What a spectacle! Our Woman's Movement leaders all
lining up beside conservative women's groups backed by
the Falwell right wingnuts and the rest of the well-
heeled, good ol' boys and their mouthpiece, Limbaugh.
Why? Well after being harassed by conservative women
and the media for "not taking a stand for women" they
threw themselves off the mountaintop on hearing Kath-
leen Willey.
Yes they had the high ground and rightly so. The
evidence was not in on Paula Corbin Jones. It was not
in on Monica Lewinsky. It was not in on Clinton. And,
it is _still_ not in on Willey!!!
What they and we all knew for sure was that Ken Starr
was trampling all over the constitution and was hell
bent to breakfast on GETTING PRESIDENT CLINTON. And
they knew of the big money conspiracy to help him do
it.
Ironic, isn't it, that these very "leaders" would
insist that they are working for equality for women and
yet they insist that women be treated "special".
We've been told for eons that nature (biology) has
determined that men do and women are done to. Men are
active; women are passive. That's why we've had to
fight for our rights for equal jobs, pay, reproductive
rights etc. Isn't it? To show that we aren't amoebas?
Yet now it seems that besides equality, we demand
"special privileges". HER past sexual history cannot
be examined -- HIS can. And guess who signed that spe-
cial privilege into law -- for us?
When Willey gave her well prepared interview, which
these so-called "leaders" call creditable, she is
deemed blameless in the encounter because of another
special privilege. Even though she was _not_ then an
employee of Clinton, the media and "leaders" are calling
this harassment and worse. They are parroting the right wing,
comparing it to Anita Hill vs Clarence Thomas. Talk
about twisting the facts -- watta spin!
Give us a break! We can and must wait for the evi-
dence. We don't think either party is telling ALL the
truth.
On _60 Minutes_, we saw a woman, who by her own admis-
sion, went to see a _friend_, fully cognizant of his
intentions toward her (remember the chicken soup?).
Did she go with the intention of using those feelings
to get a job? We don't know.
Adrienne Rich wrote in _WOMEN AND HONOR: SOME NOTES ON
LYING_ (1977): "Honesty in women has not been consid-
ered important. We have been depicted as generically
whimsical, deceitful, subtle, vacillating. AND WE HAVE
BEEN REWARDED FOR LYING (my emphasis)."
We believe it is significant that Willey's revelations
portrayed Clinton as active and her as passive. She
did admit to "thinking something" every now and then.
Why could she not put her activities into the picture
for us? Did you EVER hear her say that she said, "_NO_!"
She told us her feelings. She was sad and troubled and
nearly destitute. She was there to ask for a job.
We all know that the surest way to turn most males into
silly putty is with tales of woe and tears. Few men
can resist offering comfort and this usually means
putting his arms around the woman and her snuggling
into their protection. Quite often, this is how hair
gets mussed and lipstick gets on collars for wives to
discover.
What happened between them? WE DON'T KNOW.
After this incident, Willey certainly did not act
afraid of or angry at Clinton, indeed, quite the con-
trary. She called Ann Lewis, Deputy Campaign Manager
for Clinton-Gore campaign, to tell her how much she
admired the president and how much she wanted to work
for his reelection. We have since seen letters and
phone call messages she sent to Clinton AFTER the
incident. How does that jibe with "shocked, dismayed
and overpowered"?
Oh, well, this is another of those "special privileges"
women leaders appear to demand. You see, women stay in
a bad relationship long after etc. etc. etc. Remember
Anita Hill? Women are passive, powerless.
And what happened when Willey finally decided, as she
revealed in her interview, "to get the hell out of
there." Nothing. She didn't tell us he wouldn't let
go of her. She didn't say he wouldn't let her out.
Nosireebob! She told us she left. Where is the proof
of harassment? Where is Ireland's "criminal behavior?"
Should _any_ man be allowed to do what Willey alleges?
Emphatically, no! But where is the proof that he did?
Put yourself in this situation. He is holding you to
comfort you and then his hand goes where it should not.
Do YOU just stay there thinking? Do YOU? We bet NOT!
We bet you would elbow or knee or whatever the hell you
could do to get out of this sort of dilemma damn fast.
We believe that Willey, facing Ken Starr's threat of
"say what I tell you to or you go to jail" chose to
obey him and the FBI he controls. Who can blame her?
We don't, but we don't admire or believe her either.
We do admire and believe Susan McDougal. She chose
honor over personal safety and comfort.
We women will never get anywhere with our struggle for
equality until we take responsibility for our own
actions. How are we ever going to have parity if we
keep making excuses and demanding "special privileges"
that keep our gender in the bondage of the 19th Cen-
tury--always the innocent, always the victim, always
the excuses, always the "special privileges".
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 12 "BUT IT'S NOT POLITICAL ..."
