Men are reviewed in the Times far more often than women

What's going to be interesting is if anything changes after the recent focus on accusations being made that the New York Times book review process is preferential to white males. Slate does a nice job in summarizing as well as researching the fiction aspect in -- Fact-Checking the Franzenfreude. One tiny part:

We compared men to women and then highlighted the authors whose books had been singled out for the one-two punch of a weekday review and a review in the Sunday Times Book Review.
Here's what we found.
Of the 545 books reviewed between June 29, 2008 and Aug. 27, 2010:
—338 were written by men (62 percent of the total)
—207 were written by women (38 percent of the total)
Of the 101 books that received two reviews in that period:
—72 were written by men (71 percent)
—29 were written by women (29 percent)
What does this tell us? These overall numbers pretty well line up with what other studies have found: Men are reviewed in the Times far more often than women. One crucial bit of information missing, of course, is the percentage of all published adult fiction that has been written by men vs. women. As for the double reviews, men seem to get them twice as often as women.

You may also want to read the XX Factor and Lionel Shriver's I write a nasty book. And they want a girly cover on it.

I wrote a book, though no publisher was interested, I self published. So, I can't comment personally on how I was treated. Though I do thank the many who have bought In Memory Of: The Loved and the Forgotten of Ohio.

OMG I missed Boobquake..

How I missed participating in this one, bad on me. I could have helped topple the world as we know it...

Boobquake has begun

What's funny is NPR had a story titled, "An Internet Coup D'Ta-tas" which now comes up no story found. Thanks to the wonders of Google? Proof it once existed is out there...



This could make one ask, "no balls NPR?"

:-)

Divorce Rate Up .2% for military with Country's 9th Year at War more women in military divorce

I don't normally cross post, but I thought this post that I wrote on Glass City Jungle this morning might interest some of the readership here as well...

I saw this headline on WTOL then did some further searching to see if additional information was reported. The basics:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The divorce rate in the armed forces increased slightly again in the past year as military marriages continued to bear the stress of the nation's ninth year at war.

The Pentagon says that in the budget year that ended Sept. 30, there were an estimated 27,312 divorces among the nearly 765,000 married members of the active-duty Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

That's a divorce rate of about 3.6 percent, compared with 3.4 percent a year earlier.

An increase of .2% doesn't seem high, until you compare it with this information reported by CBS News:

Friday's reported 3.6 percent rate is a full percentage point above the 2.6 percent reported in 2001, just as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America propelled the United States into the war in Afghanistan.

"The force is under tremendous stress, and that stress finds its way into marriages," said Joe Davis, spokesman for the organization Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Yet, as CBS News also points out:

There's no comparable annual system for tracking the national or civilian divorce rate, though the Centers for Disease Control said in 2005 that 43 percent of all first marriages end in divorce within 10 years.

This additional link was interesting, it doesn't have the numbers for 2009, but in 2006, 2007 and 2008 female members of the military experienced more divorces than their male counterparts, by quite a bit higher of a percentage...That made me wonder as to why that is. It would be interesting to learn who actually filed for divorce, was it the female military members or their husbands at home versus was it the wives at home who filed or the husband's at war...this article, while not recent offers some speculation:

Benjamen Karney, lead researcher for the Rand Corp., which studied divorce in the military from 1996 through 2005, said there haven't been any studies on the military divorce rate for women. "It wasn't until my report came out in 2007 about divorce in the military that we learned that divorce in the military was substantially higher among females than males.This has been true for more than the last decade even when there was no war going on."

Karney said there is speculation, however. "One thought is that support services available for military families are geared for supporting civilian wives of male servicemen," he said. "Another possibility is that women who are service members are different than men in the military in important ways. It has been said that the military recruits the most traditional men in our society. But the military recruits the least traditional females in our society. They are not the women who are most invested in the general role assigned to women. A third possibility is that it may be more stressful to be a civilian husband of a military wife than it is to be a civilian wife of a military husband. We don't know the answers. But we recommend there needs to be more research done on women in the military."

Comparing women to smokers...

