WVM Home HerStoryYour VoiceYour MultimediaResource LibraryAboutCode of ConductContact
Log inRegister
  • HerStory
  • Your Voice
  • Your Multimedia
  • Resource Library
  • About
  • Code of Conduct
  • Contact

  • Register
  • Recent Posts
  • Post index
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Latest comments
  • About Your Voice
  • Raise Your Voice
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 6
  • ...
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Failing to collect data about women is no trivial offence.........

Posted by jj on Apr 09, 2021 in Intro

Women get freezing cold in trains and in big city offices because the air conditioning is set for men’s sensitivity to the cold. They spend the whole theatre interval (when visits to the theatre were still possible) in the queue because there are too few toilets. What may appear to be more of a nuisance – a lack of public toilets for women – is a life-threatening problem in many countries in the world. In some federal states in India, women have no access to toilets and fritter away valuable time looking for a safe place. If they don’t find it, they are often sexually harassed or even killed.

City authorities don’t record these special needs, and they are therefore not taken into account. But the problem is broader. In a large number of areas, data is not collected by gender. That’s true for example in medical research, which is mostly geared towards men for convenience’s sake. It’s also true in traffic planning, giving preference to cars that are overwhelmingly used by men, although the majority of women globally travel by foot or by bicycle. In winter, it’s first the streets that are cleared although most accidents take place on pavements.

In her book Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, the British author and feminist Caroline Criado-Perez has collected such facts and data from all areas of life, cultures and parts of the earth on just 500 pages. Criado-Perez shows the huge gaps in data to the detriment of women in the workplace, in the design of basic commodities, in medicine and in public life. The ubiquitous discrimination of women is underscored with sobering figures. And they prove what we have only presumed up until now: the world is not only partly but almost exclusively geared to men’s needs. She calls it ‘one-size-fits men’.

When data bias becomes life-threatening

The fact that the data gaps are so grave is also because we live in the digital age. Data is the new gold. With data, people can earn a lot of money and some base far-reaching decisions on it every day. That’s why it makes a huge difference whether data is taken from men or from women for an algorithm and with which data artificial intelligence is fed.

Criado-Perez comes up with the example of job-related assessment tests: Men always got the job if applications were only evaluated by artificial intelligence because both the questions and the answers referred to male views of life. Another example: when the New York Philharmonic Orchestra introduced an anonymous musical test, the number of female musicians rose from 0 to 45 per cent. The same phenomenon can be observed in the evaluation process for scientific essays: If neither authors nor evaluators are known, then more essays come in from female academics and receive a higher mark.

If there’s a will, there's a rather simple way: it doesn’t cost more money to collect data from women and about women to include them in the decision-making.

In the health sector too, women are mostly overlooked. For example, they are often give the wrong treatment when they have a heart attack because they often show ‘untypical’, i.e. non-male symptoms. Women are 17 per cent more likely to die in a car accident than men. Why? Because it’s almost exclusively male dolls that are used in crash tests. Agricultural equipment and machines are only designed for men. Men are usually taller, have bigger hands and more strength. Women, who use equipment or machines that are not suited for them on a daily basis, have health problems and are more likely to have accidents. Men are the measurement for all things. Or why, for an evening meal, are the costs for the food and the hotel allowed as expenses but the travel and babysitting costs are not? Criado-Perez has collected a huge number of similar examples.

A few successes

The good news is that this can be changed. If there’s a will, there's a rather simple way: it doesn’t cost more money to collect data from women and about women to include them in the decision-making. It doesn’t cost more money to take female instead of male test subjects for research. In many areas it would make economic sense to take women more into account. If infrastructure and research are geared more towards women, this does not only lead to women being treated equally but also leads to cost savings. As cost savings are highly valued in our capitalist world, this transition becomes more likely.

But for this to happen, many voices need to come together and demand the ‘gender data gap’ to be closed. Perhaps that includes those men who have read the entertainingly written book and have been persuaded that their view of the world is not the only right one.

The author has even had a few (rather symbolic) successes: Thanks to her perseverance, an image of Jane Austen can now be found on the British 10 pound note. Alongside the image of the Queen, she is the only woman on a British note. It’s also down to Criado-Perez that the statue of a female lawyer stands on Parliament Square in London next to many hundreds of male statues.

Anja Papenfuss
Berlin

Anja Papenfuss is Global Editor in the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung's Communications Department. Previously she was head of FES's Press Department and before that worked as a policy officer in its political analysis unit. She edited our German-language sister magazine, Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft. She studied political science in Bonn and Berlin.