Fancy that. Newtie and Jesse meeting to plan impeach-
ment procedures. All along, they have been privy to the
Starr Chamber's leaky-information vault. After all Starr's
not only _the_ man, he's _their_ man. A GOP partisan,
selected by GOP judges and pledged to "bring down the
Clinton Presidency."
However, their purpose is so pure, they say. Just guys
"with no sin among us casting the first stone." Hafta
see if there is reason to start impeachment procedures
against the president.
"But", they insist, "it's not political."
'Course not. Who needs the verdict of the Grand Jury
when they can schmooze with good buddy, Starr. Well,
so what! We have been told over and over that a Grand
Jury prosecutor "can indite a ham sandwich", so why
should we care about waiting for a JURY verdict? It's
Ken Starr's verdict that counts. The guys already know
what he's got. They don't even have to go see him.
This is just a play to the media.
We realize that there is a strong possibility that
Newtie and Jesse are just looking out to cover their
Republican butts. With the Clinton favorability polls
staying at high levels, all this Kennie 'n Us stuff
could just be a way of testing the waters. They may
be looking to see how the American public reacts.
But, it's not political.
After all, with the November elections coming on, it's
important to know what the voters think before you
decide just which moral bus you're going to ride on, you
don't want to buy the wrong ticket.
And, of course, that's certainly not political -
that's just "bidness as usual" (as Molly Ivins might
say).
Speaking of Molly, she's got another book coming out.
The title is: _YA GOTTA DANCE WITH THEM WHAT BRUNG YA_
"I have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh on the air, an
experience somewhat akin to being gummed by a newt,"
writes Molly Ivins in this book. "It doesn't actually
hurt, but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your
ankle."
Have you caught any of the media's "little theater"
offerings? This is where they interview a woman-Repub-
lican-Representative who is joined at the mouth with
one of the Independent Women's Forum fembots. (IWF =
GOP women's auxiliary)
The script seldom varies from one network to another.
Their focus is directed against Women's-rights-groups
which they claim, have been silent since Anita Hill.
With pious expressions and sneers fighting for ascend-
ancy, they heap blame on "those women that refuse to
support Paula, Monica and Kathleen "like they did Anita
Hill." They paint Clinton as the devil incarnate.
It can't be political, right?
They sound just like PCJ's lawyer did today. You know,
the one that works for the Rutherford Institute.
"Clinton hates women," he emotes, foaming at the mouth.
He does not respect them. He just uses them and throws
them away."
The PBS's Lehrer Newshour kick-boxing segment, featured
the IWFs vs the PATs on Wednesday. You know the Pats,
don't you? Pat Schroeder and Pat Ireland. (Prez of NOW).
If that TV News hour program is on a Web site somewhere,
check it out. Pat S. may have been brought out of mothballs,
but she can still deliver a knockout. Neither PAT allowed
the charges to stick nor did they apologized for women
activists.
One of many delightful retorts was when Pat S. ex-
pressed how ridiculous it was to make charges
against women's groups. She asserted that men would
never be confronted by such idiocy. For example, if a
sports figure was on _60 Minutes_, no one would demand
that men's groups should come forth to defend or con-
demn a player that was accused of choking a coach, for
example.
_Most_ GOP Representatives and Senators are keeping up
a steady beat of anti-Clinton rhetoric. The idea is
that if we hear something often enough, we will come to
believe it. Hate radio denizens echo the spin, since
bottom feeders all over the country read from the same
script.
Falwell continues to finance the issuing of all sorts of
allegations which are mostly pure slander -- nothing new
here. Just god's mouthpiece preaching to the choir.
We've just learned that PCJ and Trouper Patterson were
feted at a GOP rally after they made their charges
against Clinton. They were highly praised and told by
Speaker of the House, Newtie, that they were patriots
and heroes. Among the other guests were hate radio's
nasty twins, Geegee Leddy and Ollie North.
Just a patriotic bash. Nothing at all to do with politics.
Throughout all the media spins alleging presidential mis-
conduct, we've heard a fairly constant theme from many women:
Whatever Clinton is alleged to have done, there is
ample evidence that he UNDERSTANDS AND RESPECTS THE
WORD _NO_.
The Republican Party Platform, on the other hand, makes
it clear that they intend to _interfere with and regu-
late women's reproductive rights_.
To this, women have responded, `NO!' Women want medi-
cal choices to be made between them and their health
professional. _Most_ GOP Reps and Sens either ignore or
DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE WORD _NO_.
There's a line in _PRIMARY COLORS_ to ponder:
"Think about what you're really interested in, and then
pick your candidate."
Now THAT'S political.
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 13 WE BEG TO DIFFER . . .
Well we've got to add another scandal -- an offshoot of
the whole mess that the media are so taken with lately.
This event threatens to overshadow everything. It is
sooo big and sooo bad that the country may never recov-
er from it, to say nothing of the world!
