8/14/11

Pistol Annies: An Empowering Trio

Please check out a new trio, all women, and they know exactly how to stand their ground and get what they want. Click the link below or visit www.pistolannies.com
http://youtu.be/fOKtbJfNLFk

8/13/11

Only One Woman on the "Super Committee"? Ouch!




Posted: 8/12/11 02:02 PM ET Huffingtonpost.com

Here's the math: Women are 50.7% of our population, only 17% of Congress, and an appallingly low 8% of the Super Committee. 



This lack of representation on the debt ceiling Super Committee which is charged with cutting $1.5 trillion from the federal budget is pathetic, particularly given that critical programs -- like Medicaid, Medicare, child care, education, food assistance, and Social Security -- which have the biggest impacts on women and families are at stake.

The solutions that come out of the Super Committee need to reflect the needs of Main Street, and not just greedy Wall Street corporations.

Why is it an 'ouch' that there's only one woman on the Super Committee?

Because, as news outlets report, "When women aren't at the table, programs that disproportionately benefit and employ women -- like child care, education, food assistance, and Medicare -- are often the first to go."

It's also a problem that there's only one woman on the Super Committee because numerous studies have found that when women don't have equal representation at negotiating tables, the outcomes are worse for everyone. For example, NPR recently reported, "Psychologists have found that when groups are predominantly male, individuals tend to act in increasingly aggressive ways... They show off."

Further, the Harvard Business Review recently reported, "If a group includes more women, its collective intelligence rises."

Every bit of American ingenuity possible is needed to fix our economy -- and not having equal representation of women on the Super Committee hurts us all.

Our nation simply can't afford to continue the way we're going with tax breaks for millionaire CEOs and corporate jet owners, while the rest of us pay an unfair portion of the taxes and have poorer schools and services.

With unemployment at a high 9%, we know corporate tax cuts aren't sparking job creation for average workers. In fact, right now many corporations are paying increasingly outrageously high upper management salaries: Top executives at big companies made an incredibly high average of $10.8 million each last year, a 23 percent pay increase from just 2009. In contrast, the average worker made just $752 a week last year, or $39,104 per year, and many people can't get jobs at all.

(And while this is happening, the number of female CEOs is falling. There were 15 female CEOs in the Fortune 500 last year, and now there are only 12 female CEOs in the Fortune 500 companies. This drop is despite the fact that a 19-year Pepperdine University survey of Fortune 500 companies showed that those with the best record of promoting women outperformed the competition by anywhere from 41 to 116 percent. Our economy needs every bit of entrepreneurship possible, anddisproportionately leaving out women hampers our nation's success.)



In short, pay for CEOs is sky rocketing, while the wages of real people are stagnant, decreasing, or worse, non-existent.

Our economic system is out of whack: A Northeastern University study recently found that since 2009 "corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income. ...The absence of any positive share of national income growth due to wages and salaries received by American workers during the current economic recovery is historically unprecedented."

Clearly the "trickle down" theory isn't working. We need a better approach.

At MomsRising.org our over million members tell us every day that they're struggling to pay for food, to find housing, child care, health coverage, fair pay, a lack of sick days, and more.

Stories like:

  • I knew something was wrong in my breast, but I had no insurance. I knew that even if I could scrape together enough money for a mammogram, I couldn't pay for treatment. It would be a pre-existing condition if I got insurance later. So I tried not to worry for 2 years. Finally, my husband heard something on TV about free mammograms for low-income women from the Health Department, so I went in. Yes, it was breast cancer. Yes, it was invasive. And yes, treatment was paid for by Medicaid. Medicaid literally saved my life. My cancer was stage 1, treated by surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and hormones. It's now been 9 years since my diagnosis. I\'m grateful to be alive. I would never have chosen my own treatment over house payments. My family is more important than my life. Today I'm grateful to have both. -- Gail, Utah


  • My husband and I were denied a home loan last year due to my being on maternity leave. It was a tremendously frustrating experience, as I was employed and on a federally protected leave; though was told that in the eyes of the lender, I was unemployed. -- Olivia, California


