to-succeed approach than hitting the reset button on ERA. I drafted the proposal, recruited some passionate ERA advocates from unratified states to help, and together we introduced this bill on March 8th to mark the 100th anniversary of Women's Equality Day. This day serves as a reminder that the U.S. cannot curb the human rights abuses of women and girls worldwide while denying them constitutional equality at home.  

Mike Hersh, on staff at the Progressive Democrats of America, succinctly summed up why we need to pursue the "three state strategy" instead of starting over:

Starting over requires a 2/3 vote in favor from both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, which we can't expect until 2013 at the earliest. For reference, this has been tried in every Congress for many years, and has never passed, even when Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker and Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate. Once we get the ERA out of Congress again, we'd have to start over from zeo and get 38 states to ratify the amendment. Fewer than half that many are likely to do so in the foreseeable future. So starting over would almost definitely take several decades.

What can we do to ensure that America does not kill the Equal Rights Amendment?

Complacency will kill the Equal Rights Amendment, and we need to change the tone of the discourse. Let's stop thinking about it in terms of us against them, left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, men vs. women. Reframe the issue of the Equal Rights Amendment and ask yourself this question:

Is it the right thing to do?

Can a country that prides itself as the leader and protector of democracy in the world, and one which implores other countries to include the word "women" in their constitutions (Afghanistan and Iraq), still not protect the rights of women in its own?

If you believe the Equal Rights Amendment should be in our U.S. Constitution, here's what you can do:

Share this article.

Read up on both strategies (starting over and the three-state solution) to better understand why the three-state solution is probably the stronger option, and get behind it.
Contact your local government representative and urge them to co-sponsor "HJ Res 47: Removing the Deadline for Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment."
Visit United4Equality.com and "friend" them on Facebook to get more information on how you can help push through the HJ Res. 47.
Contact your local NOW office, and start volunteering.
Go to Facebook pages such as ERA Now, ERA Once and For All, and Equal Rights Amendment to get up-to-date information.

If you believe in the Equal Rights Amendment, then get behind it, and get it done.

Personal message to Lady GaGa, if you're reading: My teenaged daughters, who are aghast that we have not yet been able to figure out how to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in this country, are huge fans of yours, and your message about "baby, you were born this way." Think about this, Lady GaGa: your fans were "born this way" without the protection of the Constitution. You can help. Support this. It's the right thing to do.

We NEED You; Please email us sandyo@PassERA.org

2011-07-10T21:14:00.000-07:00

This petition is one that is bonafide, legitimate and will actually go to the committee that will hear our new ERA bill filed before US Congress on March 8 2011. It urges votes to pass this bill, HJRes 47, which will eliminate any perception of a deadline or time limit from the original and still alive ERA and gives legitimacy to passage into the US Constitution once 3 more states' legislatures do vote to ratify the ERA! Here's the url to pull up the petition and get it sent!--

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/ratify-the-equal-rights-amendment-to-ensure-equality-for-all-americans/#
This is the MOST IMPORTANT action you can take right now to propel the ERA!

HJRes was designed by Carolyn Cook (DC), Jean Landwebber (Wisconsin), Camille Moran (Louisiana), Sandy Oestreich, (FL), after a year and a half's work (in addition to all other state and other ERA work that fills our days).

We are proud of the outcome, the work we are doing now to secure more co-sponsors to HJRes and a Prime Sponsor for the Senate bill.

Realizing that we cannot do this alone, without a loud, vocal, organized set of ERA Activists across the country, we do urge you

1. to contact any 3 additional UNratified states' legislatures (see 2PassERA.org for a map of the 15 unratifieds) phone, visit and work with your legislators to cosponsor US Congressional HJRes 47 and any state ratification bills

2. find out who runs your state ERA lobbying effort (sandyo@PassERA.org) can tell you who it is.

3. stay the course with your support for our ERA workforce, asking what more you can do.

WE NEED TO BE MAKING TONS OF NOISE for HJRes 47 and YOUR state efforts (7 states are now filing ERA ratification bills.

4. failing personal help for ERA per the above for whatever reason, email me for quick, noncost ways to target influentials, make a 3 min. speech, hold a rally, write a Letter to Editor on why we need an ERA.

ALL of these are exquisitely important to boost our efforts. Be a Miracle, write me today.

5. can't be active out on the hustings, in the boonies, whatever? DONATE whatever you can; some of the states' leaders spend upwards of $13, 000 per year out of their pockets for propelling ERA.

Can you do one small, nocost thing for ERA? Let me know: sandyo@passera.org

MANY THANKS!
Sincerely,
sandyo

President Obama is behind us for the ERA

2011-07-10T19:21:00.000-07:00

President Obama stands tall to declare support for gender-equal treatment, the ERA which still needs all YOUR help to pass into the US Constitution.

No, it did not pass in the first ten-year attempt. It barely missed passing by JUST 3 STATES! So, of the 15 yet-unratified states, the ERA only NEEDS 3 additional states' legislatures to vote to ratify it. Then it can pass into the US Constitution.

As it stands, the noun women or her, remain missing from our contract with our nation. If you are not mentioned in a contract, we all know that means we have no rights in that contract EXCEPT what the powerful wish to grant us! Men are mentioned 39 times, but, like women have no guarantees against sex discrimination. A Constitutional ERA would fix that.

We who are and have been working extremely hard under penurious circumstances (granting agencies tell us "equality of gender is too contentious"! Imagine that in our much-touted democracy.)

We need YOU to write us with your contact info. with an offer to help by making ONE PHONE CALL to a legislator when we need it. Like Right Now. With 2 bills before the Florida legislature for 10 years, for free, for you, we need to show massive, widespread strength from the public. 88% say they support an ERA in the Constitution.

Are YOU one of them? Then email me at Sandyo@PassERA.org. Do it now, before I grow a long gray beard. I promise not to die yet if you do.

sandyo, ERA Inc
The President's position:

Recently, President Obama said “History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered.” This principle rings true in every country and every era. Of note, that recent quote originates from a speech he was making about the Middle East and North Africa. This basic truth resonates just as strongly at home. That is why this Administration is committed to protecting and advancing the role of women and girls in every aspect of society. From protecting women’s health to helping women realize their full economic potential; and from ending violence against women to promoting international women’s rights, I am gratified to know and report that this Administration is working each day to improve the lives of women and girls in the United States and around the world.

Tina Tchen is Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the First Lady, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls

Don't ignore us and our plea to communicate with us--WRITE ME, now. Thanks!

Another Florida "leader" bites the medieval dust

2011-07-10T19:08:00.000-07:00

Ok, NOW, what do you think? Say so..

(Ronda Storms is a Florida legislator who is against most things. Just as Phyllis Schlafly still is. Both of them have the religious, reactionary right and probably the Roman Catholic Church on their sides. Every time you go to my web site, 2PassERA.org, you bump us up a big on the Google foodchain as we approach the leap over Schlafly's hilarously, cruelly funny site, Eagle Forum. So keep coming back to this blog via our site and for other hot info.) Sandyo, ERA Inc

Ronda Storms complementarian links ....longtime member of First Baptist Church in Brandon.

jocelyn andersen to me

show details 3:30 PM (6 hours ago)

http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12880 Storms is a longtime member of First Baptist Church in Brandon. (where her husband is a deacon)

http://www.fbcbrandon.org/ Quote from church website: The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation. http://www.fbcbrandon.org/fusion.cfm?Action=AboutUs/What%20We%20Believe#family

This is the woman who proclains that she has achieved equality and calls the ERA "...anachronistic," she said. "It's circa 1970. You're talking to a Florida female senator who's here, who's equal, who's achieved parity with men." http://l.wbx.me/l/?p=1&instId=4a427754-1bb0-4481-8840-f6328b3c40c7&token=9498846a4b546f2abef349922cc74956da5bf0b30000013114bf8394&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.eagleforum.org%2F2007%2F05%2Fequal-rights-amendment-sinks-in.html I ask you how she thinks she has achieved something she doesn't even believe in!

What's a cuckolded wife to do??

2011-07-10T18:52:00.000-07:00

What do YOU think? Tell us all at ERA Inc by commenting at the end. Please.

Fashion & Style

What Would ‘The Good Wife’ Do?

By ROBERT KING and MICHELLE KING

Published: July 8, 2011

Two years ago, “The Good Wife,” a CBS drama, opened with a familiar tableau: a politician apologizing for sexual peccadilloes. By his side, also caught in the glare of cameras, was his pale, stone-faced wife. What was going through her mind? Since then, politicians continue to face the cameras asking forgiveness. But wives have become conspicuous by their absence; the public no longer expects them to stand by their philanderers. What are these wives thinking? The show’s creators, Robert and Michelle King, who write together and have been married since 1987, speculate about the pressures peculiar to the wives of errant politicians as they weigh whether to forgive their husbands.

Enlarge This Image

Jenny Sanford, in yellow, the former wife of Mark Sanford, leaving the Governor's Mansion.

Enlarge This Image

Hillary and Bill Clinton in 1992.

Enlarge This Image

Bebeto Matthews/Associated Press

Representative Anthony D. Weiner with Huma Abedin.

THE image has indeed changed. There is no wife standing by her man anymore: the political calculation doesn’t demand it. Jenny Sanford didn’t stand beside Gov. Mark Sanford. Huma Abedin wasn’t at Representative Anthony D. Weiner’s side.

But what hasn’t changed is the melodrama of these political scandals. Clinton, McGreevey, Edwards, Spitzer, Sanford, Schwarzenegger, Weiner. Speaking as television writers: they’re over the top.

One can imagine the studio notes. “We like the husband who impregnates his housekeeper, but keeping her in the same house for a decade seems a bit mustache-twirling.” “Love the presidential candidate cheating with his videographer, but do you need the wife to have cancer?” “Tweeting semi-naked photos from the congressional gym: good — very hip. But making his wife pregnant: isn’t that too on-the-nose?”

But here we are. Reality isn’t constrained by studio notes.

Reality is also usually grayer than fiction. The bad husband must have some good in him, or why would the wronged wife love him in the first place? And if the husband is not all bad, if this indiscretion is just a moment of weakness, or a decade of weakness, is there hope? Is there something in the husband for the wife to forgive?

That’s what interested us in “The Good Wife,” back when things seemed so innocent: just call girls and wide stances. How does a wife deal with two betrayals simultaneously: betrayal by infidelity, and betrayal by public humiliation? And how does the wronged wife deal with both, while suddenly judged by the public for every step and misstep?