Leave a comment

AN AVERAGE OF 3-4 WOMEN DIE EVERY DAY

Posted by jj on Apr 06, 2021 in Intro

That’s how many women are killed by a current or former intimate partner and that is only one of a long list of statistics regarding the killing, sexual assault, stalking and harassing of women in this country. Are you aware that 1 in 3 women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime? Did you know that 8.5 million girls and 1.5 million boys are abused before the age of 18?

April is National Assault Prevention and Awareness Month and a good time to gain a better understanding of how pervasive these kinds of violence are and how you can help do something about it. Millions of individuals are affected by these life-threatening crimes every year. Start by checking out the website of The National Network To End Domestic Violence, an organization that can provide a wealth of information. What you will learn there will help you better understand the importance of passage of the Violence Against Women Act.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA ) was passed in 1994 with bipartisan support. It has been re-authorized several times since then to improve it but in February, 2019, after months of failed negotiations, it expired. Republicans have been unwilling to buck objections of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

On March 17, 2021, the House passed H.R. 1620 with 172 Republicans, some of them women, voting “NO” on the re-authorization of VAWA. Only 29 Republicans voted “YES” with the Democrats. The Republicans key reason for objecting to the bill is they agree with the National Rifle Association’s opposition to a provision that would close what is referred to as the “boyfriend loophole”.

Another law passed in 1996 prohibits current or former spouses who have been convicted of domestic violence from legally purchasing a firearm. The new VAWA would extend that prohibition to “boyfriends” who have been convicted of stalking and/or assaulting their girlfriend or who have had a restraining order issued against them for actions against their girlfriend. FBI data indicates a boyfriend is as likely to kill their intimate partner as a husband.

Most Republicans in the House obviously love their guns and the NRA more than they care about human lives. Let’s see if Republican Senators feel differently and have the courage to show it.

Now is the time to help them rise to the occasion. Call and/or write them of your support for the passage of VAWA as passed by the House. Need contact information? Go to senate.gov. Click on “ find your Senators” on upper left side. Click on your state from the dropdown menu.

Leave a comment

PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS NOW!

Posted by Reid Cornwell on Mar 23, 2021 in Intro, Elections

PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS NOW!

Recent posts on this site regarding Stacey Abrams and the work she and her organization did in Georgia in the Presidential election and the Special Senate Elections in January were met with a groundswell of praise and support. In response to some of the remarks I promised to work on compiling a list of organizations around the country that are involved in voting rights issues and/or voter registration drives.

The list, which by no means contains all possible organizations, is at the end of this post. But first, you should be aware of activity on this issue in the Congress. Some of this information may seem redundant but I cannot express in strong enough terms the gravity of the voter suppression efforts we are up against. If you care about the survival of our democracy, you MUST become involved in every way you can. Do your homework. Find an organization that feels right for you and JOIN IN THE FIGHT TO PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS!

Below is the statement of 21 State Attorney Generals in support of HR1 and HR4. These are bills currently in Congress and, if passed, will supersede laws currently being considered and/or passed by Republican-controlled legislatures in 43 states. The House passed HR1 and it is now ready for the Senate to take it up. They both need to be passed NOW!

Statement from the 21 State Attorney Generals:

“HR 1 would shatter the hundreds of proposed barriers to racially equitable voter participation that some factions of legislators are introducing in state houses across the country. Without it, ensuring future elections are fully fair and free will continue to be an uphill climb. HR 1 won’t put an end to all voter repression, it is a critical first step. The next one rests in HR 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — a badly needed reinforcement of the Voting Rights Act. We also tip our hats to President Biden for his executive order this weekend instructing federal agencies to take steps to better support voter registration and other election-related advances.”

“Between those federal actions, good state bills that seek to enhance the freedom to vote, and the bipartisan state and local leaders who worked so tirelessly to run the most secure election in history this past go around, we can make our democracy stronger than ever.”

Written by Brian Frosh, attorney general for Maryland; Karl Racine, attorney general for the District of Columbia; and Norman Eisen, Voter Protection Program Chair.

The list below comes from fairfightaction.com

Hello Democracy Warrior!

Below are some organizations that you can connect with as they take on voter suppression in their states. Click below for volunteer opportunities! This is neither an exhaustive list of states in which there is work to be done nor organizations that are doing this work, but a place to start!

