Phyllis Schlafly: the Queen of Conservatism Who Made Women Second-Class Citizens

by Nomad

At ninety years old, Phyllis Schlafly is still actively spreading her own gospel, persuading a younger generation of women that being second-class citizens is just Nature's way.  

It has been said that half of the work done in this world is to make things appear as they are not.

One of those who has spent her decades in this pursuit is Ms. Phyllis Schlafly. Here's a woman who has spend a good part of her life trying to convince people that equality for women is a dangerous thing. All in all, her mission. much to the dismay of feminists and progressives, has been surprisingly successful. 

To some, Schlafly is an annoying fossil from the apex of the Reagan era that should have been forgotten a long time ago.  

Schlafly and the ERA

Although she might these days be just another crackpot on the Far Right, Schlafly will always be famous (infamous) for the part she played in defeating the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment  (ERA) aimed at specifically protecting the rights of all women.

The 1868 14th amendment, which gave equal protection to all citizens, should have offered enough civil protections, but  women were not always thought of a specific class or a minority in need of protection.

However, this attitude began changing in America around the 1920s. Since that time, specific legislation had been debated whether women by virtue of their gender, needed specific protections. 

That debate lasted a full half century.

When the 1964 Civil Act became law protecting the civil rights of minorities, progressives and feminists demanded a new look at equality for women as well. When the   ERA passed both houses, it looked as though it was a sure thing.

Blaming the Victim: Republicans and America's Rape Culture

by Nomad

Recent remarks by a Wall Street Journal commentator reveal that there are still people who are confused about the subject of rape. A high level of intoxication of both the victim and the rapist, he claimed, makes them both responsible for the crime. 

The Sheikh and the Outrage

Let us start in another country and another culture, not to pass judgement but to reveal a widespread mentality in its most obvious expression.

For hundreds of years, the West has always held a peeve with the way strict Islam deals with its female followers. This is particularly true when it comes to the burka or the scarf-like hijab.
When a prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly made a remark about immodestly dressed women were inviting trouble. During a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali implied that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame. 

According to one article:

There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."Women, he told his followers,  who do not cover themselves are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators.

So, by the Sheikh's reckoning, it is the men who are prey to those predatory temptresses with their pretty naughty traps. Women, the Sheikh also stated,  were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat."

As soon as these words hit the tabloids, there was the predictable outrage throughout Australia and eventually the globe. It was tainted with that kind of attitude we often hear when discussing other cultures.
It runs something like: "It's an outrage! At least, we are better than that!"

In any case, it also sold lots of newspapers. And while the Sheikh eventually apologized but it's hard to believe he thought what he said was absolutely wrong. And why should he apologize, it is after all a standard teaching of the religion.

(It is normally not stated in such graphic terms.)

In the Islamic publication, "Could Not Answer" it says:

The harm given to youngsters, to people and to the State by women who go about naked, and with strong smells of perfume, and wanton ornaments is worse and more threatening than that of alcohol and narcotics. Allah has commanded that women and girls to cover themselves lest His born servants fall into disasters in this world and vehement torments in the hereafter.

Many Islamic scholars have an elaborate (some would say labored) rationale. Women, they would say, are precious that they must be protected. Putting their bodies on display for all the world to see is a form of disrespect for women. 

For example, another cleric in Copenhagen created his own storm by carrying the teaching to the next level when he told his followers:

“Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked”

He also said:

“All the crimes that occur against women is because they are not covered. When they are not covered, you have no respect for them.”

It is the West that disrespects women by allowing them to prance around, swaying and all, revealing their bare midriffs, or wrist, or chins. 

It is probably not all that shocking to learn that this particular cleric was reportedly later arrested for sexual assault, accused of pulling his penis out and chasing a 23-year-old woman around in a park in Sweden. I wonder how this woman brought this attack upon herself. (That's sarcasm, by the way. )

In any case, according to this line of thinking, women who do not cover themselves reduce themselves to irresistible temptations for hapless men who are unable to control themselves.
As I said, that's another culture and does not represent mainstream Muslim culture. But what about American culture? Are there really some people who still hold women responsible when they become victims of rape?