The question still fascinates us.

Obviously the betrayed wife’s dilemma is complicated by the overlap between the private and the public spheres. The husband’s sin is magnified by the media. It’s everywhere. How can a wife forgive when she can’t get away from the photos, the tweets, the dress, the hooker’s interview, the surprise son?

And then there is the husband’s dilemma, that of the public penitent. The confessing politician has two audiences: the spouse and the public. And the two interests conflict. A wife wants privacy to heal the relationship or to dissolve it. The public wants details.

Robert (Michelle doesn’t completely agree with this): Also confession as a public act is patently hypocritical. It can’t help but have an agenda: political rehabilitation. To my mind, Catholics have it right. Confession, whether to a wife or to a priest, is a private matter. As soon as you make it public, it’s performance. Was there ever a more hurtful or mortifying confession than Mark Sanford’s as he proclaimed his love for his Argentine mistress?

But that’s the irony of public life: how can a politician make amends otherwise? He has to be in the public eye. If he has offended the public, if he has lied to them, then he needs to make amends to his public. So he has to say something. Is it even an option for him to shut up?

Michelle (Robert marginally agrees): Yes, but the wife has to wonder if she’s being used as a way to resurrect his career. Even if she does forgive him, does she want that forgiveness to be used to save his job?

The wife didn’t run for office. She doesn’t benefit from a public airing of her marital problems. At the very moment when she should be allowed to consider only herself and her family, she’s forced to think about public consequences.

Robert (Michelle doesn’t agree): And what does the wronged wife do if she truly believes in her husband’s political worthiness? Is it wrong for her to forgive him if she merely believes it serves a worthy political end?

Michelle: Yes.

Robert: But doesn’t that reduce her to only a spouse, and not address her as a thinking political being?

Michelle: No.

Robert: In the end, I can’t help but sympathize with the disgraced candidate. He is surrounded by hypocrisy. Voters are appalled that he would do what he did or tweet what he tweeted when they have their own particular skeletons in their closets.

Michelle: The difficulty comes when you impregnate the woman you’re paying to clean those closets.

Robert: ...

Michelle: I’m sorry, go on.

Robert: That’s why the crisis manager’s admonition to “admit everything” always seems a bit ridiculous. What don’t you admit? Once you start digging, there’s no stopping. Do you admit what you did in third grade, in high school, in your darkest thoughts?

Michelle: No, you don’t. But the problem is, once you’re thinking about what to admit, you’re in the world of strategy. You’re trying to manipulate the system to save your career. In the best of all possible worlds, you ignore the public consequences and apologize privately, and accept whatever happens.

Robert: Which unfortunately makes for bad drama.

Robert/Michelle: “The Good Wife” was always meant to be a show about “politics” and how it wasn’t just something that happens in Washington, in the State House, in a campaign office. It happens everywhere: among co-workers, friends, enemies, companions, spouses. And our main character, the wronged spouse, came to realize that. She discovered that righteousness is often a pose, and that her husband’s enemies were sometimes worse than her husband.

Given that, the triumph of our betrayed character was not in forgiving. It was deciding not to retreat into her victimhood. If she were ever going to suffer from any mistakes again, they were going to be her mistakes and not her husband’s.

In the end, to forgive or not to forgive seems like half the equation. The more important half is making forgiveness irrelevant.

A Sandy Oestreich Update

2011-07-09T10:56:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry this blog has been lying fallow for a while. NOt neglecting you/us, just that Google decided it didn't know me, etc. You know how that is. First, I held a home garden sale to put gas in our tank's and provide Motel 6 housing in FL capital, Tallahassee next March when we are up there lobbying to ratify the ERA.

Then I got busy attending wonderful nurse practitioner seminars out of area ostensibly to accumulate credits to maintain my ARNP credentialling, but really because I love keeping up with the latest healthcare treatments etc.

Fast trip to a NY Hospital where a dear longtime friend was just out of ICU for multiple dissecting aortic aneurysms (blowout patches in the body's Biggest Artery--time bombs!). Then I spoke along with Virginia's hero (she almost got the ERA passed in Virginia this spring except the VA House tabled her ratification bill--that's the closest anyone's come!!) at the national NOW Conference. Made lots of great connections, esp. with Nevada; handed out audience handouts (Florida's and Virginia's ERA Talking Points==see Florida's at our 2passERA.org site). Then, to our neurologist daughter's Alabama home for the 4th of July. Today, I held one of my annual, multiple Garden Sales just so I can/ ERA can Forge ON for you for free for passage of the ERA.

No kidding. You CAN help by making phone calls and visits to your state legislators if you are an UNratified state (see map, 2PassERA.org) OR to your Congresspeople to urge cosponsorship of HJRes 47 that we worked so hard to get filed before the US CONGRESS in March. Or both! Takes almost NO time. We tell you what to say. We give you the phone numbers. How EASY is THAT!

Please write me at Sandyo@PassERA.org so I can give you that crucial info! Do it now, while legislators are not in Session and are kicking back enuf to actually HEAR what you have to say.

You all say we do great work. Only problem is, legislators in your states, esp. FL, and in Congress ONLY pay attention if there's a Gang of YOU all lobbying by phone or in person for PASSAGE OF THE ERA, finally! THIS is Fact. Help US help YOU get the ERA for equal wages and NO more wink wink sex discrimination against mostly women BUT ALSO MALES!

Trust me: WE NEED YOU MORE THAN YOU KNOW. YOUR INPUT BOLSTERS OURS BEFORE YOUR OWN LEGISLATORS. YOU are their VIPS. WE, not being constituents, are JUST chopped liver. We neeeeed your small efforts.

Speaking of which, Florida's 67 counties will be again looking for 3-minute ERA speakers in each of them this fall....We give you the speech, make your arrangements in your county, and give you directions, date and time! WHAT A BIG dent you can make in Florida's legislature by showing it's NOT just Sandy O pushing the FL ERA ratification bills, but THEIR CONSTITUENTS, TOO! YOU are their EMPLOYERS. YOU have the power to get their attention to ERA--muchmuch more than ours. Please help US get YOU the ERA! Write me how.
F

Just Asking to Leave Women OUT of the Bad Comparisons....

2011-07-09T10:37:00.000-07:00

Although ERA Inc (us) recognizes that the Equal Rights Amendment does not regulate same-sex nor abortion nor a multitude of other Phyllis Schlafly lies (EagleForum.com, aaarrgh), we feel we must officially decry Gov Jingal's painting women as criminals. See below.

In signing anti-abortion bill, Louisiana gov. compares women to criminals

By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, July 7th, 2011 -- 11:13 am

107

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) signed a bill into law yesterday that requires women's health clinics to post signage notifying patients of alternatives to abortion.

At the signing ceremony, Jindal said he was proud to help make his state one that supports a "culture of life," adding that women will soon be treated similarly to criminals who are read their rights after an arrest.

"When officers arrest criminals today, they are read their rights," he said, according to a report by Louisiana paper The News-Star. "Now if we're giving criminals their basic rights and they have to be informed of those rights, it seems to me only common sense we would have to do the same thing for women before they make the choice about whether to get an abortion."

The law was needed, according to anti-abortion activists, to prevent clinics from "coercing" women into terminating pregnancies. It also requires the creation of a website that would inform women of their rights.

[After all, we ARE your mothers, sisters, wives, lovers, supporters, aunts, and MORE! Why is Bobby Jindal on a jihad against us?? Let's consider voting him out, Louisiana? ..SandyO]

Every year, over 10 million women die or sustain life-threatening injuries due to complications from pregnancy, according to the World Health Organization.

In the U.S., the number of women who die from pregnancy complications on an annual basis has doubled over the last 20 years, and a full one-third of pregnant American women will suffer from some form of complication, according to Amnesty International.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control shows that black women were most likely to die during pregnancy, with 32.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies recorded on average. For white women that number drops to 9.5 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, largely split along the lines of income disparity and a lack of access to women's health services, including abortion. ## End

Final word on servicewomen's pay while in combat conditions

2011-07-06T12:58:00.000-07:00

Mea culpa for incidentally misinforming you by saying that our servicewomen do not receive "combat pay" while actually IN combat situations because they are not allowed to BE in combat.

Here's the gospel according to WREI's Lory Manning.

ALL servicemembers, male and female alike, who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan or other military conflict zone receive "hazard pay"; there's no such thing as "combat pay". Other such special pay is for special duty such as flight duty or sea duty. No one receives additional pay for participating in combat activities.

Women are prohibited from being "assigned" to ground combat units per se, but can be and are "attached" to such units upon being ordered to by the local ground commander. They can be attached to any unit anywhere on commanders' orders. This is one of the games that's played according to Ms Manning.

No military personnel receives extra pay for being put in harm's way.

Our friend Britt of the new Jacksonville FL ERAnow.us organization brought this up.
You are all invited to that site, especially if you live in or near Jacksonville--pitch in with them!

sandyo, ERA Inc

2011-07-06T12:24:00.000-07:00

Aaarrgh! Do you agree? PLEASE write a comment here--it boosts me/ERA Inc UP in the Google foodchain. (My goal is to leapfrog OVER the harridan Phyllis Schlafly's site. That's how petty I AM! Phyllis KILLED THE ERA in the first effort and is still out there killing it in the 7 states working to pass the ERA thru their legislatures! She has NO cache in Florida, thanks to our hard work. She refuses to debate me! I know the real deal; she has only fantasies to sell.)

Legislators all over the states AND in CongressWILL catch on when we show them how flimsy are the votes that brought them into power. See www.NewGov.net for new, flaming ideas; ERA Inc is onboard. ....HOW about YOU? Are you ready for a sharp, focussed NEW additional promising approach for ERA? It's helping www.ERAnow.us, epicenter Jax FL. Go there to both, and let me know!!

PS IF you do NOT let me know how you feel about this or respond even with a quick comment, Phyllis Schlafly's website, EagleForum, WINS WINS WINS! Respond to foster the health of ERA Inc, please. !! thanks, sandyo. Remember, I work for YOU for Free for equal treatment under the US Constitution, which supersedees any law, Act or state ERA! Even Florida's. THIS is kick a...ss time. ARE YOU WILLING TO JOIN ME for you for Free ? xx sandyo

RAPES in MILITARY: Gender Horrors, all sides!