Arizona

  • Arizona Advocacy Network
  • Arizona Wins

Florida

  • Florida Rights Restoration Coalition

Michigan

  • Voters Not Politicians

New Hampshire

  • New Hampshire Coalition for Voting Rights

North Carolina

  • Democracy NC

Texas

  • Texas Civil Rights Project
  • Texas Organizing Project

Virginia

  • Virginia Democratic Party
  • New Virginia Majority

Wisconsin

  • Democratic Party of Wisconsin

Some additional sources:

Vote Forward

Native People Action

North Dakota Native Vote

Down Home North Carolina

Action St. Louis Power Project

West Virginia Citizen Action Group

Living United Change for Arizona (LUCHA)

Georgia Stand Up

Detroit Action

One Arizona

We The People

If you want to educate yourself further regarding saving our democracy, then go to www.brennancenter.org It is a great source for all “justice” issues.

Remember this…however and with whatever organization you affiliate to get women & people of color registered and to the polls, you will be helping in the battle for social justice.

Leave a comment

YOU DON’T HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS

Posted by jj on Mar 09, 2021 in Home Page, ERA and CEDAW

If you believe our U.S. Constitution gives women equal rights, you are not alone. When polled about this question, many people reply they believe women have this constitutional right. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The Constitution in actuality was written by and for white men only.

Since women earned the right to vote in 1923, repeated attempts have been made to pass an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution without success. The most recent attempt passed both chambers of Congress in 1973 with the provision that ratification by 38 or more states must take place by 1979. The deadline was extended to 1982 when less than 38 states had ratified.

In recent years a major push for ratification resulted in Nevada doing so in 2017, followed by Illinois in 2018, and finally Virginia became the 38th state in 2020. Under a 1984 law, the Archivist of the United States is charged with issuing a formal certification after three-fourths of the states ratify. However, on January 8, 2021, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that the deadline set by Congress is binding and the ERA has not been ratified. The Archivist refused to issue the certification.

The states of Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia filed suit in Federal District Court arguing that Congress had no power to set a time limit. March 5, 2021, Judge Contreras ruled in favor of enforcing the time limit set by Congress when the amendment was passed. The struggle for women’s equality has gone on for almost 100 years. Now is the time to establish our equal rights in the Constitution. Now is the time for you to join the fight! Encourage everyone you know to help in the fight. Polls show, when people understand women don’t have equal rights, 94% of them support an amendment enshrining gender equality into the Constitution.

U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) announced Thursday that the first bipartisan legislation they will introduce for the 117th Congress is their joint resolution to remove the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment -- S.J.Res.1. Ratification of the ERA would expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in the U.S. Constitution. In the House of Representatives, the resolution is being introduced by Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) and Congressman Tom Reed (R-N.Y.).

You need to determine if your members of Congress support this legislation or not. If not, why not? Put their telephone numbers on speed dial so you can call repeatedly, if necessary, until they are committed to voting “YES”. Just go to senate.gov and/or house.gov to find those numbers. Remind them there is no limit on equality.

Time is up. Let’s get this done.

Leave a comment

Incivility When a woman dares respond to it, she’s seen as “disruptive.”

Posted by Reid Cornwell on Mar 05, 2021 in Intro

By Rebecca Traister
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stood up and gave one of the finest speeches recently heard on the House floor, calling out not just Florida representative Ted Yoho for having called her “disgusting,” “out of your freaking mind,” and a “fucking bitch” on the steps of the Capitol in front of reporters on Tuesday, but also elucidating how that kind of language is normalized and deployed against all kinds of women, on all kinds of days.

It was a remarkable piece of oratory, clear and thoughtful about some of the knottiest dynamics of gendered power imbalance in political, public, and personal life.

After Yoho’s outburst was reported in the Hill, he had offered up a floor speech purported to be apology, though it was actually far closer to pallid self-justification. “Having been married for 45 years with two daughters, I’m very cognizant of my language,” Yoho had said, in a speech in which he did not mention Ocasio-Cortez’s name, and in which he nonsensically refused to “apologize for my passion, or for loving my God, my family, and my country.”

It was this non-apology and not his original outburst, Ocasio-Cortez said on Thursday, that led her to make her own speech, in which she eviscerated Yoho’s use of familial pablum and domestic association with women as evidence of his respect for them. Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that she, too, was someone’s daughter, and that that did not in any way insulate her or other women, also daughters and wives, from the impact of degrading and sexist diminution.

“You can have daughters and accost women without remorse,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “You can … project an image to the world of being a family man and accost women without remorse and with a sense of impunity. It happens every day in this country.”