Yeah, we know. We've all had enough, but brace your-
selves anyway and face up to it. Here it comes:
ALL WOMEN DO _NOT_ THINK ALIKE!
Frightening, isn't it? So much so that newspapers,
radio, TV are just shocked right out of their collec-
tive scanties.
One headline from a DC paper blared accusingly:
"Women's rights advocates broke ranks Sunday over
allegations"
What ranks? And when have we _ever_ been in lock-step?
Several TV news reporters, expressed profound surprise
and disbelief because Gloria Steinem (who they identi-
fied as `a founder of the movement') did not consider
Willey's version of the "happening" as sexual harass-
ment. After all, they asserted, their little
type-faces tortured in confusion, Patricia Ireland
called it sexual assault.
Then along comes Eleanor Smeal, who considers the
allegations, "a form of misconduct". Then, to add
insult to injury, she had the absolute audacity to
point out that there were "political overtones in the
accusations against President Clinton brought by Paula
Corbin Jones.
To cap it all, Anita Hill did not qualify Willey's
alleged Whitehouse experience as sexual harassment.
Where is it written that women are all the same?
We know its a load of crap! Ever since the media put
all women's movement activists in a container stamped,
"F-Word-ists", they expect they can write us off like a
can of spam -- ubiquitous pressed meat.
Would you even consider that everyone who plays golf or
tennis or baseball thinks alike?
Would it surprise you to learn that all newspaper
reporters do not think alike?
Now pick some group you belong to. Does every member
of that group agree on everything? Of course not, so
we have to ask why the media is having such a pissy fit
over this?
However, we do have a problem and it is a big one. We
have allowed our movement to be categorized. We have
let it be defined as a group of non-tradition-bad-
female-types, for example:
Troublemakers.
Baby killers.
Man wannabees.
In spite of this, we often hear some people in our
movement criticizing those who will not call themselves
by the F-word.
We recently read an article where the writer claimed
she had asked these women who said they were not
F-word-ists, if they believed in equal rights, equal
pay and reproductive choice.
They all answered, "Yes."
To the writer of the article, this showed that they
_were_ F-Word-ists and that they were wrong not to
admit to it.
We do not agree. Many women, who are strong advocates
for our movement to parity, reject being identified by
this all inclusive _media-defined_ label.
There are those who think: if one calls one's self by
the deprecatory or insulting names that one's detrac-
tors have hung on them, "that it takes the sting out of
the words and neutralizes them".
We have never seen any evidence that this practice has
caused any cessation of abuse or in any way changed the
meaning of the insults or deprecation used. The curs
that yell bitch or queer or fag are only reinforced by
the "acceptance" of their terms.
Most blacks know this already and remain militant
regarding use of the N-word.
So, we submit that women have every right in the world
to differ, whether we are active in the women's move-
ment or not. We also think that each woman has the
right to accept or reject media's all inclusive labels.
However, there is one name that we think all WOMEN can
write in huge letters on a banner; one name that we can
all gather under and one name that empowers and legiti-
mizes all of us.
That one name is _VOTER_.
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 14
Bella Abzug: "WE MUST MOVE FORWARD!"
It was only a few years ago that naturalists made the
discovery that female song birds also sang. Not loudly
and forcefully, to be sure, but impressive, none the
less. Before someone thought to listen, it was assumed
that the usually bright plumaged, loud mouthed male did
all the singing in the song bird family.
Like these song birds, human females, over the ages,
were not listened to. Since they were not heard over
the loud, confident assertions of the male, our culture
relegated them to a lower place in life than man. They
existed as his possessions, as somewhat useful but
mindless objects.
Around the turn of the Century, Woman began to make her
voice heard. Few listened as most tried to drown her
out. Despite this, a massive energy that had been so
cruelly repressed erupted and the Women's Liberation
Movement was born.
_Bella Abzug_ (1920 - 1998) was one of the giants of
this movement. How desperately we will miss her.
Bella broke the mold. No shrinking violet, her. She
was big and she was powerful. She was strong and she
was intelligent. Eschewing the male established defi-
nition of woman, she wrote and lived her definition of
herself.
It is said that her hats were her trademark. She used
them as props to get herself noticed. Her voice, described
by some as "gravely" was pitched loud so she _would_ be
heard. "This woman's place is in the House", she
declared, and became the first Jewish woman in Con-
gress.
Any of us that lived in those times know how often we
as women were trivialized, ignored and shut out of
debates -- even debates that concerned us. Bella would
not let herself be shut out and she empowered us to
follow her example.
She was a leader, a role model and a friend to women --
a real friend. Emphatically not a woman who would
lindatripp up a friend for the proverbially 15 minutes
of fame.
She inspired us and encouraged us. If our flame was
beaten down by the forces against us, we could always
ignite it again from her conflagrations of pride and
her trenchant confidence that _all_ women mattered.