2011-04-13T09:31:00.000-07:00

Men Raped In The U.S. Military Speak Out

posted by: Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux 1 day ago

Earlier this year, a group of former and current members of the U.S. military, all women, sued the Pentagon for ignoring their sexual harassment and assault by fellow active duty service members. Now, a new series of disturbing stories of rape in the military are coming to light - but with these, the assault survivors are men.

Newsweek reports that the horrendous victimization rate of female soldiers - "women in the armed forces," they point out, "are now more likely to be assaulted by a fellow soldier than killed in combat" - has started to shed light on the fact that men are also the victims of brutal sexual assaults by fellow members of the U.S. military. For these men, the stigma around speaking out about their rapes is intense. According to Newsweek, a study "released in March found that just one in 15 men in the Air Force would report being sexually assaulted, compared with one in five women." And this is despite the fact that the numbers of men who are willing to come forward have tripled since 2007.

The men who commit sexual assault are, according to analysts, mostly heterosexual, and the rapes have little to do with sexual desire; rather, they are a display of power and intimidation against service members who are newer, weaker, or suspected to be gay. In this sense, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" may help men who are the victims of sexual assault on two counts - the notion of being gay in the military can slowly start to become normalized, and survivors can speak out less reluctantly.

And the assailants seem mostly to act with impunity. One man who was gang-raped was told by unit commanders, "It must have been your fault. You must have provoked them."

One man, who said that he was repeatedly attacked and once had a soda bottle shoved up his rectum, explained the feeling of isolation and powerlessness that came with the assaults. "You just feel trapped," he says. "They basically tell you you’re going to have to keep working with these people day after day, night after night. You don’t have a choice."

Even with the repeal of DADT, stigma and fear of reprisals keep men from speaking out. But the few brave survivors who are telling their stories can begin to end the horrible proliferation of sexual assault in the military, a devastating problem that isn't, as this article shows, confined to women.

Sign this Petition for Congress to Pass ERA !

2011-04-08T19:40:00.000-07:00

We of ERAInc/ UnitedforEquality.com want you to sign this petition for our own new Congressional ERA bill, HJRes 47 that goes DIRECTLY to the members of the Congressional Judiciary Committee where 47 is headed to be voted upon! You couldn't DO anything more important now...other than contacting your own Congressperson and urging her/his signing onto 47 as cosponsor. AND contacting your US Senator and asking her/him to be The Sponsor of the same-worded bill in the Senate. That's U4E's next big job. HELP US HELP you to get equal treatment under the Constitution. We do it For FREE For YOU.

Please Sign this EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ERA petition right now!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/ratify-the-equal-rights-amendment-to-ensure-equality-for-all-americans/

Thanks a million billion! sandy0

NOMAS.ORG: Male and Female Alike Want Equality, & Better Relationships

2011-04-08T19:30:00.000-07:00

Go to NOMAS.org, and change your life if you wish! We recommend this site heartily. And, you may also like Hazards of Being Male, SandyO says.

[Ed. Husband Charlie and I attended this 36th annual conference in Tallahassee FL by the
National Organization for Males Against Sexism in April 2011. Since we are past members of the similar but original of its kind, FreeMens Assn, in the 1970s, we have been immersed in this issue of male and female programming by society to fit in Your Place, Damn It, and how that subverts otherwise fine relationships and even marriage-- working this through together saved our marriage and made it our single best Treasure ever. Their amazing tenets are below. They are for the ERA bigtime. We are linking 2PassERA.org to them and vice versa. Hope you take this to heart. These are lifechanging if needed.]

Even if we could not see any pragmatic ways in which we as men could benefit from an end to traditional patriarchy (and we can see many), most of us would strongly support women's struggle, simply because it is so unquestionably just and right.

Bottom of Form

Tenets

Pro-feminist

Whatever psychological burden men have to overcome, women are still the most universal and direct victims of our patriarchy.

Our organization must take a highly visible and energetic position in support of women's struggle for equality. Our movement was born directly out of and continually nourished by feminism. Even if we could not see any pragmatic ways in which we as men could benefit from an end to traditional patriarchy (and we can see many), most of us would strongly support women's struggle, simply because it is so unquestionably just and right.

Our support for women's rights and specific women's issues must be vigorous and unmistakable. The simple truth is that oppression of gays, homophobia, women's oppression, and men's numerous sex role burdens and wounds are all part of the institution of patriarchy. Each injustice associated with sex contributes to all of the others. All oppressions are linked, and a consciousness of any oppression leads to an awareness of them all. The uniqueness and great potential strength of our movement is that we span all these categories of oppressions. Most people in this country have never heard gay men speak up for women's rights. Most people have not heard heterosexual men speak out forcefully for the civil rights of Gay men and Lesbians. Most people have not heard women speak knowledgeably and sympathetically about men's sex role burdens. In NOMAS, all of these things take place at every conference or meeting.

There is something very special and wonderful in the breadth of our vision as a social movement, which speaks more persuasively than any of us could do alone. The totality of our opposition to the consequences of patriarchy is no weak point at all, but our greatest strength.

We are not standing up as men to create a movement that cares only about men's sex role issues, or only about gay rights, or only about supporting women's fight against sexism. What is most special about our movement is that we have seen the connections between all these injustices, and are committed to ending all of them.

READ THIS COMPANION INFO for the earlier Report blogged here

2011-04-03T09:58:00.000-07:00

Packed full of great stuff/data, READ the following and digest.
sandyo

IMPORTANT INFO FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ON GIRLS AND WOMEN below . Compare to info presented in subsequent article by Kay H. who has authored a book on Men and how they are doing worse than Women.

[Ed: First, we feminists do care about males' well-being too, of course. We fight for their inequities along with women's although theirs seem much less egregious and blatant. ERA Inc does that because we know that the genders are "programmed" from an early age to fit into society's boxes. It's mostly pretty subtle, but it's taken root and been nourished by the media. We do not have Free Will about this as we are proselytized from very young and repeatedly. We accept it. Until we see the damage it creates, that it hurts groups, individuals, and inter-gender relationships badly. Example: Studies show that wherever gender EQUALITY is the standard, marital harmony increases, divorce numbers decline, communities stabilize, economies flourish (e.g., those countries (NOT the US, as we do not have gender equality as a contract in our Constitution and nothing else acts effectively to prevent it) experience an INCREASE IN THEIR GDP of anywhere from 1% to 3%, a very large proportion of GDP).

2) We know that what happens to males affects females and vice versa, so overcoming this challenge requires that both genders learn about each other and appreciate each other. But what we don't accept is that One gender or the Other should accept all the blame for adversity in gender relationships! We females have got to bond together to disrupt these tyrannical machinations that keep us distanced and angry. Feminists have a BIG JOB ahead and it takes most of our energies, much as we'd wish to help the men who are not feminists out of their trenches!

3) Males need to do the same for their gender. We note signs that heads of men's movements do appreciate the model that feminists have created, and many do make use of it. FINE, say we! Since we feminists are mostly NOT male, we are less effective at making change for males. We do and will help, and look forward to the time when more of our organizations reach out freely to the others.

Sandy says: I and my husband of longstanding are just back from a NOMAS conference in Tallahassee, FL, our first--AND IT WAS FABULOUS! We recommend NOMAS.org and info@NOMAS.org for eye-opening congruence with our philosophies. Your ERA Inc and Florida NOW were co-sponsors. THERE MUST BE MORE OF THIS COMING TOGETHER so we can be strong against the current anti-Individual, pro-Business climate threatening us in America! Go find that NOMAS.org site and revel in feeling "at home."

OH, and at FL State U, Tallahassee, my husband and I and about 1000 others were privileged to hear a presentation by Shirin Ebadi, the lawyer, feminist activist from Iran who is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (winner)! Apparently there's a strong feminist equality movement in Iran! She also begged us as Americans to get our leaders to STOP FUNDING MIDEASTERN DICTATORS! She implied that Pres. Obama has inferred that he is working at this! My husband wondered if that knowledge was not the fission that created the uprisings there now!
I was first at the mike, as usual--to give permission to other females to speak up--asking what her perception is of gender equality in America (because I'd noted previoously her statements seeming to indicate we "had it made"). Her response was politically correct mostly, but the audience was impressed and applauded when I introduced myself. It was a thrill to be in her audience, get her autograph and picture. She has a new book out.

BACK TO THE DATE presented by the April 1 Report from The White House Council on Girls and Women, here's the url you need to go to and download, post and circulate:

www.WhiteHouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/data-on-women. It may be skewed a bit toward telling us how good we females now have it, but mostly not. It's hardcore data to use when you make presentations on ERA and other feminist issues!

Best, SandyO, Pres. ERA Inc READ ON!

Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being

In support of the Council on Women and Girls, the Office of Management and Budget and the Economics and Statistics Administration within the Department of Commerce worked together to create the Women in America (pdf) report which, for the first time in recent history, pulls together information from across the Federal statistical agencies to compile baseline information on how women are faring in the United States today and how these trends have changed over time. The report provides a statistical portrait showing how women’s lives are changing in five critical areas:

By bringing together data from across the Federal government, the report is one of most comprehensive sources for information on women’s lives today. This is the first such federal initiative since 1963, when the Commission on Status of Women, established by President Kennedy and chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, produced a report on the conditions of women. This data initiative will allow government, non-government, and individual actors to craft appropriate responses to changing circumstances. The initiative furthers three governance themes of the Obama Administration: (1) pursuing evidence-based policymaking; (2) catalyzing the private sector, including private researchers, to partner with the government in analyzing data and formulating appropriate policies; and (3) pursuing an all-government and all-agency approach to addressing special issues affecting Americans.

Facts alone can never substitute for actions that directly address the challenges faced by women of all ages and backgrounds. But facts are deeply important in helping to paint a picture of how the lives of American women are changing over time and in pointing toward the actions and policies that might be most needed. Better understanding women’s social and economic well-being now and in the past will help generate ideas to help us all win the future.

Download the full Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being (pdf) report.

Additional Resources

The Women in America report is accompanied by this website which compiles in one place some of the vast Federal statistical data concerning women.

Federal data agencies release updated and new information regularly on their own websites; therefore, we encourage all interested parties to check for the latest information. For the most recent information, please visit:

www.census.gov
www.nces.ed.gov
www.nsf.gov
www.bls.gov
www.cdc.gov/nchs
www.bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

Below, we have compiled information relating to women veterans.

Women Veterans

Population and Demographics

Health

Veteran Benefits

People, Families, and Income

The Women in America report describes various demographic characteristics and trends in women’s marriage, living arrangements, childbearing, and poverty. The Census Bureau is the primary source of the data (census.gov).