The electric speech gave ringing voice to the experiences, frustrations, and anger of millions of women and men who have had their days, lives, and realities shaped by often abusive, sometimes vulgar expressions of patriarchal power. Among Ocasio-Cortez’s talents as a politician is her ability to connect and communicate clearly, intellectually, and emotionally, with masses of people; the speech she gave on Thursday put those talents on full display, and she was widely praised for it. New Yorker editor-in-chief David Remnick wrote a column suggesting that Ocasio-Cortez possesses the “rhetorical dynamism” long absent from the House of Representatives and praised her defense of decency, “principle and countless women,” while former DNC head Howard Dean tweeted, “I am now convinced that AOC has what it takes to run for president and to be President.”

But some of the coverage of the impact and resonance of Ocasio-Cortez’s speech perpetuated exactly the gendered power imbalances the speech was meant to challenge. The conflict started by Yoho, to which Ocasio-Cortez was responding, got retold, in the New York Times, as an instance of her aggressive political ambition, rather than as a response to the very forces that have long made political power elusive for women like Ocasio-Cortez, and an assumed norm for men like Ted Yoho.

The Times’ story on the speech bore the headline “A.O.C. Unleashes a Viral Condemnation of Sexism in Congress” and kicked off by noting that Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest woman in Congress, who arrived there in 2019, “has upended traditions.” It called her speech on Thursday “norm-shattering” and described supporting speeches made by her colleagues — including one in which Pramila Jayapal recalled being referred to as a “young lady” who did not “know a damn thing” by Alaska representative Don Young — as a moment of “cultural upheaval.”

All these words somehow cast Ocasio-Cortez and her female colleagues as the disruptive and chaotic forces unleashed in this scenario, suggesting that they shattered norms in a way that Representative Yoho’s original, profane outburst apparently did not. (Perhaps Yoho’s words weren’t understood as eruptive and norm-shattering because calling women nasty names, in your head or with your friends or on the steps of your workplace, is much more of a norm than most want to acknowledge).

As Mark Harris pointed out on Twitter, the Times only printed the full epithet in a piece about Ocasio-Cortez reading it into the House record, after declining to print the words in an earlier story, when they would have been attributed to Yoho. This offered the faint impression that the only person who actually said the actual words “fucking bitch” was AOC herself, and not the man who aimed them at her. What’s more, the paper described her as “punching each syllable in the vulgarity,” reinforcing a view of Ocasio-Cortez’s utterances as pugilistic, without acknowledgment that while she enunciated clearly, she delivered her speech in the calmest and most genial tones imaginable. (An earlier Times story on Yoho’s non-apology and Ocasio-Cortez’s initial response to it described her as having “upbraided” him, and opened with a description of how she “forcefully rejected” his apology.)

Times reporters wrote that Ocasio-Cortez “excels at using her detractors to amplify her own political brand” (Ocasio-Cortez’s “brand” is the subject of frequent coverage; it’s rare that powerful white men are understood as having built brands; they just have careers). The Times described how, in the wake of Yoho’s words, “the media-savvy Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had sprung into action to create disruptive and viral events.” It may seem innocuous to call her “media-savvy” but that too turns a strength — media fluency and, with it, communicative acuity — into a diminishment and obscures the fact that Ocasio-Cortez had not created the disruption in the first place.

In describing her team’s decisions about how to respond, the Times put scare quotes around their plans “to discuss how she ‘was accosted and publicly ridiculed,’” rather than simply reporting that she had been … accosted and publicly ridiculed. The whole thing suggests that she had somehow connived to set this all in motion; that her actions were the active and self-serving ones, while Yoho was a passive actor, his only contribution to the situation providing the platform from which she might spring. As the Times put it: “Republicans have long labored to cast Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as an avatar of the evils of the Democratic Party, a move that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has used to bolster her own cheeky, suffer-no-fools reputation.”

There is no acknowledgement here that Ted Yoho, not lacking political and professional ambition himself, was also building his brand by deciding to accost Ocasio-Cortez in front of reporters. Nor is there acknowledgment that it worked for him. The percentage of Americans who had ever heard of “Ted Yoho” has risen exponentially in the past 48 hours, and his name will now resonate heroically for a broad swath of AOC/woman-hating Americans.

What is also true and unsaid here is the way in which degradation and dismissal of women — as disgusting, as crazy, but also as Jayapal’s examples remind us, as infantile, incompetent, irrational, and stupid — has been key to the building and maintenance of disproportionately male power in American political, economic, social, and sexual life. And that’s before we get to the ways in which the ubiquity of dehumanizing and aggressive language toward women can have very real violent implications, as the recent murder of Judge Esther Salas’s son by anti-feminist Roy Den Hollander, and so much contemporary mass violence, shows all too often.

