Dave Chappelle is coming back to New York for ONE NIGHT ONLY! He's hosting our biggest fundraiser yet and we NEED your support.

Tickets start at ONLY $75 and we will sell out quickly so please purchase them now.

If you have any questions, please contact our Finance Director, Arthur Leopold at 212-228-6320 ext. 7 or arthurl@kevinpowellforcongress.org.

If you would like to volunteer, please contact our Deputy Campaign Manager, Jeff Keilholtz at jeff@kevinpowellforcongress.org.

Please go to the following link to RSVP and contribute:
www.kevinpowellforcongress.org/contribute

Ticket prices:
-$75 Monthly Recurring Contribution (Through September 9)
-$100 Prankster
-$250 Jokester
-$1000 Standup (Includes VIP reception with Chappelle and Kevin Powell)
-$2300 Headliner (Includes VIP reception and photo with Chappelle and Kevin Powell)
______________________________
Kevin is a longtime leader in Brooklyn and has been an important political activist, community organizer, and nationally acclaimed writer over the last 15 years. Kevin is running to unseat Ed Towns in Brooklyn’s 10th Congressional District; Towns is a longtime incumbent who raises 65% of his campaign contributions from corporate lobbyist and business PACs. In the 2006 primary, 53% of the district voted AGAINST Towns in a 3-way primary. In the June 23, 2008 New York Post, the Post called Towns a "Deadbeat Democrat"! The district is hungry for change, and overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the February 2008 primary. As an early Obama supporter, Kevin has positioned himself to be at the forefront of leading the country in a better direction. A Congressperson should be an organizer, a leader and a voice for his or her constituents. In Kevin Powell, the people of Brooklyn will have an opportunity to elect someone who can excel at all these roles well.

Please join with Gloria Steinem, Chris Rock, Malaak Compton-Rock, Susan Taylor, Cornel West and Democracy for America-New York City and countless other powerful voices in supporting Kevin’s campaign. Change can start here, and I hope you’ll support Kevin Powell for Congress by attending the event with Dave Chappelle on July 9, from 7-10pm.

More info here.

-Betty Rollin

“I either gave birth to someone else or I gave birth to myself.”

-Gloria Steinem

For example when I was younger, see photo, that's me in the chair sobbing, no of course not, that's me the mother, sorrowing over the first haircut... When I was younger my mom died at a party right in front of us all just as we were toasting her birthday, and this highly shocking event caused me in the 2 or 3 years following her death to do all kinds of odd things: Like wearing hats, I think to channel her old jauntiness. Like CRYING while giving speeches that were suppose to be light and funny, making the whole audience cry too, talk about your Typhoid Mary. And like writing letters to famous people.

I wrote to Ronald Reagan and sent him the column I did about him when I saw him in Concord NH. I wrote to the Prince of Wales after seeing him at the 350 birthday of Harvard. I remember sitting in the Yard looking up at all those ivy leaves declining like Latin nouns down the sides of the old buildings and thinking 'Damn you Ten Thousand Men of Harvard, why did you keep my kind out for like 99 % of your history?'

I wrote to Garrison Keillor when I applied to be the first Journalist in Space. I had mentioned him in my application essay and have always kinda figured that's why I got to the final 40 in that contest.

I even wrote to the great John Updike when I read a short story of his in the New Yorker that made it apparent his mum had died too. I sent him a condolence note and a copy of the column I wrote about Cal’s dramatic death – that was my mom's name, 'Cal', as jaunty a name as she was a person, a cigarette held tight in her teeth as she took the corners on two-wheels to get us to that convent school she enrolled us in by mistake where she was in a fight with the nuns from DAY ONE.

And they all wrote back, these famous characters: Ronnie R. wrote right back. The future King of England did too or at least His Honor Lord High-Fanny of the Royal Equerry wrote on his behalf. And Garrison Keillor and John Updike sent actual postcards, John Updike's saying a thing so nice about my writing it pulled me up out of obscurity like the wave of the Bibbity Bobbity Boo wand of Cinderella’s fairy godmother. In fact just last month he had another story in the New Yorker, this one so beautiful I was forced to write him again and what do you think? Another postcard came, as gracious as the first.

Now 15 years had passed between my first letter to him and my second, that's how careful I am. And I wouldn’t DREAM of writing to the Pope even if I had his email address, and the same goes for Lord High-Fanny who gave me some serious attitude in his letter just because my column said Prince Charlie wore the academic hood of his alma mater whereas in fact he wears the robes of the University of Wales just because he like OWNS Wales or some insignificant thing like that.

Gloria Steinem though? Gloria’s address I was saving for a special occasion, like offering myself to come be the jester at the next Inter-Galactic Women’s Conference. And now – agony!- my girl has called her girl if you can call an Address Book a girl and I seem to have asked her to be my friend on Facebook! The Queen gets invited to the worker bee’s after school party, Aaargh I could die! But, on the other hand in the last 24 hours I've heard from people I haven’t seen in decade and have admired their pictures and have written on their walls so why be embarrassed? Because really we're ALL members of the Class of '08, right? So really, why NOT write in each other's yearbooks?

The post-mortems are rolling in to explain the long-drawn-out and spectacular failure of Hillary Clinton's once-so-promising presidential campaign. She and her supporters are sure they know how and why she was rejected: she was the victim of sexism.

Feminist ideology teaches that American women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society. No matter how rich or prominent or smart or advantaged a woman may be, success and happiness are still beyond her grasp because institutional sexism holds her down.

The aging Gloria Steinem opined on CNN that it is "clear that there is profound sexism." She whined that Hillary couldn't crack the "glass ceiling" (an architectural figment of feminist imagination) because there are "still barriers and biases out there."

Oh, the unfairness of it all! Steinem bemoaned that women find it so "difficult to be competent and successful and be liked." Au contraire, women are not disliked because they are competent and successful, but because they are chip-on-the-shoulder feminists.

The feminists are living in an unhappy world of their own making. In truth, 92 percent of Americans say they would vote in a presidential election for a qualified female candidate from their own party, and 55 percent say Yes when asked if America is ready for a woman president.

Hillary lost because (a) she simply is not likeable, and (b) the voters (especially Democrats) suffer from Clinton fatigue. The Clintons' offer of two-for-the-price-of-one didn't play particularly well in 1992, and it was even less attractive in 2008.