  • As a teacher I have seen many kids come right off the bus in the morning and head straight to the nurse's office. Some parents send their children in regardless of how their child feels because they have to go to work. These children feel miserable all day and end up passing whatever they have along to their classmates and barfing in front of all their peers. Kids get sick everyday but if all parents had paid sick time parents wouldn't feel like they had to tell their kid "you're going to school and if you feel sick later call me". Think about it, as an adult do we like to go to work when we feel bad? Well, going to school is a workday for a child and 6hrs is a long time to sit at a desk and feel sick. Paid sick days would help parents make better decisions when it comes to their sick kids. 
-- Amy, Washington
 


  • I have worked in health care in NY as a Medical Practitioner and have always been paid over10.00+ an hour LESS than my male colleagues with the same or less experience (this is about 20% less) and was reprimanded for asking about this unfair policy. -- Sharon, New York




There's a serious concern that the members of Congress who were chosen for the Super Committee are out of touch with what's going on in the lives of real people.

It's simply un-American to ignore the needs of constituents while greedy corporations take their profits elsewhere.

Balanced, common-sense solutions for real people are needed. And there's wide agreement that the best way to reduce the budget deficit is by a combination of both cutting federal spending AND by increasing revenues though ending tax breaks to the very wealthy.

Representatives on the Super Committee will need to take a hard look at revenue options--and, quite simply, the Bush tax breaks and war spending can't be ignored because as one study found: "The Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019."

The Super Committee must prioritize putting people back to work in our nation, and not reinforce bad tax break policies for the very wealthiest Americans who can afford to buy political influence while everyday people struggle.

However, looking at the outcomes of the recent past negotiations in a Congress that's only 17% women, without more women on the Super Committee it's going to be an uphill battle to make changes we need to get our nation back on track through this avenue.

Time is wasting.

The USDA reports that 1 in 4 children in our nation are experiencing food scarcity due to family economic limitations.

We don't have time for politicians to show off, to grandstand, or to get in testosterone battles about who signed whose anti-tax contract. (And those anti-tax politicians who are competing to make our government small enough to drown it in a bathtub are in for trouble--don't they know that taxpayer dollars pay for the water that fills their tub?)

Appointing only one woman to the Super Committee was a major mistake.

Ouch.

Follow Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rowefinkbeine

8/12/11

30 Things Every Woman Should Have and Should Know by the Time She's 30 Magazine: glamour.com

30 Things Every Woman Should Have and Should Know by the Time She's 30 Magazine: glamour.com
Every woman has probably been sent the chain email with the poem entitled "A Woman Should Have" credited to Maya Angelou, but the reality is there is debate surrounding whether those words are her own. Check out the article above from 2007. Even if you do not care about the debate surrounding the real author it is an easy read that may make you smile and for many may hit home. Some days it is nice to just remind yourself that being a woman only gets better with age!

8/10/11

Grasping at Sexist Straws

Ok. I can't seem to let this go, though I think it's had enough airtime. I've become increasingly frustrated about all the Michele Bachmann sexist Newsweek cover talk.

Everyone is weighing in on this, so I'm going to as well. I don't think it's sexist.

I did some quick googling research on Newsweek, their covers and was there anything notable about their coverage of women.

In the discussion of Bachmann's deer-in-the-headlights expression, people continuously refer to the infamous Sarah Palin Newsweek cover. You know the one, she's sporting her super short running shorts. All the Republicans decried, "Oh my! This is sexist!" Really?

I'm tired of the sexism card being used when convenient. How about when it comes to voting on bills that affect women's health, welfare, financial empowerment? Is it not sexist when you push for legislation that de-funds clinics and programs that give specifically empower women to live day-to-day?

What's interesting is that no one seems to reference the "new" Newsweek. When the new layout was unveiled by Tina Brown, the new Editor-in-Chief, it was Hillary Clinton on the cover, looking confident and in charge. Check it out here.

I think it's great. And do you know what that edition of Newsweek was covering? The 150 women that shake the world.

Further, The Daily Beast, which is part of Newsweek's website, has a WHOLE section titled "Women in the World: Stories + Solutions." It profiles different women in the world, challenges they face, what is being done to solve them.

In addition, the website puts together an annual conference: "Women in the World Summit." It brings together women leaders from around the world to discuss solutions to the challenges all women face.