How else to clear the field except to render your peers incapable, unlikable, unprofessional? Whether or not men are saying it out loud, via street catcalls or in front of political reporters, the reduction of their would-be female peers — their ideological and electoral adversaries and competitors for power — has helped clear away potential impediment to their own professional trajectories. But white male opportunism, whether in the form of aggressive insult displayed by Yoho this week, or merely accepting the advantages that broad systemic disrespect of others affords them, is rarely examined as the kind of active force that it has always been.

Instead we are trained to recognize the reactions of those who are not white men to white men as some sort of useful path to power. We are told, in lots of ways, that people who are not white men get to play certain kinds of cards — race and gender cards — to get ahead, whereas white men just … get ahead. White male power is so assumed as to be wholly indistinguishable from what we simply recognize as “power,” and with it, the whispered implication that those with authority have somehow earned that authority fairly and squarely, while those who challenge authority and its abuses are wily manipulators. This rankles particularly here, since what Ocasio-Cortez did so well this week was part of her job, the part that is about representing people and their experiences, and communicating effectively on behalf of those who’ve experienced disadvantage. In other words, she actually did earn whatever gains she made this week.

Meanwhile patriarchal power abuse remains so expected as to not be notable as a violation of norms or civility, as disruptive or chaotic. Instead, it simply coexists with the authority, the command, the humanity of white men — it’s just part of what their power looks like.

Consider how Yoho himself explained his derision of Ocasio-Cortez in his House floor speech as an expression of his “passion,” as somehow synonymous with his faith in God and his love for his family. And that Ocasio-Cortez’s senior colleague in her party, Representative Steny Hoyer, immediately responded to Yoho’s speech by calling his words “appropriate,” because “the language we use matters.”

It does matter. The language used about Ocasio-Cortez matters a lot, and will continue to matter as she rises through American politics.

As we read commentators tell the story of women’s ambition and savvy and drive, all of which are surely politically animating forces — as they have been for all the many men who have preceded them in American politics — I hope people can remember that the analysis is not wrong, exactly, but that it is woefully incomplete. Because until we can see how white men have taken advantage of sexism and racism for their own gain — how they’ve built their own “brand,” the American brand — on the backs of the fucking bitches forever, we’re not really reading a full story.

Retrieved from: The Cut
3 March 2021
https://www.thecut.com/2020/07/aoc-speech-ted-yoho-new-york-times.html?utm_source=fb&fbclid=IwAR0KuS4mYJCPKLsn_ROzVuMgLZUVQZIeZwaMJvK2tSBsq2puJkjZNNJAU14

Leave a comment
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 6
  • ...
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Act Now!

  • AT&T: Don’t Fund Politicians Who Support Voter Suppression
  • RE-ESTABLISH the United States Civilian Conservation Corps
  • Tell Your Legislators To Support National Popular Vote
  • Remove Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene
  • Do Not Seat Insurrectionists
April 2021
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
 << <   > >>

Search

Wit & Wisdom

Be intrusive in places that are not inclusive.
Harvard Ass't. Debate Coach Brandon Fleming

Recent Posts

  • Failing to collect data about women is no trivial offence.........
  • AN AVERAGE OF 3-4 WOMEN DIE EVERY DAY
  • PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS NOW!
  • YOU DON’T HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS
  • Incivility When a woman dares respond to it, she’s seen as “disruptive.”
  • THE VULTURES ARE ALREADY AFTER GEORGIA
  • Lessons Learned from Anti-Equality Mobilisation
  • IGNORANCE FOR JESUS
  • Democracy Headache: Trust in the Vote
  • THE 2ND IMPEACHMENT OF TRUMP!

Recent Comments

  • admin on THE 2ND IMPEACHMENT OF TRUMP!
  • andreajoy on VOTE!
  • marthaburk on STAND UP & SPEAK OUT!
  • admin on VOTE!
  • urbancat on VOTE!
  • marthaburk on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Responds to Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)
  • armandolibertad on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Responds to Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)
  • armandolibertad on DON'T EXPRESS OUTRAGE WITHOUT ACTION!
  • allegra22 on GET SMART AMERICA!
  • admin on My Personal Response To Trump by Lisa Wilson Berkowitz‎
  • admin on THE REAL “WELFARE QUEENS” ARE CORPORATE CEO’s

This collection 2021 by Janice Jochum
Copyright 2019 United Activision Media, LLC
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
• Contact • Help

b2evolution

Cookies are required to enable core site functionality. ©2021 by WVM Home.