The bad attitude of victimhood is indoctrinated in students by the bitter feminist faculty in university women's studies courses and even in some law schools. Victimhood is nurtured and exaggerated by feminist organizations using a tactic they call "consciousness raising," i.e., retelling horror stories about how badly some women have been treated until little personal annoyances grow into grievances against society.

Consider how Katie Couric of CBS Evening News, a woman promoted and paid above her suitability for the job, solemnly promotes feminist mythology about discrimination against women. She breathlessly reported that "90 percent of teen girls say they have been harassed at least once."

And what does this "harassment" consist of? "Unwanted romantic attention, demeaning gender-related comments based on their appearance, and unwanted physical contact."

Where did the authors of this nonsense find females to claim that light-hearted banter at which no boy would take offense can now be defined as sexual harassment? Predictably, "girls who had a better understanding of feminism . . . were more likely to recognize sexual harassment."

This silly report came from feminists who believe there are no differences between males and females, and that anyone who suggests otherwise should be cast into exterior darkness. Remember Harvard's former president, Larry Summers.

Another reason Hillary lost was that people resented her sense of entitlement. She believed that the presidency was hers, and that all the people whom the Clintons had appointed or helped, like New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson, should fall in line.

Hillary kept repeating that she was the candidate most ready (on day one) to be America's CEO and commander-in-chief. That's hard to believe when she couldn't run her own campaign staff.

The New York Times reported that her employees, working with a "war room mentality," "hurled expletives at one another, stormed out of meetings and schemed to get one another fired." They engaged in "profanity-laden shouting matches" and used unprintable expletives.

Hillary promotes victimhood on her website by touting the long-discredited falsehood that women are paid "only 77 cents for every dollar men earn" and the worry that there might be any restriction on abortion. She is still pushing the Equal Rights Amendment even though it was rejected after ten years of national debate, and the Supreme Court declared it dead in 1982.

Michelle Obama is another feminist who, despite her bloated salary from a Chicago hospital, oozes the aura of victimhood. Although she was privileged to attend Princeton University, she wrote that she felt "as if I really don't belong."

Hillary's allies blame the national news media for unfairly terminating her campaign because they are "suffering from sexism" and "Obama mania." Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood emoted for an hour on C-SPAN about how sexism spoiled Hillary's chances.

Contrary to the image Hillary has carefully cultivated, she is not a self-made woman like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Margaret Thatcher. Hillary got her career the old-fashioned way; she married it.

Stiff Right Jab contributing editor, Phyllis Schlafly, is the President of Eagle Forum, syndicated writer, radio show host, and bestselling author.

I have a big mouth so I’m happy to do the job.

Gloria Steinem contributed an opinion piece to The New York Times: “Women Are Never Front-Runners.” She asks, “Why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one?” She answers, “(B)ecause sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was.”

This means that the qualities of gender – masculine and feminine – are identified as the nature of the corresponding sex. Therefore, women are feminine by their very nature and are expected to be sensitive, gentle criers. And because tears are anticipated, a woman becomes a cliché if/when she does cry. (“Is it that time of the month?” men ask.)

Most people would prefer that their leaders don’t cry. This preference has given birth to a “no-tears rule” according to Steinem who commends Clinton’s “courage to break” said rule. Some reacted with sympathy when Clinton choked up in a January question and answer session: the poor woman is overtired and needs to thaw. Others said that she’s a phony.

There’s a biological reason for tears and it has nothing to do with sex and gender. Strong emotion of any kind – from sadness to happiness and back – can cause humans to weep. The protein-based hormones prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, and leucine enkephalin build up causing psychic tears to well, and receptors in our tear glands read intense emotions and force these tears to flow. (How’s that for unisex science?)

The fear that Clinton’s crying when talking to a small group of women indicates that she will cry when talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for instance, is irrational, but it exists nonetheless. It’s the giving in to intense emotions that bothers some people; they see it as a sign of weakness.

There is no evidence that can resolutely prove that women cry more than men do. Even people who criticize Clinton and her soppy display probably cry themselves, but they do so behind closed doors.

I like Steinem’s theory because it agrees with mine: we are confused about the difference between sex and gender. Not all females are feminine and not all males are masculine. The problem with the assumptions about sex is that they are often false, and only sometimes true. Clinton cried when a freelance photographer asked her a sympathetic question: “How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?" But just because she’s a woman who once happened to be somewhat overwhelmed by personal assurance, does not mean that she’ll have the same reaction to Raul Castro in the flesh. (I would cry at the sight of Castro, but I highly doubt that she would.)

People who believe that once a crier always a crier, in the case of women, are probably the same people who suspect and worry that Barack Obama is a Muslim. And if he’s a Muslim, then he must be a terrorist, right?

I’m surprised the press let this next one slip by and can only conclude that they ignored this comment because they have been walking on eggshells around the race topic. Michelle Obama had the following to say in a 60 Minutes interview with regard to her husband’s safety during the campaign: “I don’t lose sleep over it because the realities are that, you know, as a black man, you know. Barack can get shot going to the gas station, you know. So, you know, you can’t make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen. We just weren’t raised that way.”

The statement begs the question: who does she think is going to shoot him? And she’d have to answer carefully because each potential answer has a built in crapshoot. If she were to say “a white person,” she’d be guilty of her own form of racism, perpetuating a stereotype that racist whites want to kill blacks. If she were to say “a black person,” that’s almost worse. She’d be perpetuating a stereotype that blacks are out there with guns shooting each other.

Michelle’s statement is problematic for Steinem’s theory because it still ascribes a nature to each race. In order for the two ideas to agree, Michelle’s answer would have to be either “a woman” or “a man will shoot my husband.” But somehow, I doubt that’s what she had in mind.

And she can’t simply respond “some crazy person.” Because that lunatic has a sex and a race, both of which are visible in her mind’s eye.

Finally, I’d like to turn to a June 6 commentary by Rebecca Walker, as posted on CNN.com. “It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility,” she wrote. I wonder where she got the idea that humans generally uphold the notion that women are morally superior to men by their nature.

If we can’t say unequivocally that women cry more than men, then we can’t say that they are uniformly more sensitive, caring or generous. And we can’t take that another step and say that they deserved the right to vote in 1920 because they were angels and not citizens, or that Edith Wharton deserved a Pulitzer Prize in 1921 because she was a saint and not a talented writer, or that Hillary Clinton deserved the right to be president because she is a holy vessel and not a qualified leader. I can’t recall any legitimate argument for emancipation that was based on a sex moral foundation. It would lose all of its steam the minute an Erzebet Bathory draws blood or a Martha Stewart obstructs justice, etc.