As the report indicates in regard to people, families and income:

Women are marrying later and have fewer children than in the past. A greater proportion of both women and men have never married, and women are giving birth to their first child at older ages.
Although more adult women live in married-couple families than in any other living arrangement, an ever-growing number of women are raising children without a spouse.
More women are remaining childless, although eight out of ten adult women have children.
As the baby boom generation ages, a growing share of women – and men – are older. Because women live longer, women continue to outnumber men at older ages.
Women are more likely to live in poverty than are adult men. Single-mother families face particularly high poverty rates, often because of the lower wages earned by women in these families.

An overview of this section is available in the Women in America fact sheet (pdf).

For additional resources on these demographic topics relating to women, please visit the Census Information on Women.

Below, we have compiled other relevant demographic statistics about American women.

Population
1. Population by Age and Sex (Table 1)
2. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race (Table 3 16)
3. Race and Hispanic Origin by sex
4. Prevalence of disability in the population, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
  1. Limitation in work activity due to health problems (Table 6)
5. U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population 5 years old and older, by disability status, type of disability, sex, and age (Table A-3)
6. Prevalence of poverty in the population, by gender (and other selected characteristics);
7. Age at first marriage/ child:

Household type and family composition
1. Adults by household type (including cohabitation) (Table 1-8, 15)
2. Family status and household relationship of people 15 years and over, by marital status, age and sex: 2010 (Table A2)

Education

The Women in America report describes levels and trends in women’s educational attainment, school enrollment, and fields of study. The data are primarily from the National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov) or the National Science Foundation (nsf.gov).

As the report indicates in regard to education:

Women’s gains in educational attainment have significantly outpaced those of men over the last 40 years. Today, younger women are more likely to graduate from college than are men and are more likely to hold a graduate school degree. Higher percentages of women than men have at least a high school education, and higher percentages of women than men participate in adult education.
Educational gains among women relative to men can be seen across racial and ethnic groups and this trend is also present in other developed countries.
Despite these gains in graduation rates, differences remain in the relative performance of female and male students at younger ages, with girls scoring higher than boys on reading assessments and lower on math assessments.
These differences can be seen in the fields that women pursue in college; female students are less well represented than men in science and technology-related fields, which typically lead to higher paying occupations.

For additional resources on these education-related topics relating to women, please visit the National Center on Education Statistics or the National Science Foundation.

Other reports that provide detailed information about this topic include:

Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering

Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (pdf)

Below, we have compiled other relevant statistics about the education status of American women.

Education Level
1. Highest education level attained, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
  1. Number of persons age 18 and over, by highest level of education attained, age, sex, and race/ethnicity (Table 9)
  2. Percentage of persons age 25 and over and 25 to 29, by race/ethnicity, years of school completed, and sex: Selected years, 1910 through 2009 (Table 8)
2. Participation in higher education, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
3. National standardized testing results, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
  1. SAT mean scores of college-bound seniors, by sex: 1966-67 through 2008-09 (Table 144)
  2. ACT score averages and standard deviations, by sex and race/ethnicity, and percentage of ACT test takers, selected composite score ranges and planned fields of study: Selected years, 1995 through 2009 (Table 147)

Kind of higher education institution (community college, public university, other
1. Enrollment, staff, and degrees conferred in postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV programs, by level and control of institution, sex of student, and type of degree (Table 187)

Major area of study
1. Major areas of study, by gender (and other selected characteristics)

STEM Education
1. Percentage of public and private high school graduates taking selected mathematics and science courses in high school, by sex and race/ethnicity (Table 151)
2. Share of STEM degrees going to women
  1. Science and engineering degrees awarded, by degree level and sex of recipient (Table 3)
  2. Female share of S&E graduate students, by field: 1996 and 2006 (Figure D-1)
  3. Distribution of Bachelor’s Degrees by Field and Sex (Tables 7-10)
  4. Distribution of Master’s Degrees by Field and Sex (Tables 14-18)
  5. Distribution of Doctoral Degrees by Field and Sex (Tables 21-25)
3. STEM Achievement
  1. Average mathematics scale scores of 8th-graders, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1990 through 2009 (Table A-12-2)
  2. Average science scale scores and percentage of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-graders attaining science achievement levels, byselected student characteristics and percentile (Table 140)
4. STEM degrees conferred
  1. Number of Bachelor’s degrees conferred by degree granting-institutions, by sex, race/ethnicity, and field of study (Table 285)
  2. Women in STEM doctoral programs (Table 1)

Job-related training
1. Adult Education
  1. Participation in Career-related training, by sex (Table 370)

Financial assistance for education and debt burden for education

Employment

The Women in America report describes levels and trends in women’s employment, earnings, and time use. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the main source of the data (bls.gov).

As the report indicates in regard to employment:

The participation of women in the workforce rose dramatically through the mid-1990s, but has been relatively constant since then.
Workforce participation among men has declined, but women are still less likely to work in the paid labor force than are men. When women do work, they are much more likely than men to work part-time.
Women continue to spend more of their time in household activities or caring for other family members; they also do more unpaid volunteer work than men.
Despite their gains in labor market experience and in education, women still earn less than men.
In part, this is because women and men work in different occupations, with women still concentrated in lower-paying and traditionally female occupations.
Because women earn less and because two-earner households have higher earnings, families headed by women have far less income than do married-couple families.

For additional resources on these employment-related topics relating to women, please visit the Bureau of Labor Statistics - Women.

For information about assets and wealth of American households, including those headed by females, please visit: IRS Personal Wealth Statistics, Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances, U.S. Census Survey of Income and Program Participation, or the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Other reports that provide detailed information about this topic include:

Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009 (pdf)

Volunteering in the United States 2010 (pdf)

American Time Use Survey 2009 (pdf)

Below, we have compiled other relevant statistics about the employment status of American women.

Labor market participation
1. Employment rate, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
2. Economic activity of women after childbirth
  1. Families with own children: Employment status of parents by age of youngest child and family type, 2008-09 annual averages (Table 4)
  2. Employment status of the population by sex, marital status, and presence and age of own children under 18 (Table 5)

Working patterns
1. Full-time and part-time work, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
  1. Employed persons by full- and part-time status and sex, 1970-2008 annual averages (Table 20)
2. Flexible working patterns (availability)
3. Multiple jobs
  1. Multiple jobholders and multiple jobholding rates by sex and race 1970-2008 (Table 35)

Industrial sector and occupation
1. Female employees by industry sector (and male employees by industry sector as a comparison)
  1. Employed women 16 years and older as a percentage of selected occupations (Figure H-1)
  2. Employed persons by detailed industry, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (Table 18)
2. Proportion of those in employment who are self-employed
  1. Unincorporated self-employed persons in nonagricultural industries by sex, 1976–2009 (Table 33)
3. Participation in STEM fields (SRS)

Union membership
1. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by sex, annual averages, 1983-2008 (Table 38)
2. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by selected characteristics (Table 1)

Voluntary and Community Activities
1. Volunteering by type of activity carried out
2. Participation in voluntary and community activities within the last 12 months by gender (and other selected characteristics)
  1. Volunteers by selected characteristics, September 2009 (Table 1)

Use of Time
1. Recreational, social, and leisure activities
  1. Time spent in leisure and sports activities for the civilian population by selected characteristics, 2008 annual averages (Table 11)

Women as caretakers
1. Overall
  1. Time spent in detailed primary activities, and percent of the civilian population engaging in each detailed activity category, averages per day by sex (Table A-1)
  2. Time spent in detailed primary activities, and percent of the civilian population engaging in each detailed primary activity category, averages per day on weekdays and weekends (Table A-2)
2. Women as caretakers

Financial Resources and Access to Services
1. Wages and Earnings
  1. Median usual weekly earnings for full-time workers, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
  2. Distribution of full-time workers’ wages, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
    1. Distribution of full-time wage and salary employment, by sex and major occupation group, 2009 annual averages (Chart 4)
    2. Distribution of full-time wage and salary workers, by usual weekly earnings and selected characteristics, 2009 annual averages (Table 7)
  3. Median hourly earnings of workers paid by the hour, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
    1. Median hourly earnings of wage and salary workers paid hourly rates, by selected characteristics, 2009 annual averages (Table 9)
  4. Distribution of hourly earnings of workers paid by the hour, by gender (and other selected characteristics)
    1. Distribution of wage and salary workers paid hourly rates, by hourly earnings and selected characteristics, 2009 annual averages (Table 10)
  5. STEM
2. Use of government services and benefits
  1. Claimants of key benefits

An overview of this section is available in the Women for America fact sheet.

Health

The Women in America report describes levels and trends in women’s life expectancy, prevalence of chronic health conditions, access to health care, and health insurance coverage. The data come primarily from the National Center for Health Statistics (cdc.gov/nchs).

As the report indicates in regard to health:

Life expectancy has increased over time for both women and men; however, women continue to live longer than men.
Women are disproportionately more likely than men to be affected by certain critical health problems, including mobility impairments, chronic health conditions such as asthma, arthritis, or depression. Women are less likely to be physically active and are more likely to be obese. Females age 12 and older are more likely than males to report experiencing depression.
Women continue to have a lower incidence of heart disease than men and are less likely than men to suffer from diabetes.
Women generally use the health care system and preventive care more than men, but many women still do not receive recommended preventive care such as pap smears or flu vaccinations.
The share of both adult women and men without health insurance has increased over time. People with insurance are much more likely to have a doctor or other medical professional who provides regular care; one out of seven women have no usual source of health care.

For additional resources on health topics relating to women, please visit the Health, United States, 2010 Report.

Below, we have compiled other relevant statistics about the health status of American women.