Victoria Woodhull: The Fascinating Story of America's First Female Presidential Candidate

by Nomad

Does the name Victoria Claflin Woodhull ring many bells? Probably not, but she was without argument one of the most talked-about women of the 19th century. Although something of an eccentric with a slightly unimpressive background, her biography, with its ups and downs, is a fascinating one. Her outspoken opinions about women's rights put her far ahead of her time.

  

Most of us think of the Victorian era as a time when women, like children of that time, generally were seen but not heard. A woman's place was in her home and any adventure outside of that realm could bring infamy.
Not altogether true.
Take the story of Victoria Woodhull.  As we shall see, her life contradicts that conventional wisdom. It's only surprising that Hollywood hasn't made a film about her tumultuous life; there's a lot of material there.

The Rise of A Radical

Her early life was hardly promising. Victoria Claflin and her sisters were raised by parents who used the girls as  "spiritualist mediums and faith healers in the family’s traveling medicine." They eventually married her off to Dr. Canning Woodhull when she was only 15. It must have come as a salvation to her since she stayed married to him for 11 years. ( As one source tells us, she would subsequently remarry three times and divorce twice more, in an age when divorce was unusual and socially disapproved.)

Eventually, she and her sister moved to New York City and became famous for giving financial advice from the spirit world to rich investors. In a twist of fate, despite her radical thought, her name was on the lips of many influential capitalists who took her stock tips.

Among her radical thoughts, Woodhull was most famous for being an early advocate for the right of women to vote. At heart, Woodhull was a social reformer. She was an advocate of free love- which despite its tantalizing name- actually only proposed marriage reforms. At that time, The Free Love movement's initial goal was to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery. These issues, proponents claimed, were personal matters and need not be legislated by others. Her opponents claimed she was simply promoting promiscuity and scandal.

That was to be expected, These were radical ideas for that time and even today we are still struggling with the same issues.

The Representation Project: A Look at Media Misogyny in 2013

by Nomad

Often advertising images become so much a part of our day to day life that we fail to actually notice how they subtly influence our perceptions. Whether we like it or not, sex sells but the toxic waste of that kind of advertising is the trashing of women. 

Ad Nauseum

But if negative imagery and stereotyping of women (and men, for that matter) originate in advertising, it certainly isn't limited to it. Eventually, the images become so pervasive that the messages become an accepted part of the culture. 

Inevitably, the print media and the airwaves slowly but surely become filled to the brim with garbage. 

In no time at all, we find ourselves watching (and then discussing ad nausea) clips of Miley Cyrus "tweaking" on Robin Thicke- basically what the French call "frottage." Her dancing partner, whose last CD was banned in some quarters for promoting a rape culture, not long ago joked in an interview, "What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman. I've never gotten to do that before." 

Talk about taking the subject seriously.

One Day of Life: Death Rate Among America's Newborns Highest in the Industrialized World

by Nomad

More infants die on their birthdays in the US than any other industrialized nation in the world. But in a nation as wealthy as America, why should that happen? 

A comparison between Sweden -which has one of the lowest rates of one-day old deaths-and the state of Mississippi- which has the highest rate of infant mortality in the US- might provide some clues at reducing the death rate among American's youngest and most vulnerable victims.

A report released last April by the organization, Save the Children, has exposed a troubling statistic:

“The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.”

More day-old babies die in the US than in 68 other countries, including Egypt, Turkey and Peru.

The study cited premature births as being one major cause. Globally, 35 percent of all newborns that die are pre-term. In the United States, this is also true.

“Many babies in the United States are born too early. The U.S. preterm birth rate (1 in 8 births) is one of the highest in the industrialized world (second only to Cyprus). In fact, 130 countries from all across the world have lower preterm birth rates than the United States,” the report reads.

The study suggests that politics and culture might play a role in the causes for the United States' poor record.

It's not all bad news but it's bad enough. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the rate of deaths of first year infants has been in decline from 24,586 U.S. babies in 2010 to 23,910 in 2011. This has been achieved primarily through effective affordable health care. especially with access to health care to all women of childbearing age and and other specific prenatal initiatives.

*     *     *

More children die at birth in India than anywhere else, followed by Nigeria, Pakistan and China,  the report finds. Finland and Sweden have the lowest rates of newborn deaths in the world.

Certainly poverty might explain the contrast between India and Sweden. But that doesn't explain the differences between Sweden and the United States.

Romney Campaign Retro