The argument that Walker is disputing, however, is the same one Steinem has observed: people still think that effeminacy is the nature of all women. Effeminacy is the nature of some women…but there are others with a tougher stance. For us to evolve past the point of marginalizing men and women based on masculine and feminine expectations, we will have to do away with such terminology and the idea of gender entirely.

The German artist, Han Baldung, active throughout the early 1500s, was a supporter of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, and seems to have had a bit of an obsession with portraying witches in different media, from woodcuts to drawings. In this image, Baldung imagines four nude women, presumably in the woods alone at night, with a cat. Baldung is no feminist. He appears to believe that only the foulest deeds can come of women, nude and unaccompanied by men, who gather outside the confines of town.

With her rear, one of the women is starting a fire, or inflaming the concoction of a spell, while the cat vomits. Another woman holds a stick with skewered sausages or intestines on it, but the image may also be sublimating a male fear of castration. Witches making off with men's penises would not have been a joke among men in Europe at this time. The "Malleus Maleficarum," for example, speaks of witches who "collect male organs in great numbers, as many as twenty or thirty members together, and put them in a bird's nest . . ." (Summers translation p. 121).

Baldung's witches, perhaps evoking little more than curiousity today, may have carried a more powerful punch on being viewed by people not accustomed, as we are, to explicit and scatalogical images.  

Baldung's portrayals of witches were not just art, but assisted the culture in controlling women's range of behavior. His portrayals would have stirred passions against women who might be suffering from mental illness, or who seemed otherwise odd, or noncomformist.

What we look on today with relative indifference, amusement, or annoyance, would not have been viewed so in the early 1500s. 

Israeli author Etgar Keret is a new one on the shelf and his Girl on the Fridge hits like an ice cream headache. A man disillusioned with his marriage suddenly finds himself inextricably attracted to her once again. A magician gives up his career when his pulling-the-rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick goes somewhat awry. Keret's plot twists land like molotov cocktails. I wonder if this tendency comes with the territory. Despite the author's obvious skill, some stories in Fridge are explosive. Others simply bomb. But pick him up anyway just for the sheer force of his style.

Not until I read Jewish Music as Midrash: What Makes Music Jewish? by composer Michael Isaacson did I finally understand the elements of musical composition and how Jewish history has played into the creation of Jewish music. I don't have the best ear in the cornfield so reading Michael's book helps me make the bridge between what writers do with words and what musicians do with notes, phrasing et al.

The two CD-set (30+ songs in all) of Isaaacson's music is worth the price of admission in and of itself. Isaacson's resume is longer than Moon River and if you were a NFTY-ite from the 70's you cut your teeth singing his music (v'ahavta, anyone?).  Want to read the story of his musical coming of age? Order This Jewish Life by yours truly, turn to page 44 and read "Of all Things, A Piano?"

Indy film what’s your point honey? is a must see. From the geniuses behind Mad Hot Ballroom this engaging and thought-provoking film presents seven college-aged women who just might be President of the United States in 2024. (The first year they would be eligible to serve.) Each of the seven were chosen as winners of Project 2024, a joint effort sponsored by CosmoGirl! and The White House Project whose goal is to encourage young women to get involved in politics.

Two other story lines -- three delightful ten-year-old girls criss-cross Manhattan on their scooters asking random passersby if they would vote for a woman for president and classroom scenes where the topic is women's studies -- weave in and out of the movie's main story line.  

Producers Amy Sewell and Susan Toffler explore salary parity, balancing career and family life and equal rights with a deft and embracing hand. The movie celebrates milestones achieved (the scene with a Chicana Agxibel, the first of her family to attend college, was especially moving) even as it focuses on how far the country has to go before women, many women, are in positions of political leadership. The ultimate goal said Amy Sewell in a post film discussion is the day when, "the issue is no longer gender but agenda." 

The film is being promoted in grassroots fashion -- private showings/word of mouth. If it’s scheduled to run in your hometown, go! If it's not, contact the producers at whatsyourpointhoney.com and bring it on home. 

2. Gloria Steinem: Women Are Never Front Runners
An exquisite exposition about the differences between Obama's candidacy and Hillary's candidacy, due entirely -- entirely -- to gender. Please read. In fact, please copy it to someplace where it will be safe.

3. I Met Gloria Steinem Once.
She was speaking at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL, on the occasion of her 40th birthday. Steinem is my personal favorite hero of the Women's Movement, with Ellie Smeal close behind. There were so many wonderful, brillliant women -- I absolutely honor them all. But I wanted to BE Steinem, with her rapier wit and incredible gift for feminist analysis.

Anyway, it was a huge crowd, and women in the audience were astounded at how good she looked for 40. Her response? "This is what 40 looks like. We women have been lying about our ages forever, but this is how 40 really looks." We all laughed.

Steinem said disgruntled Democratic-leaning women ultimately will back Obama. Besides, she suggested, much of their ire should be aimed at the news media, not the candidates.

"The media was in love with Obama," Steinem said, "and in hate with Hillary, hands down."

Click here for the complete AP story.

Though the movie dream is all fun and fluff, we know the reality for women is very far from the high heels and high-priced labels. And while Carrie & Co. make a box office killing, find their men, and themselves, we all file out of movie theaters and watch a different kind of romantic wooing occur on TV, in print, and online; there's another race going on, one where the end result isn't about finding the right man or the perfect apartment, it's about winning the affections of a country's citizens and super delegates. In this race, only one woman is standing up, in her heels and power suits, commanding an audience, flashing a smile and making promises for a better nation. And, love her or hate her, she's the closest we've come so far to having a Madam President. Though midnight is looming for Mrs. Clinton, she's still doing her darndest to romance us and probably will until the credits roll.

But like Carrie Bradshaw would say, "I can't help but wonder, where are all the [wo]men?"" Where are the ones who will come after Hillary Clinton? The women who will stand on platforms along side of their male counterparts, pledging their devotion to our country, pitching their agendas and keeping our hard-won female rights in tact (hello, Roe vs. Wade).