Life expectancy
1. Life expectancy at birth, at 65 years of age, and at 75 years of age, by race and sex
2. Life expectancy at birth and 65 years of age international rankings: OECD countries

Mortality

Fertility and Natality
1. Fertility and childbirth
2. Average age of mothers giving birth
  1. Average age of mothers at first birth (Figure 1)
  2. Average age of mother at first birth, by race and Hispanic origin of mother (Figure 4)
3. Breastfeeding
  1. Breastfeeding by year of baby’s birth and selected characteristics of mother

Health Conditions

Behaviors impacting health
1. Cigarette smoking
2. Excess drinking
  1. Heavy and binge drinking among adults
3. Physical activity
4. Drug use
  1. Use of selected substances in past month by age, sex, and race
  2. Use of selected substances in past month by high school seniors, 10th graders, and 8th graders
5. Other health risks among adolescents
  1. Health risk behaviors among students in grades 9–12, by sex, grade level, race, and Hispanic origin

Use of health services and preventative health services
1. Inpatient and outpatient data
  1. Discharges, days of care, and average length of stay in nonfederal short-stay hospitals, by selected characteristics
2. Cancer screenings
  1. Use of mammography within past 2 years among women 40 years of age and over, by race and Hispanic origin
  2. Use of Pap smears among women by selected characteristics
3. Other preventative care (physicals, other screenings)
  1. Influenza vaccination s among adults, by selected characteristics
4. Prenatal healthcare
  1. Prenatal care for live births, by race and Hispanic origin of mother

Sexual health

Mental Health
1. Depression
  1. Depression among adults (Figure 12)
2. Suicide rates
  1. Death rates for suicide, by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age
  2. High School Students Reporting Considering, Planning, or Attempting Suicide in the Past 12 Months, by Sex

Health care access and use
1. Health care access
  1. No usual source of health care among adults 18-64 years of age, by selected characteristics
  2. Reduced access to medical care, dental care, and prescription drugs during the past 12 months due to cost, by selected characteristics
2. Health care use
  1. Health care visits to doctor offices, emergency departments, and home visits within the past 12 months by selected characteristics
  2. Visits to primary care generalist and specialist physicians, by selected characteristics and type of physician

Health care expenses, health insurance and sources of payment

An overview of this section is available in the Women for America fact sheet.

Crime/Violence

The Women in America report describes levels and trends in women’s victimization, crime, and involvement in the criminal justice system. The data come primarily from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov).

As the report indicates in regard to crime and violence:

Women are less likely than men to be victims of crime. As overall crime rates have fallen in the United States, the likelihood of victimization has declined.
The probability of being a victim of a violent crime (assault, robbery, or homicide) has declined among both men and women in the last two decades.
Attacks on women by their intimate partners have fallen since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, although women are still much more likely to be victimized and injured by this type of violence than are men.
Females made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993. Intimate partners were responsible for 3% of all violence against males and 23% of all violence against females in 2008.
Although rape is considered to be underreported, reported rape rates have declined over time.
The majority of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim, primarily an acquaintance.
Women are at far greater risk than men for stalking victimization.
Women are more likely to commit crimes now than in the past, although women who commit crimes are more likely to be arrested for nonviolent property crimes compared to male criminals whose crimes are more likely to involve violence.
During the past two decades, imprisonment rates have risen for both men and women, although the share of women in prison is still much lower. Like their male counterparts, black and Hispanic women are much more likely to experience imprisonment than white women. Many imprisoned women have minor children.

Other reports that provide detailed information about this general topic include:

Criminal Victimization in the United States 2007 (pdf)

Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence (pdf)

Below, we have compiled other relevant statistics about the crime and violence affecting American women.

Violence against Women
1. Number of violent crimes against women (and by way of contrast, by men)

Type of violent incidents

Prevalence and type of sexual assault

Proportion of women experiencing intimate partner violence

Prevalence and type of violence
1. Distribution of Rape and Physical Assault Victims, by Frequency and Duration of Victimization and Gender (Exhibit 11)

Prevalence and type of stalking
1. Perceived gender of the stalking or harassment offender, by victim gender (Table 4)
2. Characteristics of Stalking and Harassment Victims (Table 3)
3. Victim-Offender Relationship in Stalking and Harassment (Table 5)

Relationship of victim to perpetrator

Costs of Violence against Women
1. Use of health services by victims of domestic violence and sexual assault

Social and Economic costs of violence

Use of criminal justice system

An overview of this section is available in the Women for America fact sheet.

Your silence is deafening on this blog! Please respond!

?Women are Responsible for Men's Problems which are MUCH larger than Womens??

2011-04-03T09:46:00.000-07:00

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THESE anti-feminist ARGUMENTS as excerpts from this woman's article (aside from their use to sell her book)? PLEASE WRITE A RESPONSE!..sandyo

Manhattan Moment: What America really needs is a White House Council on Men and Boys

White House Council on Women and Girls

Comments (0) Print

By: Kay Hymowitz 03/22/11 8:05 PM
OpEd Contributor

A few weeks ago, the White House Council on Women and Girls released an inter-agency report titled "Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being."

I learned a lot from reading it, like, for instance, the answer to the question: Do we need a White House Council on Women and Girls? The answer, many readers won't be surprised to hear, is no.

To be sure, the report has plenty of interesting data -- almost all of it indicating that women are doing very well indeed. Women are living longer than men, which probably explains why there are 4 million more of them in the United States.

They are less likely to be victims of violent crime or to be unemployed. These days, far fewer women are having children as teenagers. Instead, they are busy earning more high school degrees than men, taking more Advanced Placement courses and earning more college degrees.

Fifty-seven percent of today's college grads are female, and projections are that the number will reach 60 percent by the end of the decade. Women make up the majority of graduate students. They are also 51 percent of management and professional workers, though they make up only 47 percent of the work force.

Of course, as most people know, there is one area where women lag: They don't earn as much as men. The foreword to the report puts it this way: "At all levels of education, women earned about 75 percent of what their male counterparts earned in 2009."

Look carefully at the body of the report and you'll see the two primary reasons why: First, women major in fields that tend to lead to lower-paying jobs. They dominate the ranks of the humanities and education majors, while they're relatively scarce in science and technology.

The second reason for lower female earnings is that women work fewer hours.In 2009, employed married women spent on average seven hours and 40 minutes in "work-related activities," compared to employed married men's eight hours and 50 minutes.

Could discrimination still explain some of the wage gap? It could, but the evidence from "Women in America" is that women earn less because they work less and because they work as teachers rather than software developers.

The report doesn't tell us whether there is any evidence that most Americans see either of these tendencies as a problem that a government council should solve.That may be because there is no such evidence.

In fact, as the economist Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has suggested, there's a stronger case to be made for a White House Council on Men and Boys.

A report from that imaginary council would begin by noting that 72 percent of girls get a high school degree, compared to 65 percent of boys. (Again, that's Sixty. Five. Percent.)It would go on to state that the percentage of men getting a college degree has not budged since the 1970s.

It would point out that the share of men in the labor force has hit historic lows, as they account for seven of every 10 jobs lost during the Great Recession.It would also show that the trends for young men are ominous, since single, childless women in their 20s are now outearning them in most major cities by as much as 21 percent.

And finally it would observe that all of these trends reduce the proportion of "marriageable men," that is, men with steady jobs whom women might want to marry and raise children with.The irony is that the dearth of such men means more single mothers, which in turn means more female poverty and lower income for women.

Unfortunately, the Council on Women and Girls never makes that connection.

Kay S. Hymowitz is the William E. Simon fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. Her new book is Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys.

Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Case UPDATE

2011-03-30T14:40:00.000-07:00

Doesn't look good for the 1.6 MILLION women's case against the behemoth Wal-Mart. Split hairs tangle the truth: Just because a company has a "policy" against sex discrimination doesn't mean they ACTUALLY FOLLOW IT or apply it to various state store managers!

New Articles

High court rejects $14 million for wrongly convicted man

WalMart case may be decided along high court's gender lines

ST PETERSBURG (FL) TIMES, March 30 2011

Plaintiffs Betty Dukes, left, and Christine Kwapnoski outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday, as Sydney Odle, 14, center, rests against her mother, fellow plaintiff Stephanie Odle.
	[Associated Press]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices, sharply divided along gender lines, appeared poised to reject a nationwide class-action lawsuit that accuses WalMart of sex discrimination after an argument over class actions became a debate over what constitutes sex discrimination in today's workplace.

The men and women in the black robes seemed to see the matter quite differently.

For the first time in its history, the high court has three women on the bench, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan asserted that a corporate policy of letting store managers decide on promotions could result in discrimination against women. The statistics strongly suggest that is what occurred, they said.

But led by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, most of the six men on the court questioned how WalMart can be held liable for illegal sex bias, since its 3,400 store managers across the nation decide on who gets promoted and who receives pay raises.

"It's not clear to me: What's the unlawful policy that WalMart has adopted?" Kennedy asked, since the company's written policy calls for equal treatment without regard to race or sex.

A lawyer representing the female plaintiffs argued WalMart has a "corporate culture" that teaches mostly male supervisors that women are less aggressive than men and therefore are less suited to being managers.

Unpersuaded, Scalia called that "an assessment of why the percentage (of women in management) is different," but it is not evidence of an illegal policy. WalMart does not say "don't promote women," he said. "If you have an aggressive woman, promote her," he added.

Ginsburg, who made her legal reputation in sex-discrimination law, said WalMart's experience shows how "gender bias can creep" into the workplace. It isn't "at all complicated," she said. "Most people prefer themselves. And so a decisionmaker, all other things being equal, would prefer someone who looked like him."

The case heard Tuesday is the most important and far-reaching job-discrimination dispute to come before the high court in more than a decade. It could determine whether job-bias claims must proceed as individual lawsuits or instead can be pressed as broad, class-action claims that rely mostly on statistics.

The Berkeley, Calif., lawyers who brought the sex-bias suit against the nation's largest retailer say that while about two-thirds of its employees were women when the statistics were compiled five years ago, men were 86 percent of the store managers.

They also said women were paid less across the country, even though they had more seniority on average than men.

At issue before the court was whether these findings would allow this single suit to proceed as a class-action claim on behalf of 1.6 million women who have worked for WalMart since 1998. If so, it would be by far the largest job-bias case in American history.

But the tenor of Tuesday's argument suggested the massive, decade-old suit may run aground before it can move toward a trial.

While the more conservative-leaning justices on the high court seemed the most hostile to the case, nearly all of its members appeared troubled by aspects of the litigation, ranging from concerns over how back pay would be awarded to class members to whether the company would be afforded an ample opportunity to defend itself against the accusations of discrimination.

A key, at least for what appeared to be a majority of justices, is whether WalMart as a company had in place policies that encouraged supervisors to treat women employees differently from men. The company's attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous of Los Angeles, argued that the company instead took a strong stand against discrimination and that any case of disparate pay or treatment was the product of rogue managers.

Of the six men on the court, only Justice Stephen G. Breyer appeared inclined to vote in favor of the class action

A ruling in WalMart vs. Dukes is not likely until June.

WASHINGTON — A bitterly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out a $14 million jury verdict won by a New Orleans man who spent 14 years on death row and came within weeks of execution because prosecutors had hidden a blood test and other evidence that would have proved his innocence.