One of the things that always amazed me was that health insurance companies will pay for Viagra and other male products designed to help a man have a sex life but the coverage is not equal when it comes to birth control. Let's look at the statement that's created some political outrage:

In promoting the House health bill, New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone made reference to discrimination by insurance companies, citing their reluctance to insure people with preexisting conditions and differences in costs based on gender. "But that's not against the law," Texas Republican Pete Sessions said.
Pallone replied, "No, but we would make it against the law. Why do you have a problem with that?" he asked. "Why should a woman pay more than a man?"
"Well, we're all different," Sessions explained. "Why should a smoker pay more," he said before getting interrupted by a burst of chatter throughout the room.

Let's first flash back to how long the Viagra versus Birth Control debate has been happening...1998 where in Viagra: A Tale of Two Pills it's stated:

Compare the erection-in-a-bottle with the basic contraceptive needs of all heterosexually active women who do not wish to become pregnant. While many health insurers are guaranteeing free or low-cost romps to men, they are by and large denying most women the contraceptive coverage that is a fundamental health care necessity for 20 - 30 years of their adult lives (the alternative being, on average, a potential 8 - 15 pregnancies in a woman’s lifetime). According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 33 million American women are in need of contraceptive services and supplies, yet most women using birth control pay for it themselves. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) notes that two-thirds of U.S. women of childbearing age rely on private, employer-related plans for their health coverage. While 90% of these health plans cover prescription drugs and devices, a large majority exclude prescription contraceptives from coverage. Only 33 percent of large group health plans cover the birth control pill. Other contraceptive methods are even less financially accessible. Is it any wonder that women of childbearing age pay 68% more in out-of-pocket medical expenses than their male counterparts?

Things have changed a little since 1998, 27 states have regulations that require health-insurance plans that cover prescription drugs provide equitable coverage for contraceptives, but it's far from equitable.

What about smokers? Interestingly enough, insurance companies will pay for smoker cessation products and programs, with more each year...Medicare does allow payment for physicians who provide counseling on smoking cessation and since 2006 they have included some smoking cessation products prescribed by physicians to be covered.

Medicaid does not cover family-planning services that promote fertility, which means in the states that cover birth control or family planning to prevent pregnancy and the places that will pay to help men get an erection and will pay for smoking cessation; if you can not conceive? Too bad...It is rather ironic that insurance companies will pay for an abortion, but many of them will not pay for fertility treatment. That's an inequity most people don't talk about...

"Breastfeeding doll" creates outrage - seriously people...

I read about this story on one of our local news stations, NBC24 where people are outraged here in the US about a doll that is currently only sold in Spain that supposedly doesn't drink from a bottle but the doll comes with a "feeding vest" and the doll nurses from a flower on the vest.

First of all, almost any mother who has breastfed a child that had other young children has probably experienced the same thing I did when I breastfed my five children, your child has taken a baby doll and mimicked what you are doing...It's natural...It's not as if the "feeding vest" has fake boobs with a nipple attached to it...

Yet, considering the lack of support there is in this nation for breastfeeding mothers, I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that people would be outraged about a doll that isn't even for sale in this country...

How can you be "pro-life" then murder someone?

Apparently the answer to my question asked in the title, is that they believe it is justifiable homicide. There are quite a few media reports out there, CNN as one example, but one of the better articles out there giving full information on the man who was charged in the murder of Dr. George Tiller, Scott Roeder, is on McClatchy that comes from a Kansas City Star article.

Part of it:

Those who know Roeder said he believed that killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide.

"I know that he believed in justifiable homicide," said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City anti-abortion activist who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. "I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn."

Dinwiddie said she met Roeder while picketing outside the Kansas City Planned Parenthood clinic in 1996. Roeder walked into the clinic and asked to see the doctor, Robert Crist, she said.

"Robert Crist came out and he stared at him for approximately 45 seconds," she said. "Then he (Roeder) said, 'I've seen you now.' Then he turned his back and walked away, and they were scared to death. On the way out, he gave me a great big hug and he said, 'I've seen you in the newspaper. I just love what you're doing.'^"

Roeder also was a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated the justifiable homicide position, said publisher Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines, Iowa.

"I met him once, and he wrote to me a few times," Leach said. "I remember that he was sympathetic to our cause, but I don't remember any details."

Leach said he met Roeder in Topeka when he went there to visit Shelley Shannon, who was in prison for the 1993 shooting of Tiller.

"He told me about a lot of conspiracy stuff and showed me how to take the magnetic strip out of a five-dollar bill," Leach said. "He said it was to keep the government from tracking your money."

Roeder, who in the 1990s was a manufacturing assemblyman, also was involved in the "Freemen" movement.