These questions devise the premise of another film, also screening now, called What's Your Point, Honey? Directed by Amy Sewell (Mad, Hot Ballroom) and Susan Toffler, this documentary follows a group of ten young women, seven of which range in age from 18-21, and three ten-year-olds, as they look ahead to the future of women in power and politics. While Sex & the City features appearances from the likes of Candace Bergen and Andre Leon Talley, What's Your Point, Honey, gives us cultural icons such as feminist leader and founder of Ms. Magazine, Gloria Steinem, who remarks, "it’s been my experience that girls ages eight to ten are as smart and wonderful and deep as they're ever going to get and haven’t yet been messed up by the feminine role that’s going to take them till 40 or 50 years old to get out from under” (case in point, Sex & the City). And there's Marie Wilson, founder of The White House Project, an organization whose aim it is to, "advance women's leadership in all communities and sectors, up to the U.S. Presidency."

The young women profiled won a contest sponsored by CosmoGirl! magazine, who partnered with "The White House Project," a non-profit, to create Project 2024, which places seven girls in high-powered summer internships in various professions and industries (ironically one young woman worked in then-Attorney General Elliot Spitzer's office). The hopeful outcome being that by the year 2024, one woman from each contest year will "grace the presidential debate podiums and town halls, providing choice, and getting beyond gender to agenda." The CosmoGirl! interns span the country and beautifully represent the potential power and voice that come with the next generation of women in America. These girls may have the wit of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte, but their passion for social change runs deeper than any romantic comedy can, with career dreams that range from public service to stronger marketing messaging for women.

Much like Sex & the City: The Movie, What's Your Point, Honey? doesn't claim to deliver a message, rather its mission is ask the age-old question, with a post-Hillary spin: "can women have it all ... and be President too?"

«Είναι μία απίστευτη απάτη, αν το σκεφτείς, το να πιστεύεις κάτι τώρα με αντάλλαγμα τη ζωή μετά το θάνατο. Ακόμα και οι εταιρείες, με όλα τα συστήματα ανταμοιβών, δεν προσπαθούν να το κάνουν μεταθανάτιο.»

—Gloria Steinem (Γκλόρια Στάινεμ) Αμερικανίδα εκδότρια και ακτιβίστρια για τα δικαιώματα της γυναίκας.

Το πρωτότυπο: "It's an incredible con job, when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations, with all their reward systems, don't try to make it posthumous."

Τα πιό πρόσφατα γνωμικά βρίσκονται εδώ: Γνωμικά

Copyright © 2008 Διαγόρας ο Μήλιος | Όροι Χρήσης

Τροφοδοσία περιεχομένου (RSS feed)
Κάθε άρθρο σε αυτό το ιστολόγιο
Κάθε σχόλιο σε αυτό το ιστολόγιο
Μόνο τα σχόλια αυτού του άρθρου

An Excerpt:

"Now I ask the judges, in the light of data and statistics, what do they mean when they say that women are misusing the law?

In the judgement of justice J.D. Kapoor in which he says a lot of women are misusing the law and its time to stop this misuse. It is called myth of misuse. I challenge any judge to produce statistics of so called misuse of law. I would urge them to see statistics under 304B and compare them with statistics under 498A from which they would come to the conclusion that far from being used
498A is a dead letter and if at all there is any so called misuse, it is by the police and if at all you need to pull up anybody, pull up the police. I have to unfortunately say that lawyers also urge their clients, when they come to them, to put in things in the complaint which may or may not be true. I was hoping, I don’t think we have entirely succeeded in that effort, to come up with a very simple statute- simple computerized form/simple applications which perhaps a woman can fill on her own and file and that just as courts accept letters as petition under section 226 and under article 32," -Indira Jaising

Now read these words of wisdom:

"It is being said that even normal bickering is being complained under this statute before the Courts. It enables a complaint to be filed on the plea that her husband asked the complainant to take leave from work because their son was unwell. Mr. Soli Sorabjee in an article has rightly pointed out that the “definition of verbal and emotional abuse, which includes inter alia insults and name calling, can cause problems in the absence of any definition of these terms.” He goes on to say that, “definitions which are overbroad and bristle with ambiguities, should be narrowly and precisely defined, lest the Act becomes a paradise for lawyers and a nightmare for the enforcement authorities.” Having said all this, I shall however fail in my duty if I don’t apprise you of the judicial functions which are being ably discharged by the judges in all courts. This statute has conferred jurisdiction on a criminal court, that is the court of the Magistrate and empowered it to deal with matters which were otherwise within the jurisdiction of courts higher in the hierarchy. Thereby, a woman in distress has to compete for judicial time with the numerous criminal cases in the already heavily burdened courts. Matters relating to family and home are more time consuming than cases involving other issues" -Justice Gita Mittal

• Indira Jaisings Presentatiion To Some UN Agency

_____________________________________________________

"All the surrogates that they had out there, from the black journalists — you know, have you read Bob Herbert recently in the past six months? There wasn't one column that had anything decent to say about Hillary."

Ugh.

Where to start? I don't know, but this is the same woman who said that she was being "attacked" because she is white.

Worse than mice

The menopause is like this: you put on weight even though you're eating next to nothing: you feel hungry all the time for weeks and then you don't want to eat, your body feels as if it's been through a shredder - and, if your husband is a herbalist, you try to put 12 drops of some evil brown mixture on your tongue every morning without a dropper bottle. (Don't choke on the stuff - it's horrible.)

What annoys me

...is when people talk about the menopause as if it were some kind of "Carry on" joke - you know, digs in the ribs and comments about hot flushes. Perhaps I should write something like Gloria Steinerm did about periods - you know, "if men had the menopause" see

Red letter

I forgot - yesterday I finished my radio play and sent it to the BBC!!! Will they recognise my undoubted talent? Watch this space!

Liz

vs.

 Could probably get a sweet gig at her family's restaurant in Astoria?

Why is it that feminist icons have to add insult to injury by being smoking hot? I'd march all day against genital mutilation, in a g-string and high heels, just to sift through the bush of defiance between either of these two sirens' legs. I just don't know which one would be my preference... I guess it would have to be the one who isn't busy scissoring with Bill Maher. That big-haired midget fuck is my only real competition, so I can only hope that 9/11 conspiracy theorists who infiltrate his audience can get a shot off next time. I kid the Maher... I'd miss his recycled jokes, and 3rd rate shtick... and I have to admit... He does book some sweet guests. 

But I digress...

Here's Gloria Steinem during her stint as a Playmate at the Playboy Club in NYC. Mmmmmm.

Arianna trumps Steinem's CV with her Greek accent (everyone knows I'm a sucker for the Greek womyn). What can i say?... There's something about back hair and sideburns that makes a girl irresistible to me. 