She laid it squarely on the line. "We don't so much
want to see a female Einstein become an assistant
professor. We want a woman schlemiel to get promoted
as quickly as a male schlemiel."
Prior to going into politics, she was a labor and civil
rights lawyer and peace activist. Naturally, the
conservatives feared and detested her. She described
herself as having, "a decent sense of outrage."
She led us by example, by showing us what was possible
and by encouraging even our feeblest efforts. She
recognized that our struggle for equality was not yet
won. Agreeing that we "will not go back", she assert-
ed, "We must go forward."
She never sat in an ivory tower of wealth and privilege
hurling poisoned darts at our movement like the media
darlings, sommerspagliawolff et al, do today.
She broadcasted women's frustrations and experiences to
the world, exposing our culture's use of gender-related
adjectives to control and demean us: "if I'd had been a
man, I would be called courageous instead of abrasive,
forceful instead of strident."
A passionate fighter for our liberation, she was truly
_A SELF-DEFINED WOMAN_; a great American hero who gave
us the strength and the will to define ourselves.
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 15
"I'D RATHER SEE YOU DEAD, LITTLE GIRL . . ."
Recently, some military men were given metals for their
part in a strange kind of battle that took place in in
1968. A battle against their own side. _Heroes_.
A group of soldiers, under the command of William
Calley, slaughtered all but 11 people in a village
called, My Lei. They massacred women, babies, children
and elders in the cruelest possible manner. _Killers_.
The heroes, under the command of helocopter pilot, Hugh
Thompson, saw what was happening below them and were
appalled. They landed their 'copter protectively be-
tween the remaining fleeing villagers and the mob, then
trained their guns on the killers.
Their message was clear. "Stop!"
What caused one man to order the killing of the inno-
cent without conscience, and another to protect the
innocent without hesitation?
What each were taught that became core beliefs.
We believe that violence in the media had little to do
with the training each man received, per se. What had
most to do with it was: _who most of the violence in
the media is directed against_ and how culturally
acceptable that violence has been and still is.
Gang rape, an All-American power play, provides a
hometown look at the genesis of a My Lei complex. One
after another, men will mount a helpless woman. Each
will angrily force his penis into her vagina which is
still dripping with semen and blood from the previous
onslaughts.
But not all men present will do this. A few will
refuse to participate, content to watch the "fun".
Some may leave in fear or disgust but rarely is there a
man with the courage to stop a gang rape.
Women certainly cannot stop one. Some even give tacit
support by saying of the victim that, "she probably
deserved it" or "she was asking for it".
The rape rite has always been a right, and we women
have always been enablers out of fear and out of power.
Now, we are, at best, unindited co-conspirators as we
continue to teach our daughters the politics of victim-
hood and the family values inherent in the rites
(rights) of men.
Š
When one adds to the media influence what a male child
learns from parents, teachers, society and books, there
is a consesus that supports violence toward women in
most situations -- violence of the strong toward the
weak.
Violence by gender birthright.
But somewhere along the way, the heroes got the message
that women and the weak have importance.
A message the killers never got.
The following is a description of a commercial seen and
heard on "Jimmy Houston's Sportsmen's Digest". It was
aired at 8:30 AM on 3/29/98 on ESPN in Chicago (sent to
us by a 'Gapper's subscriber).
Commercial for camoflage clothing:
-BOY in camoflage hat and clothing is shooting
at tin cans with a rifle. The holes in the tin cans
are bullet holes.
-BOY is about 12 years old.
-MOM calls from the porch of her house, order-
ing the boy to help take out the garbage and clean his
room.
-BOY keeps shooting (angry), then,
-BOY runs into the woods wearing and carrying
his rifle which he aims at MOM on the way.
*****Break for commercial for camoflage clothing****
-MOM has BOY by the arm taking him into the
house. He is still carrying his rifle and is angrily
pulling back to get away from her.
Most women viewers of this commercial are appalled and
apprehensive for the mother. Most men are merely
amused and appear to be rooting for the boy.
***
We know that when a boy sees battering as a way to con-
trol; when he sees guns as extensions of his god-given
male power; when our whole social order declares his
gender #1, his killer-training is complete.
Boys will be boys, we say, even as they practice cruel
acts on small animals until the time comes that they,
like daddy, can torture and kill large animals like
rodeo bulls and horses.
Boys note that most language references man, men, he or
his but references to females usually come as an after-
thought or in parenthesis. Boys are exposed to reli-
gious teachings that emphasize a trinity of two males
and a spirit. Clear message "No females allowed at the
top".
So who is surprised that 2 boys killed 4 girls, a woman
teacher and wounded several other girls in Jonesboro?
The media downplayed the gender of all of the victims,
mostly refering to them as, "children that died or were
injured." Only a very few noted that the choice of
victims (female) was intentionally made.
The oldest killer, already with a charge against him
for molesting a 2 year old girl, will see little time
in jail and little or no punishment; same for the
younger killer.