When putting together my first blog post discussing the media's treatment of women running for office, I remember reading that it's easy for one to see when candidates lose favorability with the media as their pictures become increasingly unflattering.

And I think that's what is happening with Michele Bachmann.

I felt somewhat vindicated yesterday when I read an article by Joan Walsh on Salon.com. She reached out to the Dalai Lama of feminism, Gloria Steinem, to get her take on the whole thing. Terry O'Neill, President of NOW, was recently quoted as using Steinem's test to figure out if this cover is sexist. The test is what would be the reaction if it happened to a man or would it ever be done to a man? O'Neill remarked that using this test results in it being sexist as it's never happened to a man (um, Howard "yyyeeee-hhhhaaa" Dean anyone?)

Steinem noted that O'Neill was right about her test, but felt the photo was borderline and the commotion may be "grasping at straws."

I have a feeling that as long as Bachmann and Palin are running, we have not heard the end of sexism accusations. I think it's good the conversation is going on, but I just hope that it's not used as part of either candidate's media strategy.

(The views expressed in this blog post is solely those of the author and not of CT NOW).

Cameroon's Kah Walla Presses Her Presidential Bid | Womens eNews

Cameroon's Kah Walla Presses Her Presidential Bid Womens eNews

8/9/11

Sexist Newsweek Cover?

Is Newsweek's Michele Bachmann Cover Sexist?

1312814230

The conservative blogosphere is out with guns blazing about the Michele Bachmann Newsweekcover photo. They're decrying Newsweek's anti-Republican bias, and they're also saying the photo is sexist. Tea Party queen Dana Loesch wrote of the wild-eyed Bachmann, "When your premise is an unflattering photo (and if you don’t have them you’re a liar or Miranda Kerr) to sell your bias, you just might be a chauvinist." (Loesch also invites readers to caption an unflattering photo of Newsweek editor Tina Brown). If you'll recall, two years ago, Newsweekfaced similar criticism for using this photo of Sarah Palin in her running shorts:

file

"The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention - even if out of context," Palin said at the time.

That the magazine has a liberal bias under Tina Brown is debatable (see this image of Mitt Romney as a character from the Book of Mormon for evidence that supports Loesch et. al.), but charges of ongoing sexism from the magazine have a lot more back up. Before that Romney cover, almost all of the male Republican candidates from previous years were portrayed in a serious light. It should be noted that these covers were before Brown's time--but so was the Palin cover. See the following images of John McCain and Mike Huckabee:

file
file

Even Rush Limbaugh--not a candidate, but a very prominent conservative--was not made out to be a joke:

file

I hate it when Michele Bachmann makes me defend her, but I'm with Loesch on this one: TheNewsweek cover was unnecessarily unflattering. I doubt Newsweek would portray a male candidate with such a lunatic expression on his face. As much as it pains me to admit it Bachmann is a legitimate candidate and major magazines should treat her like one.

8/8/11

How to Save the Planet? Scientist Says "EMPOWER WOMEN"

During an interview on WNPR’s “Where We Live” last week, prominent scientist Dr. Robert Ballard, who discovered the ruins of the Titanic in 1985, was asked how we should go about saving the planet.

His answer was simple: “Empower women.”

“That’s it,” he said. That’s number one.”

I wanted to stand up and cheer. He went on to say that he is a feminist, that he has a daughter (and a son), that he believes in women and he plans to hand over the reins of his latest expedition to his # 2, who is a woman. He then said that women will save the world because they are more nurturing, and less likely to lead us into war or blow up things. This made me pause a moment, because I would like to think that if women are going to save the world it’s because we are smart enough and capable enough to do it, not because we like to cuddle kittens and make nice meals. (Not to mention the fact that not all women conform to this stereotype of femininity.) But whatever. I liked his message enough to keep listening.

The show’s host asked Dr. Ballard about the prevailing wisdom that girls don’t excel in the sciences, and he again gave a succinct answer. “Bull.” Girls can excel in the sciences, and they do. What do readers think? Is the key to saving our planet this simple? If women do indeed end up coming up with important solutions to our most pressing environmental problems, will it be because we are nurturing, or is it more complicated than that?

http://www.yourpublicmedia.org/content/wnpr/where-we-live-robert-ballard-back-it