In depression you care about nothing. In sadness you care about everything.

-Gloria Steinem

A bit of a playful article from Gloria Steinem on “If Men Could Menstruate”  reminded me in my gut of some of the truthful aspects of male privilege in a lighthearted manner. Personally, I appreciate the laughter from the article, the poking fun at masculine domination and how women’s bodies, through menstruation are viewed as “unclean” and how if men menstruated, menstruation would be viewed as another way men are superior to women.  It’s a satire example of how it is not menstruation that proves a problem, instead it is women’s bodies.

http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/steinem.menstruate.html

I wonder if men could menstruate, would they also reproduce children?  The article doesn’t address reproduction, just the blood flow and how it would pertain to hegemonic masculinity.  

Mother's Day brunch at Jack's Restaurant had a line out the door.  I was barely 18, weeks from graduating high school, but living on my own and bussing tables to pay the rent.  As my boyfriend—mi novio—cooked omelets in the country kitchen, another cook, my future brother-in-law, pinned a carnation to my shirt.  "Happy Mother's Day, cuñada."

Suddenly I realized, surrounded by a mix of strangers and unexpected new family, that this special day was mine now, to celebrate.  But I was young, and few people knew I was pregnant—so I kept it to myself. And so it began: passing as an ordinary woman, with a secret joy pinned to my breast.
Excitement kicks on the rare occasion I get to talk about my son Oscar, a thrill that for many years was more of an anxious dread.  I have spent my entire adult life in various metropolitan areas, surrounded by undergrads and Sex-and-the-City crowds (translation: single, childless).  It's partly my youth, partly the city life I'm living, but how people look at me at me changes once I reveal that I am a mom.  Surprise, curiosity, and mixed feelings.

Mother’s Day at Its Root

Last May, the Women’s Media Center posted a commentary by Gloria Steinem, “Mother as a Verb.” Below is an excerpt. Click here for the full article.

[W]hen mother is a verb—as in to mother, to be mothered—then the best of human possibilities come into our imaginations.   To mother is to care about the welfare of another person as much as one’s own.
To mother depends on empathy and thoughtfulness, noticing and caring. To mother is the only paradigm in which the strong and the weak are perfectly matched in mutual interest. Besides, one may be forced to be a mother, but one cannot be forced to mother.

So perhaps what Julia Ward Howe had in mind when she created this day in 1870—a day of opposing war and uniting for peace—was not so much a Mother’s Day as a Mothering Day; a day that reminds us all, whether we are young or old, male or female, of the possibilities within us.
I thank Julia. Forever more, we will be reminded that peace is not just the absence of war, but the presence and possibility of mothering.

This is because Oscar lives 3,000 miles away with his father, a non-traditional arrangement that somehow makes the best of things, yet a physical distance that is completely foreign to most parents.  At first mention of Oscar, another parent will ask what school he goes to—and our experience of mothering has so little in common, conversation comes to a standstill.  I suddenly feel compelled to share intimately, to validate difficult choices and thereby keep questions of my maternal instincts at bay.  I want to lay the foundation for later conversations that will move beyond the leftover pain and get to the remaining joy.  My confessionals are exhausting, however, and I’m often not sure whether I have said too much or too little.  I have sometimes found that it is easier to not even mention Oscar.  Except it has never been that easy.

I am a mom—it's part of my identity, and I work hard at it daily.  Yet as a non-custodial, long-distance mom, I have often felt I lacked bragging rights as I struggled for recognition from his school, from other parents, and even from those closest to me.

Coming of age in a town with one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in California, and marrying into a large Mexican family, this isolation was not a problem in the beginning.  I quickly made friends with other mamas as my fellow honor student friends moved on to university.  I went to community college—doing homework at the park, in the McDonald's playground, anywhere my son could be kept safely and happily occupied.  But life has a way of intervening, and soon miles separated me from the immediacy of being a parent.

It wasn't until recently that I began to feel comfortable again in my own mama-skin.  For that, I must credit the women I now have around me—I never had a sense of community until I started working in feminist circles that gave me supportive environments in which to live and work.  One group essential to me is Mamapalooza, with its president Joy Rose. It is an international performing arts and music festival created to celebrate women as mothers and artists. At the New York City conference last year, I was impressed with how moms were highlighted in all their diversity.  Joy was the first person who immediately "got" me once I'd shared my story—the first time I felt free to talk about Oscar and myself without caution.  I realized how withdrawn and protective I had been as Joy joked about “outing” me as a mom to a friend of hers.

This is the first Mother’s Day I have identified as a member of the feminist mamasphere and appreciate coming together as a community to honor our mother figures.  Because it's in the middle of the school year, I do not get to spend it with Oscar. But it is a special day for mothering, regardless of the distance.  I can educate my son about the importance of meaningful gestures—not for my own sake, but so that he understands who he is, as he grows into a thoughtful, responsible person, generous in spirit and rich in love.  Oscar and I have learned to value every moment, and like other children and mothers, we will look back together, every Mother’s Day, and reminisce on the intertwined nature of our history.
We celebrate those who have played a maternal role in our lives by acknowledging them, often by pinning them with a carnation or with flowers and gifts.  However, it is also an opportunity to take the love we have received and pay it forward to the larger community of women.  Demonstrate your love by supporting moms as a political force with Momsrising, lending money to a woman entrepreneur at Kiva, providing critical support in global conflict zones by donating to MADRE, attending a Mamapalooza event, or finding a cause meaningful to you.

Make your mother proud.  I can tell you that it is the best gift of all.
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/050908

www.mamapalooza.com

[Oh, I know--Oprah had no clue that Marion Jones was using illegal substances, but after the way she lit into James Frey for stretching the truth in his memoir, Marion would be smart to stay far away from Oprah's show when she gets out of prison.]

Oprah picked these four women because she feels they are all women who are "in full possession" of themselves. They've figured out who they were meant to be and became that person--and they did so not getting bogged down in what other people thought of them. Let's see what they all have to say about self-esteem.

Toni Morrison: She says she really can't define self-esteem, but she does say she feels like nobody is the boss of her (and personally, I think that's part of it. If you feel you have to measure up to someone else's standards, then someone else is the boss of you, no?). Another good quote:

This is life--this is it. If you want to make it trifling, that's a choice. That makes me sound glib, but life doesn't come here in a little package marked HERE'S YOUR WORTHY LIFE. GO GET HAPPY. It comes with seom intricate, interesting work to be done. At some point between 6 and 13, you have to either wake up or put yourself to sleep. And everthing is designed to encourage spiritual and mental sleep. You shut down and start buying stuff.