_Role models in battle gear_.
"I'd rather see you dead, little girl, than to
see you with another man."
4 GIRLS AND A HEROIC WOMAN ARE DEAD.
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 16 "SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED"
Ever since the Paula Corbin Jones charges were made
public, the right wing-nuts have been unable to contain
their glee as they criticized women's groups. We were
called hypocrites for not supporting PCJ like we did
Anita Hill.
They also were in full cry over the terrible words and
ideas that were going out over the media. "It is so
destructive for children to be hearing about such things",
they moaned. "This is all the President's fault."
Of course, as they lamented, they used those same
"terrible words and ideas" themselves -- over and over
savoring every salacious bite.
Then came the right decision to deep six the case by
Judge Wright and all hell broke loose. They were
devastated.
But their ry-chus leaders constructed a new spin. It
was quickly faxed to hate-radio hosts all over the
country. Bleeding from every orifice, hate-radio now
expresses pious concern for women's welfare:
"According to that woman (Judge) who has thrown out the
case, this means that men can just whip _it_ out and shake
_it_ in women's faces -- just as long as they do it
only once per woman."
"Those women-libers brought it onto themselves when they
didn't support poor Paula. Now they, and all the other
women, are going to pay for it by having to endure this
disgusting behavior!"
"Sexual harassment will rise to massive levels and
women will be powerless since condoning this behavior
has established a precedent."
Spin on, ry-chus ones. No matter how much of this
stuff you shovel and no matter how high the pile gets,
we women are not fooled one bit. We've been there,
seen that.
We've all been harassed or known someone that had. We
learned first hand how the law defines sexual harassment
and how it must be proven. We cut our legal teeth
on _quid pro quo_; what it meant and why it had to be
proven.
Back when the PCJ charges were first made, we were
suspicious when her backers consisted of far right
republican money sources. We're suspicious now of what
may happen if her right wing lawyers appeal -- to three
republican judges.
When we read her own description of what took place in
that hotel room, we knew from experience that this was
not sexual harassment.
After what many women have been through over the years,
we seriously doubt that Judge Wright's decision will
induce any _additional_ terror in our workplace.
However, it has stimulated more discussion on what
constitutes harassment and already, we are getting
through to the media (and hopefully to the law makers)
that the problem is not so much a sexual thing as a
power thing.
We have long protested the obscenity of a hostile
workplace. A place where we were not allowed to show
our competence but were continually harassed by juve-
nile delinquents in men's clothing.
Yes, some of it was and is sexual in nature and we have
to cope with that crap constantly. Also, harassment
may be fairly low key which is both annoying and tedi-
ous, but it does not rise to the legal threshold of
sexual harassment, so we live with it or leave.
We are reminded constantly of our "place" and our
status -- not equal to, but inferior to men. Protests
on our part are met with cries of, "Paranoid!"
We have mostly endured being mankind, chairman, mailman,
selectman, congressman etc., because our requests for
gender-neutral language has been largely ridiculed and
ignored.
But what a hue and cry arises when the shoe is on the
other foot, proving once again that we are not para-
noid. We _are_ considered inferior - something no
man wants to be.
As Dr. Estelle Ramey observed: THE MOST DEVASTATING
INSULT FOR A MALE (of any age) IS TO BE CALLED A FEMALE.
This is why military drill instructors and coaches call
their troups/teams, "girls". It shames males into making
a greater effort.
The following was reported by The Associated Press and
picked up by countless newspapers and other media outlets:
_Working Woman_ magazine listed 500 of the largest
woman owned companies. There were two errors in their
list because they made assumptions on the basis of the
first names of two of those listed -- Lynn Johnson and
Gale Burkett - both male.
Burkett bitterly complained, "I've been called a
lot of things, but never _chairwoman_."
Enraged from so many phone calls and "titters", Johnson
declined to discuss the matter with a reporter.
John Hendren, Associated Press, scolded the magazine for
embarrassing these two men.
Aw, gee. Two men were listed as women and they make a
federal case out of it. How many times have the same
sort of `errors' been made toward and about women?
And weren't we ALWAYS told, "Don't be so sensitive" or
"Get over it"?
Come on, *G*I*R*L*S*, quitcherbellyaching. Don't be
so sensitive! Get over it!
*(Guys Inadvertently Referred to as LadieS)*
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 17 A TIME FOR LOGIC AND REASON
Since the Rutherford Institute Attorney reported that,
"women's groups were going to announce support of Paula
Corbin Jones's appeal", we have received a lot of mail
in vehement opposition.
We agree. Filing a "friend of the court" - amicus
brief, would be disastrous, especially since it would
be in response to the goading and unfair criticism of
women by the right wing political groups.