The 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas shielded the New Orleans District Attorney's Office from being held liable for the mistakes of its prosecutors. The evidence of their misconduct did not prove "deliberate indifference" on the part of then-District Attorney Harry Connick Sr., Thomas said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized her disapproval by reading her dissent in the courtroom, saying the court was shielding a city and its prosecutors from "flagrant" misconduct that nearly cost an innocent man his life.

"John Thompson spent 14 years isolated on death row before the truth came to light," she said. He was innocent of the crimes that sent him to prison and prosecutors had "dishonored" their obligation to present the true facts to the jury, she said.

Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 of them on death row.

"I was delivered an execution warrant in my cell seven times," he said in a statement Tuesday. "I was only weeks from being executed when my lawyers got the killing stopped."

[Last modified: Mar 29, 2011 11:21 PM]

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 St. Petersburg Times

Commemoration Women's History Month 2011

2011-03-21T18:33:00.000-07:00

From northern NJ newspaper to commemorate Women's History Month.

Yet women have come far since the stalled Equal Rights Amendment of 1972, and even further than in 1776, when Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, "In the new code of laws, remember the ladies and do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands."

We have so many brave women to thank, from the suffragettes who fought for women's right to vote, to the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, which fought for decent work hours and four paid holidays a year. From the feminists to the civil rights activists of the 1960s and 1970s. From the women who were the firsts – first female astronaut, carpenter, secretary of state — to the millions of women today who hold down one, two or three jobs, and still cook dinner, clean the house and attend their children's school performances.

One day, women's work will have the same economic value as men's. One day, girls will have so many role models they won't even notice. Until then, we have March, to remember and appreciate.

MARCH is Women's History Month. Some would say that half the world's population shouldn't need a designated month. That women's contributions to social justice, history, medicine, law, education, science, religion and the arts — not to mention to creating life — should be appreciated every day of the year. We agree.

But sadly, women and men are still not equally matched in important areas like salary, poverty rates and top-tier jobs. Or in recognition. Female basketball stars are not household names. Neither are female movie directors or entrepreneurs. While more women than men earn bachelor's and master's degrees, women still only make on average 75 cents for every dollar a man makes.

One day, women's work will have the same economic value as men's. One day, girls will have so many role models they won't even notice. Until then, we have March, to remember and appreciate.

Anti-street-harassment Group Launches! ABOUT TIME!

2011-03-21T14:51:00.000-07:00

[SandyO says--add Street Harassment to Bullying as topics we all need to strike DOWN! It's about time we wiped out these intimidating actions. SPEAK UP SPEAK OUT!]

I have had the honor to meet with the founder of the Hollaback! chapter here in Mexico City, called AtreveteDF. A fairly new addition to the national and now global work that Hollaback! started in 2005, AtreveteDF is a growing force in the anti-street harassment movement. To mark International Anti-Street Harassment Day today, I invited AtreveteDF to write a guest post sharing its work and vision, especially in relation to the need to address this issue with young people. Below, readers will find both English and Spanish versions of AtreveteDF's guest post. Please note that due to safety concerns, AtreveteDF contributed their post anonymously.

Education Against Street Harassment

One memory remains from a recent visit to a soccer stadium here in Mexico. Two kids, who were about 6 or 7, were shouting -- in an almost eloquent manner -- quite derogatory and objectifying comments to the cheerleaders and other women in the stadium. They also made comments directed at the players of the opposing team regarding homosexuality and their supposed "lack of manliness" as well as to members from their own team when players failed to score. People passed by and laughed; most men and women seemed to applaud this behavior, and nobody, including myself, asked them to be respectful or otherwise.

Today is International Anti-Street Harassment Day. When we speak of the daily realities many women and LGBTQ folks face when they walk down the street, let's not forget to mention the children and youth who learn how to repeat these behaviors from the widespread sexual violence in our communities, the media, their homes, streets and schools.

While verbal harassment disguised as a compliment is not considered by many as sexual abuse (though it is by law in Mexico

"No fue romantico en aquel entonces, no es romantico hoy"; "It wasn't romantic back then, and it's not romantic today."

City), it is the beginning of a chain of gender-based violence that leads tofemicide. Cases of violence against women have been treated with impunity here in Mexico; in other words, it is normalized and ignored. This is the message, subliminal or otherwise, that is portrayed to the children of our community. If you're a man the thinking might be: "It's ok, no big deal," and if you are a woman, the thinking might be, "Well, what can you do about it?"

We also know that in terms of machismo, "one is not born but made." During the years of childhood and adolescence, there is much that can be done to counteract the collective forms of reaffirming masculinity that is perpetuated by both men and women in our society.

Any educational effort to promote equity should consider the different cultural and educational environments we navigate so that messages of respect towards women and for diversity constitute are accounted for. At a UNESCO meeting on masculinity and culture of peace it was mentioned that coupled with teacher training on effective methods against sexism, homophobia, and racism, measures should be taken "to reduce hierarchies and gender antagonisms at all levels of social life [such as] the public arena, mass media, the private sphere, the workplace, and institutions." Moreover, within schools, talking about gender as only an isolated topic should be avoided, and instead incorporated into discussions about equity, peace, and respect within the curriculum since all subjects include themes that touch on both men and women.

Ileana Jiménez (Feminist Teacher) told me how her male students' perception of street harassment changed when they listened to the experiences of their female peers during a workshop with Emily May, founder of Hollaback; for these boys to realize that this was a daily reality for their peers caused a real impact, as many had never stopped to think about the issue.

For this very reason, I strongly believe that sharing personal stories about street harassment is essential to demonstrating how gender-based violence and discrimination are more common than they appear. They are proof that these compelling realities for women and LGBQT folks should not go unnoticed, especially since they are such an important element of the widespread violence in Mexico.

AtréveteDF (Atreverse means "to dare")

At the end of last year, I discovered the Hollaback! blog and decided to reach out to the New York Hollaback! team to open a

"No Soy Tu Mami," (I'm not your 'mami') from AtreveteDF's Latin American sister counterpart in Buenos Aires.

Mexico City chapter. We've always known that founding it would be controversial, particularly because of the fact that since Mexico has one of the highest rates of violence against women in the world, some think there are more important issues to deal than street harassment. Many people consider the "compliments" that call attention to women subject to interpretation rather than degrading; others believe that they part of a culture of courtship and "picardía."

Clearly, this is not so, since now there is a Mexico City law specifying that forms of sexual abuse in public places range from leering, comments, suggestive gestures, and touching. Even with this law, AtreveteDF believes that there are cultural limitations to this legislation since women are often questioned and made to feel guilty when they share a story or complaint about harassment and/or sexual abuse.

We would like to reiterate that the AtréveteDF/Hollaback! movement around the world is not anti-man, but instead, anti-harassment. We recognize that not all men harass women and many are aware of its impact and work against it. We firmly believe that sharing stories and ways to deal with street harassment en masse is an effective way to raise awareness about social problems that are frequently made invisible.

When voices come together, it leads to creating and modifying public policies as well as to creating supportive communities for those who are made to think that their experience of street harassment has no value or that they are responsible for what has happened to them.

Dare to tell your story and let's walk our streets without fear.

Follow AtreveteDF on Twitter and on Facebook.

ELIZABETH WARREN, America's Denied Fiscal Hero !

2011-03-21T06:25:00.000-07:00

SandyO : ELIZABETH WARREN IS AMERICA'S HIDDEN FISCAL HERO! LET'S STAND UP AND SPEAK OUT FOR THIS MAGNIFICENT WOMAN ! GET HER NOMINATION TURNED INTO HER HEADING UP THE CRUCIAL FEDERAL AGENCY SHE CREATED! WHAT ACTION DO YOU SUGGEST?

The War on Warren

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 20, 2011

Last week, at a House hearing on financial institutions and consumer credit, Republicans lined up to grill and attack Elizabeth Warren, the law professor and bankruptcy expert who is in charge of setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Ostensibly, they believed that Ms. Warren had overstepped her legal authority by helping state attorneys general put together a proposed settlement with mortgage servicers, which are charged with a number of abuses.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Go to Columnist Page »

Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Read All Comments (25) »

But the accusations made no sense. Since when is it illegal for a federal official to talk with state officials, giving them the benefit of her expertise? Anyway, everyone knew that the real purpose of the attack on Ms. Warren was to ensure that neither she nor anyone with similar views ends up actually protecting consumers.

And Republicans were clearly also hoping that if they threw enough mud, some of it would stick. For people like Ms. Warren — people who warned that we were heading for a debt crisis before it happened — threaten, by their very existence, attempts by conservatives to sustain their antiregulation dogma. Such people must therefore be demonized, using whatever tools are at hand.

Let me expand on that for a moment. When the 2008 financial crisis struck, many observers — myself included — thought that it would force opponents of financial regulation to rethink their position. After all, conservatives hailed the debt boom of the Bush years as a triumph of free-market finance right up to the moment it turned into a disastrous bust.

But we underestimated the speed and determination with which opponents of regulation would rewrite history. Almost instantly, that free-market boom was retroactively reinterpreted; it became a disaster brought on by, you guessed it, excessive government intervention.

There remained, however, the inconvenient fact that some of those calling for stronger regulation have a track record that gives them a lot of credibility. And few have as much credibility as Ms. Warren.

Household debt doubled as a share of personal income over the 30 years preceding the crisis, and these days high levels of debt are widely seen as a major barrier to recovery. But only a handful of people appreciated the dangers posed by rising debt as the rise was happening. And Ms. Warren was among the foresighted few. More than a decade ago, when politicians of both parties were celebrating the wonders of modern banking and widening access to consumer credit, she was already warning that high debt levels could bring widespread financial disaster in the face of an economic downturn.

Later, she took the lead in pushing for consumer protection as an integral part of financial reform, arguing that many debt problems were created when lenders pushed borrowers into taking on obligations they didn’t understand. And she was right. As the late Edward Gramlich of the Federal Reserve — another unheeded expert, who tried in vain to get Alan Greenspan to rein in predatory lending — asked in 2007, “Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers?” And he continued, “The question answers itself — the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.”

Given Ms. Warren’s prescience and her role in shaping financial reform legislation — not to mention her effective performance running the Congressional panel exercising oversight over federal financial bailouts — it was only natural that she be appointed to get the new consumer protection agency up and running. And it’s hard to think of anyone better qualified to head the agency once it goes into action.