Morrison comes across as kind of a tough love/don't wallow in yourself person, and after reading the Constructive Living article, I'm a little inclined to be tougher on myself. OK, I get to wallow a short bit, but pick up and move on because I know I'm OK.

In regards to my feeling this project isn't "as good" as Living Oprah's (she's living Oprah for 1 year), I can't really think about that. And lately I haven't been. I've been focused on making progress with this project, sending out queries for other articles I want to write, trying to meet people. And that makes me feel much better than curling up on my bed crying that LO got herself another radio interview.

What does Gloria Steinem have to say? She defines self-esteem as:

"valuing the self, but it's also having a sense of self-authority. It's not just a feeling; it's also an ability--and nothing works without it. I find it useful to think of two kinds of self-esteem: One is core self-esteem, the feeling that you are a good person." (this is basically how you were raised--did your parents love you and all that good stuff) "The other kind is situational self-esteem, which comes from comparing your skills to others' skills and from being effective in the world. If you don't have core self-esteem, you can get hooked on situational self-esteem as if it were a drug. But no amount of money or accomplishment is ever big enough because you are lacking at your core."

So, Gloria, are you saying that if your folks didn't love you enough when you were a kid, are you basically screwed out of half of your self-esteem as an adult? Because it really sounds like you can't get that core self-esteem back once it's gone, the way you're explaining it.

Needless to say, I'm not liking what Steinem has to say. I'm woefully unknowledgeable about the women's rights movement, especially in the 1970s. She starts to talk about having self-authority, and I can't quite figure out how that's different from self-esteem, but no matter how I read it, it sounds like you can get away with blaming someone else for your crappy life, rather than figure out how to make it better, giving yourself a better self-image.

Maybe reporter Christiane Amanpour has something good to say!

Actually, what I like about her is that here she sounds human, but can describe herself very concisely. She has fear, yet she tries to manage it so she can work. Oprah points out that most people don't go into war zones the way she does, and Amanpour concedes that; however, she tries to stretch herself because you don't really know what you're capable of doing until you try. On self-esteem, she says:

It's something that you grow up to recognize. I define it as knowing who I am, what I'm about, where I fit into the universe, and feeling comfortable and good about myself.

Nice and to the point. She also admits that she has low periods, just like anyone else, and she doubts herself sometimes, but that actually helps her "concentrate my mind and propel me in the direction that I knew I wanted to go." Overall, an interesting and helpful thought.

So can Marion Jones add anything to this discussion? Not really. Not knowing what we know now. It's ironic to read that she's proud of the woman she's become, and "I'm proud of the woman I am going to become." What does she think of herself now? Did she really think like this back in 2001, or was she just acting? It's really kind of sad.

Overall though, after reading this I feel a bit more grounded, more sure of myself. And with every article I read and every entry I write, I feel more sure of myself, who I am, and what I'm doing.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend, "Black Healthologist," forwarded a bulletin about Polygyny. Two days later, I came across a related article in Psychology Today. Shortly thereafter, the FLDS situation in Eldorado began to develop. I pondered the uncanny timing, recalling that Waco happened around this time of the year. {*1} Another group of people tried in the media with false stories and then burned alive to commemorate the festival honoring the Celtic Fire-God Baal? {*2} More importantly, were we going to consent to this ritual taking place in front of our eyes yet again?

A topic is born. First, I know that most people will have an immediate averse reaction to the idea of Polygyny. If you've been following my blog, that backlash alone should be a good indicator to pause and reflect on the source of this averse reaction. Perhaps, media programming? As one person I mentioned the topic to vociferously replied, "That's unnatural! Monogamy has always been the norm." Says who? What exactly is your reference point to "always"?

Almost every aspect of our lifestyle is unnatural, particularly in "modernized" (alternately, westernized or industrialized) societies. Every part of life that we consider "normal" has been designed to: prevent us from living in communities, shut us off from our neighbors, relegate most conversations to the realm of the mundane, {*3} prevent us from ever realizing our true potential, and more importantly, keep us tuned in to the television for our reality:

Many will recall reading Fahrenheit 451 at some point in their youth. No, we don't live in a society where firemen go around burning books (yet), but how many people still read books to educate themselves? [Not talking about the dumbed-down education/indoctrination system.] And, out of those, how many read books that are actually enlightening (i.e., not magazines, romance novels, diet-books, newspapers, celebrity insights, and other such garbage). One could argue that sending men out to burn books would be superfluous. However, one of the less publicized (in the public consciousness) aspects of the book, was that in this ominous futuristic world, there were no more front porches:

"'There used to be front porches. And people sat there sometimes late at night, talking when they wanted to talk, rocking, and not talking when they didn't want to talk. Sometimes they just sat there and thought about things, turned things over. My uncle says the architects got rid of the front porches because they didn't look well. But my uncle says that was merely rationalizing it; the real reason, hidden underneath, might be they didn't want people sitting like that, doing nothing, rocking, talking, that was much the wrong kind of social life.'"

Look around you. Ever stop and wonder why few (if any) homes are being built with front porches anymore? Ever live in one of the older communities where people had them? Notice the strong bonds of community and spirit of brotherhood present? So, the question is when/why did architects stop designing them? {*4}

It would be of little surprise then, to discover that the history (our reference point to "always") of monogamy, likely goes back to the same place where monotheism comes from. Presently, I'm leaning towards the theories espoused by Michael Tsarion (derived from Sigmund Freud, among others), which point to the Egyptian Hyksos dynasty's Cult of Akhenaton; the seed of all the Abrahamic religions (as discussed by John Lash). Looking at world developments since that time, one could argue the root of what we call "evil" derives from same.

So going back from the gamist/gynist version of Mono to Poly, and maintaining an open mind, we have to ask ourselves is it unnatural?

According to the article from Psychology Today, appropriately entitled Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature:

2. Humans are naturally polygamous: Polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.

Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.

3. Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy When there is resource inequality among men, most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man. In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one."

Looking at today's world (again, keep that mind open), then Polygyny could solve some of our problems, especially those faced by the Black Community in America. Here's an excerpt from the perspective of Sister Shahmeen (aforementioned):

I am for polygyny because I think it would benefit our black community ... We have a ratio of women to men that is ridiculous; there are too many women who won’t ever have the opportunity to be a wife and have a complete family (an active mother and father taking care of the children).