It would be a great mistake because it would be used
against us over and over again. It would be misinter-
preted by the press and appear in political advertise-
ments. No matter how carefully crafted, the political
supporters of PCJ would claim that, "in filing this
brief, women's groups support her claims and believe
she is telling the truth."
In addition, we would all receive a figurative pinch on
the butt from the ry-chus ones, along with insidious
remarks such as, "Way to go, bitch!"
The political advertisements would feature women's
movement leaders telling the media of _womens's_ unqualified
support. We have already seen this happen when a knee-jerk
reaction to the TV appearance of Kathryn Willey caused
a women's movement leader to make several ill advised
statements.
These were immediately snatched out of context and
misrepresented by politicians and the media. In light
of the revelations that followed, those "off the cuff"
words come back to haunt and embarrass us all, again
and again.
We can understand that women may feel unjustly attacked
by the label of "hypocrite", that has been so liberally
applied by the conservatives. "Why," they taunt, "did
you support Anita Hill but won't support PCJ? Hypo-
crites!"
But it is not a time to _react_ with emotion. It is a
time to _respond_ with logic and reason. We must make
clear that we are supportive of anti-harassment laws
and will work to make them stronger and more defini-
tive.
We must also make the following points:
# We oppose all forms of harassment in the workplace.
# We support the right of all women to bring their
cases to court and receive the best possible legal
representation.
_This has been done in the case of PCJ, who has had
the benefit of several attorneys plus the monetary
backing of the Rutherford Institute and the followers of
conservatives such as Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh._
# As in the case of Anita Hill, we support a women's
right to be heard when she has a grievance to present
and for her case to be reported by the media.
_This has been done over and over again for PCJ. Neither
she nor the conservative money mavens needs any help from
women's groups in this regard._
We believe that there is something much more important
that women and men of good will could be doing now. We
should be speaking out against the latest in a long list of
obscenities by Kenneth Starr.
Once again, he has ordered Susan Mc Dougal to the Grand
Jury in Arkansas. She has already demonstrated that
she will not lie, as Starr has demanded, by serving 18
months in jail on civil contempt charges. Now, he is
posed to send her to jail for another 18 months or more
on criminal contempt charges.
This is an atrocious and despicable use of power
against a woman. If Starr has charges against Presi-
dent Clinton then let him bring them forth and stop his
unreasonable torture of Susan Mac D.
*****
Our congratulations to the National Organization for
Women on winning their lawsuit filed in 1986. It was
the first nationwide class action lawsuit ever filed
against the anti-abortion movement under RICO.
They have delivered a blow to the bullies of Operation
Rescue and their fellow terrorist -- a swift kick to
that part of their anatomy that contains their true
feelings -- their wallets. "Way to go, WOMEN!"
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 19
AS LONG AS THEY STILL CALL US, "BABY" . . .
Two women, who like Bella Abzug, served in THE House
have written books about their experiences. One, a
democrat, served for 24 years; the other, a republican,
served seven years. Bottom line -- nothing has really
changed for women in Congress.
Pat Schroeder's book is called, _24 Years of House
Work...and the Place is Still a Mess_. Susan Molinari
wrote, _Representative Mom_. Both note how they were
stereotyped, pigeonholed and generally patronized by
male colleagues
*** Yet both apparently allowed their publishers to
continue this treatment with their book titles. ***
The general theme of their books is identical. Al-
though they were proud to have served in Congress they
felt it would have been much better if the men hadn't
fixated on their faces, figures and cloths but had
instead listened to them.
Sound familiar? It should, since we've heard this
thread from women in business, education, industry, etc
ad infinitum. Heard it and still hear it.
Recently, the House and Senate approved legislation
that contains _abortion restrictions_ on the payment of
$926 Mil in back dues to the United Nations. Our
President will veto it, but tying this "religious"
restriction onto a bill that should pass shows the
power of the anti-woman majority in Congress.
We can just sit back and rationalize that, after all,
it just affects third world women, but we would serve
ourselves better if we read the writing on the wall.
One State after another is putting restrictions on
women's reproductive rights. Restrictions that
are sponsored and driven by the irreligious right and
the unchristian coalition. They are not talking rule
of god here, they are talking the "old time religion"
-- rule of man over women.
At this writing, Vermont has no laws restricting access.
One out of every four women who have an abortion in that
state is not a resident. They come from Canada and
surrounding New England States that have placed restric-
tions on a woman's reproductive rights.
This has stirred Vermont's anti-choice-terrorists-
supporters into a frenzy of activity to force the passage of
abortion-restricting laws. They are dogging the steps of
all the legislators and challenging them continually.
Catholic legislators are special targets as they
accuse them of being, "non-practicing Catholics" and warn
of the possibility of excommunication if they do not
change their vote. They are relentless.
This is a formidable political group and well financed.
The Vatican has _approved VIAGRA_, while still
_condemning CONDOMS_.
To reiterate GenderGapper's position: We have no quar-
rel with people of faith and their religious beliefs.