As some media sources have pointed out, Roeder posted on a message board with the suggestion that people should show up at Tiller's Church, it's also been reported that anti-abortion protesters had shown up on a frequent basis to protest outside the church.

Tiller had recently reported threats were increasing, he had a body guard who was not at church. It's not clear if the body guard never accompanied him to church or for some reason did not this particular Sunday. It's also clear there are people now saying that there should have been "red flags" about Roeder, and while Wichita police Detective Tom Stoltz has stated, "At this time we feel this is an act of an isolated individual" -- I don't agree with that, you have groups that readily admit in public that they advocate/justifying killing doctors who perform abortions and consider it "justifiable homicide" -- you have publications out there advocating it -- it's fairly easy to realize if there were groups advocating terrorism here in the US, openly talking about killing people and even having publications that advocate this, there would be a heck of a lot more action taken.

I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe if you have a group that is advocating violence and murder? That should warrant a bit more action. It's not as if this is anything new, it's been known for decades, that some believe this and this is not the first time someone had tried to kill Dr. George Tiller, Shelley Shannon is still in prison from the 1993 attempt. Whether you feel this type of action is Domestic Terrorism or not, who's really watching these groups, is a question that should be asked...

News guy was suing over lack of sex gets more coverage than...

Irony...the headlines just about everywhere, including CNN stating, Sex-starved Kenyan sues over boycott but few of the same media sources reporting this lawsuit bothered to report about the boycott nor did they use the same type of "gotcha" mentality in their article titles.

Nor did they bother to point out what was some of the controversy over the groups asking for the boycott and as pointed out, this is something that women have done in the past:

Sex boycott is not an entirely new concept, having been used by European and North American women opposed to war in Iraq in 2003.

Thousands of actresses all over the world took part in a reading of the ancient Greek play, Lysistrata, as part of a protest against the war as they refrained from sex.

The play, written by Aristophanes in 415 BC, features Greek women who, fed up with their warmongering husbands, go on a sex strike in a bid to end the endless conflicts.

Eventually, the menfolk succumb and agree to a truce.

Last December, hundreds of Italian women pledged to go without sex unless their men promised to refrain from setting off dangerous illegal fireworks.

It was also reported but of course at not the same level as this potential lawsuit, that muslim women groups were not in support of the sex boycott.

Some men as well as women were not in support of this.

Did it work? CNN is reporting it did work, but when you read other media reports? it's less clear despite the success claims.

The larger discussion that probably should take place, it's about sex and it's not about sex didn't get the kind of media attention that "Sex starved Kenyan sues" will get...

We often decry men viewing us as sexual objects, but the reality is women withholding sex as a threat creates some hypocrisy issues, to me it's a shame that is all these women felt they had going for them to use as a threat, though I also think the lawsuit is ridiculous, men are being portrayed as such weak creatures they can't go seven days without sex. It's a sad commentary on both sexes...

Favreau Facebook Faux Pas

I don't know how many times "kids" have been warned about putting pictures up on their Facebook accounts or letting people take pictures of them that end up on Facebook could be a problem. If you want to be a professional speech writer and be taken serious in Washington DC, you might not want to commit this type of faux pas:



Of course the attitude appears to be one of "boys will be boys" so 27-year-old Jon Favreau is not going to be fired from the Obama team. Others have not been so lucky so next time you decide to party and there is a cardboard cut out of a former presidential candidate there? Walk away...

A whole lot of hatin directed at Coulter

People seem to have forgotten that "Page 6" was also the source that incorrectly reported that Michelle Obama ordered a whole bunch of expensive room service items and is a gossip page. But let's say for the sake of it, that this time they are correct and that Ann Coulter had some kind of an injury and her jaw is wired shut.

I'm not a fan of Coulter, I personally disagree with not only quite a bit of what she's said but also the way in which she exhibits hatred at times. So, how do we respond as a liberal blogging community? You guessed it! We show that we really are not any different from those like Coulter who say hateful things...We also show that some of the men on our side have no problem writing some pretty hateful things about women including supporting violence directed at women, since some of them have hoped that it was because someone punched her.

Way to go guys...

No Summers...Not now...Not ever...

Here we go again, just when women began to think that Obama was actually listening to them and cared? Larry Summers: Director Of National Economic Council, Top Adviser To Obama.