Everything in creation and nature bear witness to polygyny starting from the solar system ... there is one sun and 9 planets ... he is the sustainer, the supplier, and the provider. All planets have life through him and have their own individual attributes (like women). That is the universal order of things. In the animal world, the fittest male gets the females, like with seals, lions, etc ... living in harmony is intelligence and it is based off of order (maat) in creation, meaning everything is divinely intelligent ... because it all comes from the same source (life-force).

Also, women can develop long-lasting friendships [real sisterhood] ... they will share responsibilities: taking care of the home, taking care of the children, building alongside each other ... Children will have a household were there is always someone there to look over them ... The black community will have significantly less crime, adultery, abortion, incarceration ... more stability, creativity, bonding, and success ... all [together] striving for a better community.

At one point in my life, and I suspect from an ego-driven perspective, I had envisioned some future for myself in some rural South American setting with the girls I've loved most and all our children living together. I had dismissed that as some pipe dream, but the more I think about now, it may not necessarily have been all that absurd.

When you really start to openly consider the issue, the benefits far outweigh the negative ego-driven, programmed fear and anxiety issues that would arise (with the exception of, as the first article implied, the less prosperous males). Mainly, there would always be a mother around to nurture, influence, and entertain the children. The television as a nanny would no longer be required (and, could be done away with altogether). Homeschooling would become more feasible, thus keeping children away from the indoctrination centers (i.e., the Foundation controlled federal school system). A mother could still get free time for herself to pursue career and hobbies. The damage done to the family unit by the outgrowth of radical feminism could be reversed, while women's rights were preserved. {*5}

Is this why the powers-that-be view polygamists as such a threat? Is that why it is illegal in all of the United States, and most westernized countries? A marriage is simply a contract between two parties. There are no laws barring multiple parties from entering contracts to engage in legal activity, except for this one case.

Then I come across this interesting note from Truther Thoughts implying a Waco-style pyre may be in the works for the polygamist families in Eldorado. As I indicated before, "El" has a synchromystic tie-in to Saturn and as Through the Looking Glass speculated, 2008 may be the year of Eli's.The El Dorado legend speaks of a South American tribal chief who covered himself with gold dust. So, the synchromystic can-of-worms has been opened: the Saturnian Cult's El is having a banner year (Eli Manning's Super Bowl), monatomic gold, Stardust and the Golden Compass (as I touched on before), the festival of Baal, and even Mickey Mouse. All you synchronauts, explore!

As for Eldorado, it looks like, for now, the worst may have been averted (burning people alive to Baal today). But, you have to look at how the mainstream media is spinning the story. Note the use of loaded words like "renegade sect" (vs. "offshoot" or "branch") and "compound" (vs. "home" or "ranch"). Highlights:

• "A local law enforcement officer was quoted as saying that authorities were not able to 'get at' these families earlier because they were home schooling." [Didn't take them long to tie it to home-schooling, did it?]
• "Some fear the harsh measures in Texas will drive polygamists further into the shadows and increase their fanaticism." ["Shadows" and "Fanaticism?"]
• "In my opinion, this is the largest endeavor we've ever been involved in in the state of Texas," said Children's Protective Services spokesman Marleigh Meisner, who said she was also involved in the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco." [Synch alert! An MM tied to El and Waco.]
• "They have no concept of mainstream society, and their mothers were born into and have no concept of mainstream culture." [They don't post nude photos of themselves on MySpace; aren't exposed to Disney mind control.]
• "Child welfare investigator Angie Voss testified that at least five girls who are younger than 18 are pregnant or have children." [Going to assume that Ms. Voss has never been anywhere near average American high-school?]
• "Eldorado resident Amelia Rodriguez, 60, [in reference to FLDS moving to her town] said, 'I get kind of scared because there's no telling what's going to happen. I don't like it. I don't feel it's a good place for them to be.'" [The uninformed opinion of this xenophobic townie is "newsworthy?"]

According to one of the mainstream sources, the mothers were appealing to Governor Rick Perry for help. Um, isn't this the same Rick Perry who loves children so much, that he tried to make the dangerous untested Gardasil vaccine mandatory in all of Texas? I don't think Rick cares about children, but sadly, if there's money involved, he might be inclinded to pretend to.

How many kids were taken away? 416! [As of last count] So, CPS, an agency suspected to be heavily infiltrated by pedophiles, and paid bonuses when they take children away, is forcibly separating children from their mothers and putting them in foster care. Hopefully, they won't get sent to Florida, where hundreds (some allege thousands) of foster care children are "unaccounted" for, and those in high positions have been caught engaging in nefarious activities. [How odd! Contains a quote from Florida DCF spokeswoman Marilyn Munoz.] What a nightmare! Why isn't Oprah screaming her head off about this? Oh, never mind.

Now, I don't personally know if the allegations in Eldorado are true or false, but they do seem fishy. Based on intuition, I can deduce that if all of the people were completely innocent, then they would have probably burned them in effigy to the fire-god Baal. Instead, it seems like the media will play this out to further demonize the concept of polygyny and further implant the idea that only horrible people practice it. {*6} Furthermore, don't make the assumption these children will be in the clear if they get fostered out, because as I implied above, they could then end up in destinations unknown.

Don't let yourself be deceived for even a moment that this case is about child welfare. Were the mainstream media even remotely concerned with children, then just ask yourself how come hardly anyone in America is familiar with the story involving Boys Town and a host of major political personalities in America:

• Conspiracy of Silence: This film is not supposed to exist
• The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska
• Was Jeff Gannon A Victim of the Republican Pedophile Ring?
• Franklin Case Timeline (franklincase.org)

This article was not written as a proposal that polygamy is better for everyone than monogamy. It was an exercise in whether it is another valid option for our society, and an effort to not fall for the mainstream media's brainwashing methodology. One need only consider etymology and word origins to see the pattern. We've gone from Polytheism to Monotheism. From Polygamy to Monogamy. From Polyphony to Monotony.

I can't help but wonder if this too is part and parcel of the grand scheme to turn a World of Individuals into a Hive of Automatons.