We do, however, object to those who use their religion
as a basis to demand that EVERYONE must agree with
them -- the fundamentalists.
Our country's fundamentalist are determined that all of
us must live by their beliefs. They are of the same
stripe as those fomenting trouble in Bosnia, Israel and
Ireland. They have not as yet gained a foothold in all
States, but they are working on it.
Currently, they are trying to pass laws that mandate
the teaching of religion (theirs) in schools. First
step is school prayer.
Soon there will be vehicular vanity plates in Florida,
that its proponents claim are non-political, but are
decidedly anti-choice. Watch for your opponents to
claim that pro-choice women choose death.
They also may stop using the term, "partial birth abort-
ion", if they follow the advice of one of their leaders.
Instead, they will refer to "partial birth infanticide"
to indicate the procedure is murder, not medical.
Sure there is always the ballot box, but in order to
vote wisely, we all must be continually aware of what
is going on in our locality and our State. We must all
help to spread this information to others. We, too,
must be relentless.
Just one act of a legislature in your state or ours or
just one bill passed by Congress could begin to effect you
and all women. What took years of struggle on the part
of our fore-Mothers may be lost in the blink of an eye
as our rights become eroded, one by one.
Disrespect for women and our movement still abounds.
The recent criminal contempt charges filed by Starr against
Susan McDougal shows the vastness of his anger toward
Susan but is also aimed at intimidating Monica, her Mother,
Betty Curie and others.
We may never really feel that we have _made it_. We
may never be able to take equality for granted. We may
always have to be eternally vigilant.
As long as they still call us, "baby", we have NOT come
a long way -- we've just got a long way to go.
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 19
AS LONG AS THEY STILL CALL US, "BABY" . . .
Two women, who like Bella Abzug, served in THE House
have written books about their experiences. One, a
democrat, served for 24 years; the other, a republican,
served seven years. Bottom line -- nothing has really
changed for women in Congress.
Pat Schroeder's book is called, _24 Years of House
Work...and the Place is Still a Mess_. Susan Molinari
wrote, _Representative Mom_. Both note how they were
stereotyped, pigeonholed and generally patronized by
male colleagues
*** Yet both apparently allowed their publishers to
continue this treatment with their book titles. ***
The general theme of their books is identical. Al-
though they were proud to have served in Congress they
felt it would have been much better if the men hadn't
fixated on their faces, figures and cloths but had
instead listened to them.
Sound familiar? It should, since we've heard this
thread from women in business, education, industry, etc
ad infinitum. Heard it and still hear it.
Recently, the House and Senate approved legislation
that contains _abortion restrictions_ on the payment of
$926 Mil in back dues to the United Nations. Our
President will veto it, but tying this "religious"
restriction onto a bill that should pass shows the
power of the anti-woman majority in Congress.
We can just sit back and rationalize that, after all,
it just affects third world women, but we would serve
ourselves better if we read the writing on the wall.
One State after another is putting restrictions on
women's reproductive rights. Restrictions that
are sponsored and driven by the irreligious right and
the unchristian coalition. They are not talking rule
of god here, they are talking the "old time religion"
-- rule of man over women.
At this writing, Vermont has no laws restricting access.
One out of every four women who have an abortion in that
state is not a resident. They come from Canada and
surrounding New England States that have placed restric-
tions on a woman's reproductive rights.
This has stirred Vermont's anti-choice-terrorists-
supporters into a frenzy of activity to force the passage of
abortion-restricting laws. They are dogging the steps of
all the legislators and challenging them continually.
Catholic legislators are special targets as they
accuse them of being, "non-practicing Catholics" and warn
of the possibility of excommunication if they do not
change their vote. They are relentless.
This is a formidable political group and well financed.
The Vatican has _approved VIAGRA_, while still
_condemning CONDOMS_.
To reiterate GenderGapper's position: We have no quar-
rel with people of faith and their religious beliefs.
We do, however, object to those who use their religion
as a basis to demand that EVERYONE must agree with
them -- the fundamentalists.
Our country's fundamentalist are determined that all of
us must live by their beliefs. They are of the same
stripe as those fomenting trouble in Bosnia, Israel and
Ireland. They have not as yet gained a foothold in all
States, but they are working on it.
Currently, they are trying to pass laws that mandate
the teaching of religion (theirs) in schools. First
step is school prayer.
Soon there will be vehicular vanity plates in Florida,
that its proponents claim are non-political, but are
decidedly anti-choice. Watch for your opponents to
claim that pro-choice women choose death.
They also may stop using the term, "partial birth abort-
ion", if they follow the advice of one of their leaders.
Instead, they will refer to "partial birth infanticide"
to indicate the procedure is murder, not medical.
Sure there is always the ballot box, but in order to
vote wisely, we all must be continually aware of what
is going on in our locality and our State. We must all
help to spread this information to others. We, too,
must be relentless.