It might be too late, but it appears it's time for New Agenda to ramp up again. It seems that small moment of victory really wasn't one, it was a small bypass on the misogyny highway...

But supposedly Hillary said yes to Secretary of State, that's supposed to make it magically better. I suppose it does for those who wanted her political career to end and seems to me anyway, only a small victory that it proves the slam directed at the tea drinking ladies will be proven for what many of us knew it was, bs.

While they are drooling over Summers on HuffPo, at least some common sense still exists at Firedoglake.

This wasn't a breakthrough year for American women in politics. It was a brutal one.

I'm glad to see a woman in our media who sees the same reality some of us have tried to point out, Marie Cocco tells it like it is in The Glass Ceiling Holds Strong.

I recommend reading the article in full, but some of my favorite parts:

The glass ceiling remains firmly in place -- not cracked, as Hillary Clinton insisted as she tried to claim rhetorical victory after her defeat in the Democratic nominating contest. It wasn't even scratched with the candidacy of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee -- unless you consider becoming an object of national ridicule to be a symbol of advancement. As divergent as these two women are ideologically and temperamentally, as different as are their resumes, they both banged their heads -- hard -- against the ceiling. Both were bruised. So was the goal of advancing women in political leadership.

But, we are invariably told, surely there are enough women moving through the "pipeline" of lower offices so that someday, some woman from somewhere will win the presidency or the vice presidency. Well, here is how things stand: Eight women will serve as governors in 2009, the same as this year. The proportion of women serving in statewide elective office actually has dropped since it reached a high of about 28 percent in 2000; it is now about 24 percent, according to the center.

The Senate will add one woman next year, bringing the number of female senators to 17. Ten newly elected House members are female. This means that as the class of 2008 enters the Capitol's marble halls, it will include less than half the number of women who first won office in 1992 -- the so-called "year of the woman."

Including incumbents and newcomers, a record number of women will be serving in Congress, but still only 17 percent of its members will be female. This is where that record places us: on a par with the legislative representation women have achieved in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. The United Nations, which tracks women's global political advancement, says that at this rate, it will take women in the developing world 40 years to reach parity with men.

Maybe someday enough women will actually take notice to make a difference...

Sarah Palin's Magic...

Considering all of the Palin bashing going on out there, I was surprised when I headed to one of my local news websites and found this article, Palin's Magic written on Politico by George Rasley.

I've actually witnessed how some reacted to her:

These unscripted, spontaneous greeters offered a unique insight into Palin’s appeal as a vice presidential candidate and a sad commentary on an opportunity missed by the McCain-Palin campaign. There were rarely any of the hale-fellow-well-met businesspeople and ladies with rhinestone elephant pins that make up the crowd at most Republican events. Instead there were people in well-worn work clothes; the clean Carhart jackets and jeans or logo-embroidered shirts that guys wear when they come to give you an estimate for a new furnace or wait on you at the local computer shop. And they brought their children, especially their daughters and their children with disabilities, to see the candidate they called “Sarah.”

“I want my daughter to have a picture with Sarah,” said one fellow with collar-length salt-and-pepper hair under his faded POW-MIA ball cap. “I want her to see that a small-town girl can do anything she wants.” Why not take your daughter to the rally to hear Palin speak? “I don’t know anything about a rally; we’re not involved in politics in our family,” was the answer.

Do a few loading dock conversations with onlookers and supporters trump a national campaign’s expensive polling and focus groups? Probably not. But it shouldn’t take a poll or a focus group to tell national Republican leaders that, now that the campaign is over, Palin's is the one authentic voice that can make those voters who “aren’t involved in politics” — but who care deeply about issues affecting small businesses, children and families — appear again, as if by magic.

Maybe that is part of the disconnect, Palin was to them not one of elite that they are tired of...I personally saw the same reaction to Palin that Clinton created, families, mothers taking their daughters, fathers taking their daughters. Generations of women, who don't read blogs and probably don't watch the political pundits tell them why either woman was not worthy of their support.

Where do women go from here?

This ended up being a rather long comment left on Jill's blog, that I decided was post worthy. One of the reasons I decided to join and support the New Agenda is because I believe we as a gender can do more to help all of us, that there are key issues that many of us believe in that transcend beyond the mere labeling of a party affiliation.