---

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

---

*1: I would hope there aren't too many people around who buy the accidental theory of what happened to those poor Branch Davidians in Waco. Those unfamiliar with the real story, should probably start by watching Waco: Rules of Engagement (Part II). [LB]

*2: Other significant effigies/sacrifices to Baal on April 19th (the first day of 13 day festival honoring this ancient deity): [LB]

• 1995: 168 killed by explosions detonated inside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (an FBI job).
• 1993: 77 Branch Davidians burned alive by the BATF.
• 1989: 47 sailors incinerated when a gun turret explodes aboard USS Iowa.
• 1909: Joan of Arc (the consummate fire sacrifice) receives beatification from the Catholic Church.
• 1587: Sir Francis Drake sends fire ships into Cádiz harbor, burning up Spanish fleet. Drake was a Pirate (i.e., etymologically, a "Man of Fire").

*3: How many times have you heard people say the axiom "Never discuss politics or religion at the dinner table?" [Or, "the bar."] Would you be surprised to learn the origins of the phrase trace back to Freemasonry? The phrase, specifically, is "never discuss religion or politics inside the lodge." But, it is intended for the uninitiated or those of the lower degrees. As a couple of Freemasons have told me, "we never discuss anything but religion and politics." Think about that next time you see someone on television parrot the phrase. Our hidden masters don't want us discussing religion and politics, because serious conversation could lead to people discovering what a farce both of them are. [LB]

*4: In a possibly related or unrelated topic, one of my architect friends tells me that after Frank Llloyd Wright came along, the use of "golden sections" (traditions dating back thousands of years and tied to natural order and sacred geometry) went away and how CAD programs don't even offer them. [LB]

*5: My feminist friends have already given me grief on this, and I suspect it's cause no one ever wants to admit they've been had. Sorry, the entire women's liberation movement of the 60's/70's was a controlled sham. Gloria Steinem was funded and took orders from the CIA. As Aaron Russo discussed, the purpose was to get women out of the homes, so that children's minds would be influenced more by the schools, the media (and, I'd surmise, MTV brainwashed day-care workers). The most telling result? Before "the movement," the average working man generated enough income to provide for a family of six. Now, it takes an average of two working parents, to provide for a family of four. [LB]

*6: Or, just fabricate the evidence, which may be the norm in Texas law enforcement. Some articles said police were insisting on DNA samples in Eldorado. [LB]

While I have little quarrel with Mrs. Clinton's politics, I do have an issue with the post-feminist backlash against Obama that is promoted by many of her supporters. By allying herself with the likes of Gloria Steinem or Geraldine Ferraro, women who support her campaign on the basis of a 'gender gap' while simultaneously ignoring the socio-economic gulf that exists between whites and blacks in this country, Hillary has damaged her own credibility. Ferraro's remarks in particular, and Hillary's refusal to decry or even to acknowledge them, are a glaring indication of the increasingly misguided aims of the feminist movement in this country. While both are obviously still pressing issues, the 'gender gap' in America exists on fewer fronts and appears to be narrowing at a greater rate than does the 'race gap'.

As a black woman Ms. Roberts is stuck between a rock and a hard place, bound to be criticized by a section of her peers regardless of her choice of candidate. Perhaps the acquaintances who question her decision simply wonder why she would choose to throw her support behind the candidate whose campaign has sought to actively devalue a portion of her identity. I guess there's much to be said for CosmoGIRL! Power.

Today, we come together to launch a global campaign to end violence against women. I am counting on you -- advocates from Government, civil society and the UN -- to carry our message around the world.

Violence against women is an issue that cannot wait. A brief look at the statistics makes it clear. At least one out of every three women is likely to be beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countless others are denied the right even to exist. No country, no culture, no woman young or old is immune to this scourge. Far too often, the crimes go unpunished, the perpetrators walk free.

War has always been devastating, but now, women and girls are themselves targets in the war zone. Today's weapons of armed conflict include rape, sexual violence, and the abduction of children conscripted as soldiers or forced into sexual slavery.

On my visits to conflict-torn areas around the world, I have spoken with women who have endured horrific forms of violence. I will forever be haunted by their suffering -- but equally, I will always be inspired by their courage. These mothers, sisters, daughters and friends are determined to reclaim their lives.

This is a campaign for them. It is a campaign for the women and girls who have the right to live free of violence, today and in the future. It is a campaign to stop the untold cost that violence against women inflicts on all humankind.

Please click here to view Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's entire statement and more on the campaign.

Additionally, I attended a gathering in which Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine, Dr. Jean Shinoda Bolen, author of "Urgent Message from Mother: Gather the Women. Save the World" and Nancy Gruver, Publisher & Founder of New Moon Magazine for girls, spoke on "Envisioning a 5th UN Women's World Conference (5WWC)". This is significant as the the last UN sponsored World Wide Women's Conference was held in Beijing in 1995. It is supposed to happen every decade and this decade is nearly over and the UN is so far not willing to support the 5th Women's World Conference.

At every previous conference, women came from all over the world, talked and bonded, learned from each other, and formed a network of friendship and political alliances on behalf of women. Most significantly, women's rights were recognized as human rights in the Beijing Platform for Action. Until this conference women were considered passive victims in an unequal world. The conference addressed gender relations rather than women's issues, recognizing that women's roles and status are equal in relation to men.

-Excerpt taken from http://www.5wwc.org/origins/index.html where you can find more information on the need for a 5WWC

Of course one does not go to NYC without allowing some time for shopping and tourism. I have fallen madly and deeply in love with Century 21, a TJMaxx flavored department store that is a) huge, b) specializes in all designer goods, c) amazingly priced and d) probably my new most favorite place to shop (next to thrift shops of course...oh the joy of treasure hunting). Accordingly, when in NYC you need to make a stop at Century 21; official mandate from me.

[DeNeen L.] Brown chose to quote and misinterpret this: "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life . . . ." If I had meant "more restrictive than race," I would have said so. I chose "most" because masculine and feminine roles restrict most people -- not necessarily more (or less) seriously than race or class or other distortions of individual uniqueness.

Excuse me? I understand her when she writes, "The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together," but why is she torturing the English language in order to claim that "most" does not mean "most"?

I understand the feeling of being misunderstood and the urge to clarify, but it is also important to recognize that our words can take on a life of their own once they are published. Steinem might not have meant "most" in the conventional sense, but she must accept that many—perhaps even most—intelligent, well-intentioned people are going to read it that way. Rather than attack Brown, she could have explained the confusion and assumed responsibility for her share in creating it.

Steinem's original New York Times opinion piece starts out with a clear tone of gender being more limiting than race, but then it switches over to give both race and gender parity in the limitation of equality in this country. Steinem herself created this ambiguity. Trying to make it go away by rendering "most" meaningless does not help matters.