Just one act of a legislature in your state or ours or
just one bill passed by Congress could begin to effect you
and all women. What took years of struggle on the part
of our fore-Mothers may be lost in the blink of an eye
as our rights become eroded, one by one.
Disrespect for women and our movement still abounds.
The recent criminal contempt charges filed by Starr against
Susan McDougal shows the vastness of his anger toward
Susan but is also aimed at intimidating Monica, her Mother,
Betty Curie and others.
We may never really feel that we have _made it_. We
may never be able to take equality for granted. We may
always have to be eternally vigilant.
As long as they still call us, "baby", we have NOT come
a long way -- we've just got a long way to go.
#
GenderGappers 1998 - 20
DAMN DEMOCRACY -- FULL SPEED AHEAD!
Those of us who lived through the days of the "cold
war" with Soviet Russia will remember the many horror
stories that abounded describing justice in that coun-
try.
Generally, a person that the authorities decided was
guilty had their liberty restricted or were kept in
prison UNTIL THEY SIGNED THEIR CONFESSION.
This confession was one that the authorities wrote out.
This confession was how the authorities interpreted the
situation. This was official truth and anything else
was unacceptable.
So, the accused were always guilty as charged and were
harassed or languished in jail until they signed the
written confession. Then, they languished in jail or
were executed.
Former Soviet Russian justice.
We always prided ourselves that we were different. We
were a democracy where individual rights and freedom
were guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
Our government has always concentrated on selling the
democratic form of government abroad. It has extolled
the virtues of human rights. Isn't this what all of us
learned in school? Isn't this what we have always been
told is true?
Former American justice. What happened to it?
On a recent _60 Minutes_ TV program, several citizens
told their horror stories concerning their treatment by
Special Council, Kenneth Starr.
Prior to this, we have heard, and still hear, the
accounts of Web Hubbel, Susan McDougal and others.
These people all had the same sort of experience: They
were told what Starr wanted them to say and they were
harassed, prosecuted or jailed unless they signed his
version of their confession -- UNTIL THEY SAID WHAT HE
WANTED THEM TO SAY.
Those who went along with Starr's version and implicat-
ed Bill Clinton got a "get out of jail free card."
Honestly? Right here in the United States of Ameri-
ca?! The land of the free?!? The birthplace of
Democracy?
There's more.
Do you remember something else we all learned in school
and have always been told is the truth - a person is
innocent until PROVEN guilty?
Recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the person who is third in line for the Office of
President, Newt Gindrich, has mandated that "proven
guilty" is not necessary.
All that is necessary is for Newt to decide how he
wants things to be. Right now, he wants Clinton out of
office. He wants Clinton to be found a criminal -- so
he declares that he is. Simple. Shades of Soviet
justice.
Until now, all of the talk and reports concerning the
President had been imbued with the words, _alleged
and/or scandals_. Now, Newt and other Congressional
republicans use the words _crimes and criminal_ when
referring to President Clinton.
A high ranking republican, chair of an important House
committee, Dan Burton, openly calls the President a
scumbag and declares that he (Burton) "is out to get
him."
If the President of the United States is not innocent
until proven guilty then what rights have "we, the
people", got?
If the Republican *majority* leadership of the House
openly flaunt the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
who is looking out for "we, the people"?
Do we care if, then Governor, Clinton of Arkansas was
_allegedly_ involved in a "shady" land deal years ago?
No. By all *proven* accounts, he lost money on the
deal making the whole allegation slightly ludicrous.
Obviously, our booming economy has amply demonstrated that
he is much more talented as a President than as a land
speculator.
Do we care about the _allegations_ of marital infideli-
ty, that is, that he engaged in consentual sex with
other women? No. Not if Hillary doesn't.
Do we care if Hillary Clinton was allegedly involved in
"shady" doings at the Rose law firm in Arkansas years ago?
No. For all the hours of investigation there has been no
one who substantiates Starr's accusations. By all
proven accounts she demonstrates great talents in
First Ladyship and has always been a fantastic advocate
for women and children.
We do care, however, we care immensely that the human
rights, our Constitutional Rights, that we have taken
for granted can be and have been swept aside by parti-
san representatives of the Judicial and Congressional
branches of our government.
And we are greatly concerned that amidst all of this,
the so-called `religious' factions have reached a truce
with the rest of the republicans. Top of their agenda
will be:
- Elimination of abortion rights beginning with
late term.
- Additional restrictions placed on abortions.
- Mandatory school prayer.
- No federal funds for Planned Parenthood.
- End federal funds for sex education.
- Elimination of the National Council for the
Arts.
It appears to us that their agenda goes along with the
present rape of the Constitution by Starr, Newt et al:
Why wait for "we the people" to vote? Why bother with
protection under the law? Just mandate it.
#
No comments:
Post a Comment