Women should support other women, it’s the main reason why there are not more women in office and some celebrate a mere 1% increase in DC. We don’t support our gender. The whole concept of women supporting women is what organizations like “She should run” are about, or at least what they were supposed to be about.

You can be a feminist and not support abortion, despite those that claim it is not so, it is. Groups like the New Agenda have been created for this specific purpose, to focus on how to improve the lives of women and their political impact/power while not allowing the issue of abortion which has been used to divide women for years to become an issue.

Some women did see that even a conservative like Palin would break the glass ceiling and make it easier for other women. It’s pure hypocrisy to not accept the fact that for some race was their primary motivation in supporting the presidency of Barack Obama but to ignore the fact that some women out there viewed gender the same as others did race.

Ironically some of the very same women who fought for us to have the right to vote, did not support abortion…While some would like to forget that historical tidbit it shows those of us who look at the real long term goals of having an equal representation of our gender in elected office that reflects the diversity of all women not just liberal pro-abortion women benefits us all.

It’s why I have pushed for all women to blog, not just liberal women or those who share my beliefs. It’s why I support all women who want to seek office, it does not necessarily mean that they will automatically get my vote, but I’d much rather have more women in office, no matter their party affiliation.

We as women have the opportunity to move forward or we can continue to allow and assist men to hold us to a different standard, to bash our gender as a whole and to continue to tell us to be good little girls and wait our turn. We can continue to allow abortion to be used as the dividing issue, and we can pretend that our party is better when it comes to women’s issues. We can as women write we “abhor” another woman not because she is some evil monster but because she has a different political ideology, one that a good portion of this nation also holds, which I guess suggests they should all be “abhorred” as well. We can continue pretend that we for some reason are better than “those women” and we are the only ones worthy of being elected.

As you can guess, I’m opting to be one of those who wants to move forward. I am realistic enough to know that the only reason there are not more women in power, from both parties, is because we as women have failed them. Considering how we treat our own, it’s not surprising.

Reality: It's okay to hang a white woman in effigy but not a black man

In a world that was based on equal treatment, if it was okay to hang the effigy of a white president as well as burn it, which has happened many times during the course of the Bush presidency, it would be okay to hang in effigy a white female vice presidential candidate, and it would be okay to hang in effigy a black male presidential candidate. They would all be considered forms of political protest and covered under our freedom of speech that many believe exists.

That would transcend being a hate crime since it is political in nature and would be treated differently than non-political speech, an example, if I hung from my front tree an effigy of a non-political black person, as one man did a few years ago in Ohio, when he put a noose around a statue of a black lawn jockey, people generally thought that was inappropriate and racist. My doing so would also be considered generally inappropriate and racist, especially if a black family had just moved into my neighborhood, that could be viewed as a hate crime/hate threat.

One of the things I pondered is what is going to happen if Obama does win? On one side this election has been trumpeted as the historic first of having a black man become President. Yet on the other side, the double standard that relates to freedom of political protest/speech has become very clear. You can do this if it's a white candidate/elected official, but you can't do that if it is a black candidate/elected official.

Should Obama win, this is something that will not be able to be avoided. Only the very idealistic believe that Obama as president will be well received everywhere in the world, will those who protest against the government with the president of the symbol of that protest here and abroad face the labeling of hate crimes for what is acceptable with a white male or female?

The Slippery Slope of this double standard where it is acceptable to demonstrate hatred, bias and discrimination towards women is firmly in place. As long as women continue to accept it and do nothing? It will continue and there will be a continued double standard as to the First Amendment...

Hate and Hypocrisy

Two words come to mind when I think about the current state of our nation, our media and this presidential election. Hate and Hypocrisy.

If it's wrong for a rabid McCain supporter (or a rabid plant pretending to be a McCain supporter) to yell "Kill him" then it should be wrong for a rabid Obama supporter (or a rabid plant pretending to be an Obama supporter) to yell Let's stone her directed at Palin.

The fact that the media is reporting the boo's at a stupid hockey game instead of that comment which is buried in the article, should bother people. But it doesn't, I've actually read people excuse using the word "cunt" directed at Palin because they claim John McCain called his wife that. Even if that were true, we are back to the hypocrisy factor, if you believe it's wrong to call someone that, which I do, then don't do it yourself. Since pigs have become such a huge part of this campaign, there is another old saying, if you lie down with pigs, all you ever get is dirty.