The fact that she’s so well qualified is, of course, the reason she’s being attacked so fiercely. Nothing could be worse, from the point of view of bankers and the politicians who serve them, than to have consumers protected by someone who knows what she’s doing and has the personal credibility to stand up to pressure.

The interesting question now is whether the Obama administration will see the war on Elizabeth Warren for what it is: a second chance to change public perceptions.

In retrospect, the financial crisis of 2008 was a missed opportunity. Yes, the White House succeeded in passing significant new financial regulation. But for whatever reason, it failed to change the terms of debate: bankers and the disaster they wrought have faded from view, and Republicans are back to denouncing the evils of regulation as if the crisis never happened.

By the sheer craziness of their attacks on Ms. Warren, however, Republicans are offering the administration a perfect opportunity to revive the debate over financial reform, not to mention highlighting exactly who’s really in Wall Street’s pocket these days. And that’s an opportunity the White House should welcome.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 21, 2011, on page A25 of the New York edition.

LET'S MOBILIZE FOR ELIZABETH'S APPOINTMENT AS CHAIR!~!!

Proposed Purported Republican Cuts in HR1

2011-03-19T22:55:00.000-07:00

[Ed. ERA Inc has not validated the following. Would anyone want to take that on, out of need for accuracy?]

Here are just a few of the cuts that the Republicans make in HR 1:

· While 50 million Americans are now lacking health insurance they slash $1.3 billion in funding for Community Health Centers, denying primary health care to 11 million patients.

· While college education is already unaffordable for much of the middle class, they Slash Pell Grants by $5.7 billion, reducing or eliminating Pell Grants for 9.4 million low-income college students.

· While working families are unable to find decent quality, affordable childcare, they slash Head Start by 20 percent, eliminating the program for 218,000 children and forcing 55,000 layoffs.

· While many seniors and people with disabilities are today waiting far too long to get their claims processed, they slash $1.7 billion from the Social Security Administration, meaning long delays for seniors and disabled Americans.

· While poverty is increasing in our country, they slash the Community Services Block Grant program by $405 million, reducing the ability to get emergency food, housing and heating assistance out to 20 million seniors, families with children and the disabled.

· While the price of oil is soaring, they slash $400 million in funding for the home heating assistance program (LIHEAP), making it harder for seniors, the disabled, and families with children to heat their homes in the winter.

· While millions of Americans are suffering from environmentally caused illnesses, they slash funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 30 percent, including a $1.4 billion cut from provisions that keep our air and water clean.

· While we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, they slash the WIC program by 10 percent. This program provides special supplemental nutrition for pregnant women, infants and children.

And, on and on it goes. These are just a few of the proposed cuts that the Republicans want.

As Vermont’s senator, I intend to do everything I can to defeat the grotesquely unfair Republican budget, which moves toward deficit reduction almost entirely through cuts borne on the backs of the weak and vulnerable, and asks nothing from the wealthy and powerful. On March 10th I introduced legislation which would impose a 5.4% surtax on all household income above one million dollars. The legislation also eliminates tax loopholes which enable oil companies to, in some cases, avoid having to pay any federal corporate income taxes.

Workers UNITE!

2011-03-19T21:19:00.001-07:00

POLITICO.COM

Opinion Contributor

Women bear brunt of union-busting

The author writes that the assault on the public sector disproportionately hurts women. | AP Photo Close

By REP. ROSA DELAURO & HEIDI HARTMANN | 3/17/11 4:44 AM EDT

Across America, hardworking teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses and other public employees are being squeezed from two directions.

On one hand, cutting deficits has become the main budgetary priority in Washington and state capitals, which means pay freezes or layoffs for hundreds of thousands of these middle-class workers. Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and other states, governors are using the real problem of budget deficits as a justification to pursue a long-term goal: union busting.

POLITICO 44

Whether by design or default, this two-pronged assault on the public sector disproportionately hurts women.

Women are the majority of public-sector employees at the state and local levels and have already lost 320,000 public-sector jobs in the past two years. As budget crises intensify this year, and as states still face a $125 billion budget shortfall, state governments are likely to shed more jobs. These layoffs are likely to fall squarely on women.

Worse, job losses will come as female workers are trying to do more with less because they have already begun in the hole. College-educated public servants, for example, make 32 percent less than their private-sector counterparts. Because of pay discrimination, women make 77 cents on the dollar compared with men. Over the course of a career, women lose out on anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million in earnings — simply for being female. As a result, 28 percent of unmarried working women with children live below the poverty line, compared with 6 percent of working men.

Similarly, women not only are the majority of public-sector workers, they more often need government services. Women are 60 percent of those receiving the earned income and child tax credits, which serve mainly working parents. And women are more than two-thirds of those receiving food stamps.

Just as government is rolling back its commitment to these programs, the number of families that need this help is greater than ever.

To complicate matters, the new House Republican majority is trying to drastically cut education, job training and health care services. For example, the Head Start early-education program faces a $1 billion cut — meaning 55,000 teachers and aides would be laid off. K-12 education is predicted to see a cut of almost $600 million. That means approximately 17,000 teacher layoffs. Job training programs would be eliminated with a cut of more than $4 billion to the work force investment system.

In addition, the GOP majority is attempting to defund Title X services, which have connected millions of American women to health care since 1970. Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, which ended the pernicious practice of gender rating — charging women more for the same coverage — and at long last put women’s health care on an equal footing.

The danger to American women in these rollbacks is clear. The question is: What do we do about it? How do we turn back these assaults on women at all levels of government?

First, we can call out the anti-union tactics for what they are. Some governors are attempting to use the state budget crises as a pretense to fulfill a long-term ideological agenda and scale back the provision of public services. By eliminating collective-bargaining rights for public-sector workers, the U.S. loses its strongest champions of critical government services.

If residents can no longer count on government for education, public safety or even roads, they will have to fend for themselves. Under a privatized scenario, those with higher incomes will be the only ones who can afford these services. Average working women and men will be left out and the middle-class standard of living will decline.

Second, we should support strong investments in education, job training and health care. The future of America depends on not turning back the clock on these critical work force investments.

Businesses are looking for the employees who can make them successful. Because the federal government is the only institution that can backstop revenue losses at other levels of government, it falls to Congress to make these critical investments when states and localities are feeling the pinch.

Third, we should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which will give teeth to the Equal Pay Act, bringing sex discrimination law into parity with all other types of discriminatory law — giving female workers the tools to ensure they are fairly compensated. Equal pay for equal work will reduce the burden on the safety net — and thus reduce deficits.

What is at stake in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and other states is more than a budget crisis. It is whether we as a nation will stand up for the rights of working middle-class women and men to improve their lives or make it harder for them and their families to seize opportunities — at home or at work, in college or in our hospitals.

If this assault on public-sector unions succeeds, Americans may lose not only their bargaining rights in the workplace but the critical services they rely on.

We can and must do better.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) is the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. Heidi Hartmann, an economist, is president of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

WORKING WOMEN at Wal-Mart:

2011-03-18T21:59:00.001-07:00

Sex discrimination at WalMart: Anecdotes and Evidence

Wal-Mart v. Dukes - Why the Supreme Court Should Stand with Working Women

March 01, 2011

On March 29, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Wal-Mart v. Dukes,[1] to determine whether the women employed at Wal-Mart stores across the country can join together in a class action to challenge pay and promotion practices alleged to discriminate against women. To establish that they should be allowed to bring their case together, as a class, the women employees presented statistics in the courts below showing that female workers at Wal-Mart earned less than comparable male workers and were less likely to be promoted.[2] Those disparities were bolstered by evidence that Wal-Mart’s corporate policies and practices allowed for sex-stereotyping to operate as the driving principle in the pay and promotion decisions for its women employees. Experts concluded that Wal-Mart's policies and corporate culture perpetuated these sorts of gender stereotypes across the entire company. The plaintiffs’ evidence speaks for itself—and squarely establishes that a class should proceed.

The harmful gender stereotype that women workers are fundamentally inferior to male workers was widely held at Wal-Mart and deeply ingrained in the corporate culture, according to the plaintiffs’ evidence.[3] The plaintiffs presented statements from over one hundred women describing their experiences at Wal-Mart with different expressions of this stereotype, including:

Men alone are breadwinners, “working as the heads of their households, while women are just working for the sake of working.”[10]

A manager told one employee, “Men are here to make a career and women aren’t. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money.”[11+]
Another female worker was told that “men need to be paid more because they have families to support.[12]
A male employee was selected for a position over an (unmarried) female employee because he “deserved the position” as “the head of household”—but she “did not ‘need’ the position.”[13]

Women’s family responsibilities interfere with work responsibilities; they “should be at home with a bun in the oven”[14] instead of working.

One male manager opined that “women should be home barefoot and pregnant.”[15]
A manager told one woman she could not take an overnight supervisor position because she had children.[16]
One female employee was told to resign and “find a husband to settle down with and have children” [17] —and another female employee was told, “you should raise a family and stay in the kitchen.”[18]
A supervisor asked the only female store manager in her district to resign because she “needed to be home raising [her] daughter” instead of running a store.[19]

Women can’t handle certain jobs—and can’t work in certain “traditionally male” departments—because those positions are “a man’s job”[20-] or “need[]a man.[21]

One woman employee was told, “You’re a girl, why do you want to work in Hardware?”[22]
Women were “required to clean and stock,” while men who worked with them were not.[23]
One woman who applied to work in the Sporting Goods department was told, “You don’t want to work with guns.”[24]

As the plaintiffs’ evidence showed, these harmful stereotypes influenced personnel decisionmaking at Wal-Mart—for example women reported that promotions were awarded based on a “whom you knew, not what you knew” basis,[25] a practice which can exacerbate existing sex disparities by leading managers to select candidates who share their own characteristics[26]

At Wal-Mart, promotion opportunities were not posted.[27] Employees described a “tap on the shoulder” process for making promotions decisions[28] and explained that workers had to be part of the “informal network versus the formal network” to succeed.[29]
A senior vice president told a woman employee that she would not advance because she did not “hunt, fish, or do other typically-male activities” and was not “a part of the boys club.[30]

In addition to these stereotypes, the employees presented evidence that, in Wal-Mart’s culture, women were devalued and demeaned:

A male manager said “women weren't qualified to be managers because men had an extra rib.”[4]
Women were referred to by demeaning names—such as “girls,”[5] “Janie Qs,”[6] and “housewives”[7] —and with degrading language—such as “squatter” or “someone who squats to pee.[8]
One manager commented that the role of female assistant managers was to give women associates someone to discuss their periods with.[9]

Across the country, women lagged behind men in pay and promotions at Wal-Mart, according to the plaintiffs’ evidence.