Some of you out there? Are going to need more than a shower to get your souls clean after this election is over...From both parties...

More questions of is it sexism or not and....

Perhaps Palin should start wearing pantsuits with mucklucks as a defense, and if you read some of the comments on Fox more male drooling...As well as creating some moments were I really wonder about our country. A few of the comments from the Fox site that I found pretty out there as some of the more rational people debated whether the photo was sexist or not.

THIS PICTURE IS NOT SEXIST!! THE SYMBOLISM IS VERY CLEAR. IT’S SAYING IF YOU VOTE -MCCAIN- YOU BETTER GRAB YOUR ANKLES!!!

REUTERS CLEARLY FAVOURS OBAMA

(P.S. THE KIDS WEARING A PINK SHIRT-WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?)

WHO TOOK THIS PHOTO? THEY BETTER STOP STARING AT HER ASS AND START DOING THEIR JOB!!! CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THIS WAS OF MICHELLE OBAMA OR MRS BIDEN? THEY WOULD EITHER BE RACIST AND SEXIST OR SEXIST! THE PHOTOG PROBABLY HAS SOME PICTURES TAPED ABOVE HIS BED!


She’s more of a DILF.

WOW…SHE’S SEXY!!

Typical Reuters trash, it doesnt surprise me at all. Maybe they didnt have a lens wide enough to photograph Michelle ODRAMAS big bootwah.

Thank God they never photographed Hill’s kankles. ROFL!!!!!

THATS IT IM GOING TO START EATING ELK

Wouldn’t surprise me if the McCain campagin arranged for the photo to be realesed, and leave it FOX to push it further in an effort to desparately cloud reality (their one true talent) that the campaign is in tatters.

Sarah is needed to jump on my lap!

There were over 7,918 Responses to this post when I started reading...

I am not a bitter, ignorant, racist, old dried-up feminist cat-lady

There are two schools of thought, either there are a good number of former supporters of Hillary Clinton who are voting for John McCain or there are scores of Republicans on the internet pretending to be former Clinton supporters who are going to vote for John McCain.

I know personally that these supporters exist, both male and female, who state they can not vote for Obama under any circumstance.

For those of you who have missed all of the reasons "why" this one post, Clinton Supporters Never Say Die is one you might want to read, especially if you read the 140 comments. It's in the comments where statements like the title of this post can be found. You'll see some Obama supporters make threats, some state that those not voting for Obama must be Republicans and you'll see a variety of men and women who say they were Clinton supporters stating why they are not voting for Obama along with some who are stating why they are. Some of the comments are angry, some are not.

I recommend reading the piece and the comments, but some examples from each mindset:

Obama is simply not qualified for the position he seeks. Clinton was. Those Clinton supporters shifting their support to McCain/Palin are doing so because they represent the centrist middle ground of this country and will likely accomplish more good than Mr. Obama could ever hope for. It's a question of competence, experience, and an ability to get the job done. It's time to drop this foolish voting based strictly on the party line. These people are not leaving the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has left them.

The operative word in this article is RNC. The 11% for McCain and supposely was for Clinton before are liers. Most likely, Rush's listeners. If you are for Clinton, there is no way you are for Palin. Very different views on all issues. Also, if Mc/P are elected, there will no longer be a chance for Clinton whether they did a good job with the country or otherwise. If good, Mc/P would continue for 8 years, if bad, no one would vote for a woman any more. So, do not be fool. Those who said they were for Clinton and now for Palin are closet republicans.

I would hope that women who supported Hillary and all Democrats would stick together and vote Obama into the White House. You do remember her speech at the convention? The Obama/Biden ticket is what we have whatever your feelings about the Obama - Hillary primary. What we are voting for are Democratic principles. Of all elections, this one will count in terms of the direction our country is heading. If you can rise above your disappointment and support Obama, then in 2012 we can decide whether to replace him with HIllary if she still wants it. I cannot imagine the alternative under a McCain/Palin ticket. Please keep your eyes on the issues this year. For your children, for your country and for our planet.

For all the supposed "Hillary Supporters" who cannot vote for Barrack, keep this in mind: Hillary will never win, not now, not in 2012, not in 2016 without the Black vote. If you sabbotage Barrack's chance, we will never forgive you...ever.


All you Obama people on here, especially the AA's that threaten not to vote for Hillary if Obama loses. It will not be Hillary's fault, nor will it be her supporters fault if he loses. Have you checked out his record,(he doesn't have one) you have no actual idea of what went on in the caucuses, you have no idea of the deal that was cut during the break of the RBC committee meeting, you have no actual idea of what went on with the roll call vote at the convention, you are listening to the media and believing everything they say about the annointed one, and yes he was annointed. You had to have actually been involved in the process, not just out here blogging. As an elected officer of the Democratic Party, I assure you that there were things that went on, that if you were really a true Democrat you would be outraged over too. This is not a matter of the Democratic Candidate, this is a matter of retaking the REAL Democratic party back. These people in control of our party now, are not the Democrats who really stood for the rights of all Americans, they are just out for themselves and control of our country. This beyond Hillary Clinton, we have passed that stage, now we are fighting for actual Democracy.

The misspelling of Barack's name and any other grammar errors are from the comments as directly taken.

The sexism just keeps coming...

I've read quite a few articles in the media that I've taken issue with as far as sexism during the course of the primary and now the presidential election season. One of the worst articles I've seen from not only the words used, but the image selected is this one The Sexy Puritan written of course by a white male who lists on his website as his bio for 2007:

2007—Tom publishes The Abstinence Teacher, a novel about sex education, soccer, and the Great American Culture War; has hours of fun googling the phrase, "Hot Christian Sex." Reverend Ted Haggard pronounced "completely heterosexual" by fellow minister.

In my reading of a variety of articles about the candidates this year, I don't recall a time when in the same article about a presidential or vice presidential candidate, mention was made of such things as anal sex, fisting and masturbation.

Before some of you even attempt to justify this, this issue is larger than just the sexism directed at Palin, while I understand and support the letter sent out by The New Agenda part of the reason there is such a lack of respect for our nation and our elected officials is articles like this.

Some of you decry the lost of standing that the United States has lost in the world, that we are no longer respected or considered a super power, is it any wonder? The sexual objectification that created the whole Obama Girl who practically drools over "wanting Obama" sending the message that what matters is the sex appeal further confirmed by the Rush Limbaugh's out there calling Palin a "hot babe" as well as his comments that people would not want Hillary to win because they wouldn't want to see a woman get old before their eyes as President. The labeling of Palin as a MILF or a VPILF, t-shirts of Palin on her hands and knees with McCain behind her with his pants down with the caption "Drill Baby Drill" and we wonder why other nations or even some of us have no respect for the office of president.

The partisan insults that degrade the office extend beyond a mere disagreement based on ideology, how can any of you who insult one side expect if your candidate wins to restore that respect? When you then include the additional rampant sexism that has increased rather than decreased, if we don't start doing something soon as far as saying enough is enough, how much lower will this go?

The fourth wave...the impact of words...

I was over at The New Agenda, reading posts, and I came to this one This is the Fourth Wave in which an answer to an email is given. As I was reading I read these words:

When McCain picked Palin, I found my inbox flooded by emails from the women who had been critical of Hillary for being part of the old establishment, or for not being likable enough. Now these same women were emailing me about Palin and her inexperience, her issues (many of which were factually incorrect), and how dare McCain pick a woman, anyway!

I have had enough. This has to change starting TODAY. Starting today, we have to learn to look out for each other, to support each other and to teach our daughters to do the same.

A mother wrote to me at The New Agenda:

I have four daughters, the youngest is 14. Yesterday she turned to me and said she didn’t think women should be in politics anymore, that men would not let them win. That was disturbing, especially coming from the child who at age 11 volunteered on her own to work on a city council campaign and at one time said she wanted to become President.

This girl isn’t overreacting. She’s a teenager. She’s seen the lay of the land and she wants no part of it. But this is not what we want for her, nor for our own daughters.

I'm that mother...So when some of you are bashing me or calling me or writing me hate filled emails or telling me that you want me to meet with people who will "show me the light" and somehow convince me that I'm wrong? (The irony being that all of those who have called, and who have identified themselves via email and blog have been white males.) The comment I left on that thread, says it all. And yes, you'll have to go there to read it.

:-)

The New Agenda's response to NOW endorsement

The Washington Post reported that Women's group "condems" NOW endorsement. Or do they? When you visit the actual site of The New Agenda they "responded" to the NOW endorsement.

The word "condemned" was never used...Situations like this shows why blogs can be important, providing the link to the actual release...