Women at Wal-Mart earned less than men, even after accounting for seniority, turnover, and performance[31]

Women employees made 5% to 15% less (an average of $5,000 less) than comparable men.[32]
But women on average had higher performance ratings and more years of employment.[33]
The employees’ expert witness concluded that this pay gap could be reasonably attributed to discrimination.[34]

Women were less likely to be promoted to in-store management positions at Wal-Mart and had to wait longer for promotions.

Women received only 77 percent of expected promotions to Support Manager, only 70 percent to Management Trainee, only 67 percent to Co-Manager and only 80 percent to Store Manager based on their representation in the relevant feeder pools.[38]
Women waited 4.38 years from date of hire for promotion to Assistant Manager compared with 2.86 years for men, and 10.12 years before being promoted to Store Manager compared with 8.64 years for men.[39]

The class action mechanism is essential to addressing the pay disparities at Wal-Mart and more broadly. In all industries (including the retail sector) a pay gap between women and men persists—and it cannot be fully explained by legitimate factors like experience or education.

In 2009, women working full time earned 77 cents for each dollar paid to men.[35]
Female workers in sales and related occupations—many of whom work in the retail sector—earned only 64 percent of their male counterparts’ wages in 2010.[36]
The pay gap between men and women persists even after controlling for factors such as experience, education, and industry.[37]

Barriers prevented Wal-Mart employees from learning of discriminatory pay practices or from reporting discrimination when it was discovered, according to the plantiffs’ evidence.

Women employees faced challenges in identifying pay disparities due to Wal-Mart’s policy prohibiting discussions of pay,[40] but sometimes learned of disparities by chance.

One female assistant manager learned a newly hired male assistant manager made $6,000 more than she was paid, but “had always been told [she] would be fired for discussing salary issues so [she] never discussed this pay difference with anyone.[41]
Another female employee realized that she received a lower rate of pay because “many male associates [at her store] brag[ged] about their pay.”[42]
A female assistant manager discovered that a less-experienced male assistant manager earned $10,000 more than her when someone found his misplaced W2 and turned it into her.[43]

And, women employees who learned of discrimination feared retaliation if they complained.

Although Wal-Mart’s “Open Door” policy purportedly allowed employees to air complaints, in reality “the Open Door policy . . . was a façade and resulted only in retaliation.”[44]
For example, a representative from Wal-Mart’s Home Office told female employees who made complaints of sex and race discrimination, “I can fire you, without taking any steps, for using the [O]pen [D]oor [policy].”[45]

Based on this evidence, the courts below concluded that the women employees could come together to challenge Wal-Mart’s pay and promotion practices.[46] The Supreme Court should affirm the lower court's decision to certify the class of women workers.

Wal-Mart is challenging the employees’ right to proceed as a class, but the evidence presented of statistical pay and promotions disparities, pervasive gender stereotypes, and policies that allowed those stereotypes to influence pay and promotions decisions is more than sufficient to satisfy the federal rules class certification. Indeed, the federal rules for class actions were intended to make it possible for broad-scale civil rights challenges like this one to go forward in a single case.

A lawsuit such as this one—alleging company-wide discrimination against numerous employees—is particularly well-suited to class resolution. In fact, the Supreme Court has long recognized that employer policies that give managers the flexibility to discriminate may be challenged on a class-wide basis.[47] By proceeding as a class, the plaintiffs in this case have the ability to fully enforce their rights under Title VII—and only by permitting employees to proceed collectively and overcome the barriers to bringing thousands of individual lawsuits can Title VII’s goal of ending discrimination be achieved. Finally, class actions are well suited to addressing obstacles to individual litigation such as those faced by the employees in this case; the class action mechanism, for example, allows for collection of pay information and protection against retaliation.[48]

The Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for women workers and their ability to challenge company-wide gender discrimination. A decision for Wal-Mart would make it far more difficult to challenge and remedy gender-based pay disparities and other forms of discrimination, eviscerating Title VII’s goal of ending workplace discrimination.

Download the PDF: Wal-Mart v. Dukes Amicus Brief Fact Sheet

Another Blight under Scrutiny!

2011-02-28T18:45:00.000-08:00

For Immediate Release
BettyJean Kling
BJ@Free-US-Now.com

Note:
BettyJean's husband Richard (Dick) Kling is in a C.C.U. in a PA hospital suffering from a heart attack.

TMU's WOMEN

TMU Women Coalition will not air a show this week but we are proud to announce the following:

The National Organization for Men Against Sexism
for Immediate Release:

NOMAS Applauds Senator Reid’s
Stand Against Prostitution

The abuse of women in prostitution is among the most visible and shameful injustices in the U.S. today, and Nevada is the epicenter of this ugly industry in North America.

Senator Harry Reid’s recent urging, that Nevada end its support for the ‘legal brothels’ in a few rural counties, is certainly to be commended - but does not go nearly far enough. Pimps and ads for prostitution are highly visible throughout the entire state, which is now a major destination for sex trafficking. One-fourth of the Las Vegas yellow pages now advertise for prostitution. Republican and Democratic politicians there are openly endorsing state pimping: promoting & profiting from prostitution.

Nevada however is just one arena of a growing debate that is now raging throughout the modern world. Is the selling and buying of women and girls (and boys) for sex really a ‘consensual business exchange,’ which should be accepted?, or, a heartless and patriarchal exploitation of those who have no power, and no real choice?

Prostitution has long been an accepted part of our culture, something to joke about, and the subject of endless erotic Hollywood fantasies. But that is beginning to change, as women and men have been able to pull back the curtain, and see the sickening abuses of women that this industry depends on.

NOMAS endorses a complete re-examination of the laws, assumptions, and popular attitudes concerning prostitution in the United States, including but not limited to Nevada.

NOMAS calls for the vigorous enforcement of the Mann Act, the single federal law ever enacted which might protect women being used in prostitution, which is today widely ignored by the Department of Justice.

NOMAS points to the growing centrality of the Internet, CraigsList, etc., to those involved in selling women and children, and to this use of unfettered technology to trade in the bodies of human beings.

NOMAS calls for national legislation extending and strengthening the 2007 New York State Anti-Trafficking Law, the best legislative effort to date to deal with the complex realities of prostitution and sex trafficking.

NOMAS addresses many of the complexities of prostitution, and the broader sex industry, at its web site: NOMAS.org. (See e.g.: “Does Consensual Prostitution Exist?”)

For specific information about the abuse of women in prostitution in Nevada, by far the most authoritative and reliable source on this subject is: Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connection (2007) by Dr. Melissa Farley. ISBN 978-0-6151-6205-8.

NOMAS strongly endorses the work of Candice Trummell and her courageous colleagues at NCAST, the Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking. (www.nevadacoalition.org)

The National Organization for Men Against Sexism
National Task Group on Pornography & Prostitution
Dr. Robert Brannon, Chair rbran999@aol.com

Ol Phyllis and her same ol Screed: Laugh along w/us

2011-02-25T18:51:00.000-08:00

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY STRIKES AGAIN

1 retweet

02-24-2011 by L. S. Carbonell

There are hypocrites, and then there is Phyllis Schlafly.

In 1952, Schlafly ran for Congress. In 1960, she firmly attached herself to the right wing of the Republican Party, and spent years denouncing the “Rockefeller Republicans” she thought weren’t conservative enough. In 1967, she ran for the presidency of the National Federation of Republican Women. She had a husband and six children at home while pursuing her political career and authoring numerous books. And she hates “feminists.” What is it with career-minded, successful conservative women? Sarah Palin, while running for the vice-presidency, denied being a feminist.

Well, according to Schlafly’s newest book, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say, co-authored with Suzanne Venker, having a career has nothing to do with being a feminist. We didn’t fight for equality in the workplace or more equal representation in government. According to Schlafly, we fought for the right to get divorced, be liberated from raising children and destroy America.

Schlafly believes that the first legislative goal of the feminist movement was easy divorce. Really? Let’s examine the time frame here. The feminist movement dates itself back to the publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, on February 19, 1963. Twelve years later, our niece was waiting out a two-year required legal separation from her first husband, again. They had briefly reconciled half-way through the first one. In the end, it took her four years to end that marriage. Divorce laws are state-by-state, not national. Some states instituted no-fault divorces before the end of the 1960’s, but most states lagged well into the 1970’s. Divorce back in the dark ages could require proof of adultery, and no other acceptable reason. The laws were oppressive for both men and women. It was men who pushed this legislative agenda, since women had damned little political power back then.

Schlafly also believes that the feminist movement has offered women nothing that they didn’t have before. She was a very vocal opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, and still says it would have taken rights and benefits away from women, like the right not to serve in the military and the right to be supported by a husband. Her book makes the claim that the feminist movement has taught women to hate men and demeaned motherhood. Schlafly never has understood that there are women who choose to serve in the military. The weird part is that she’s 86 years old. She was a teenager during World War II. She grew up with women who worked in defense plants, who served in the military. What did she think, that Rosie the Riverter was a guy in drag? Schlafly is still hung up on the idea of women being drafted, instead of an all-volunteer Army. As for hating men? Well, there are days, aren’t there? But feminism hasn’t done nearly as much to demean motherhood as women like Schlafly who preach anti-feminism while leaving their kids behind to pursue their own careers, or who use them as props in their public appearances like Sarah Palin. The big bitch in the feminist movement is the way men have been taught that they get to make babies but don’t have to take care of them. We didn’t so much demean motherhood as we insisted on a redefinition of fatherhood.

Let’s not forget the conspiracy theory. Don’t all conservative positions involve a conspiracy by liberals? In this one, the decline of marriage is the fault of special interest groups and that nasty liberal media, with massive help from Hollywood. Something that resembles facts would be appreciated here, like which special interest groups? Is this whole thing the result of pressures from divorce lawyers or the secret guild of nannies? And of course, Hollywood must be behind all this. We’ve all seen those movies where divorced women are living in luxury….um, sorry, can’t think of any off the top of my head.

Schlafly and Venker claim that all of America’s problems started with the feminist movement. America would be just peachy keen if women had stayed unemployed, married, pregnant and barefoot, just the way Schlafly did. Oh, I forgot, she’s been pursuing a career for 58 of her 85 years. It takes a really well-honed ability to deny reality not to be able to see that she is a contradiction of her own positions.