|
|
Ginger White and the Herman Cain Subtext
|
On the surface, there isn’t anything shocking about Herman Cain’s affair with Ginger White. Yes, anyone courting the Conservative vote has to be careful not to offend the “family values” sensitivity of the social right, but a prolonged affair? Where on the scale of politically damaging does that rate?
Apparently much higher than sexual harassing or assaulting women, as it turns out. But the real question is, why?
Ginger White claims that she and Cain carried on their affair for 13 years. During those years, Ms. White struggled financially to raise her children, to keep a roof over their heads. And Herman Cain and his wife of 43 years lived in comfort and stability, even luxury. White came forward with her story because she felt for the women who had accused Cain of sexual misconduct.
“It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them,” said White. Which sounds like she understands the nature of their pain- of Herman Cain’s sexual misdeeds.
So then, I must ask… what WAS the real nature of the Cain/White relationship? The above facts describe to me a woman dependent on a man who uses her, sexually, in exchange for routine assistance for herself and he family. Of course, that’s speculation. But for this to be so frightening for Cain as to actually make him reconsider his bid entirely, one must ask… what else is being hidden in this story? How much of the subtext incriminates Cain further? How deep does his abuse of power, and especially his abuse of women under his power, go?
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (0)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Herman Cain- How to Quit and Stay Ahead
- Fun Facts about Herman Cain
- He Said She Said, Bialek’s Fiance Said
- More Reasons to Despise Herman Cain
- Herman Cain- Master Misogynist
November 29, 2011
|
|
Ann Coulter- Women’s Ultimate Uncle Tom
|
There have been few women who have worked harder than Ann Coulter to change the status of women in the United States. Unfortunately, Ann Coulter has been working not to advance the status of women, but to force it as far backwards as humanly possible.
It’s true that many view Ann Coulter as a feminist icon- a woman who has made a name for herself in the predominantly male world of political writing, and in particular of the conservative movement. However, the values that for the last decade or so have been touted as “Conservatism” are more the values of an age wherein women couldn’t vote, own property, or expect any sort of education.
Since she’s been so visible recently, with her comments that OWS protesters ought to be shot- her comparison is that it was an effective solution at Kent State- I thought it would be nice to revisit some of her previous outrageous, anti-woman statements.
“…women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas about how to spend it… it’s always more money on education, more money on childcare, more money on day care.” -Feb. 26, 2001
“It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact.” -May 17, 2003
“This is lesson, you know, #1,000,047 why women shouldn’t be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium sized backpack, women are too vicious.” -May 5, 2004
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (0)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Rick Santorum’s Top Three Outrageous Positions of the Month
- How Republicans Really View Women
- Fox News and the War on Women
- “Family Values” Award for Deadbeat Dad
- The GOP Thinks Women are Ignorant
November 28, 2011
|
|
George W. Bush: War Criminal
|
Last week, former president George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair were found guilty of war crimes in the Iraq War.
Before you start shouting, “Mission Accomplished,” you should know something. The court that found them guilty- The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal- has almost no authority at all to sentence them for these crimes. While it makes their verdict no less true, it does mean that Bush and Blair, who were tried in absentia, aren’t headed to a Malaysian prison any time soon. Unless Bush and Blair forget that this internationally powerless body convicted them, and wander into Malaysia. Then will they be going to jail.
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is publicizing their verdict, so that the 119 countries that signed the Rome Statute- which established International Criminal Courts- can arrest Blair and Bush if they cross their borders. Unsurprisingly, the United States has “unsigned” this statute, so Bush and Blair can’t be arrested here. But the United Kingdom IS a Rome Statute state. Let’s hope that at the very least, one of these war criminals will be rounded up and imprisoned.
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is preparing to start the trials of several other Iraq War masterminds, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (1)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- International Day of the Girl
- “Fetal Homocide,” “Self Abortion,” and Imprisoning Women for Doing… What?
- Mitt Romney and Creative Accounting
- Women of the 113th Congress: Tammy Duckworth
- Women of the 113th Congress: Tulsi Gabbard
November 25, 2011
|
|
Be The Change Friday- Donate Blood
|
Did you know that during the holidays, people get into more car accidents? And that’s not all. Hospitals are flush with suicide attempts, with assaults… the holidays can be a time of stress and emotional pain for many people. And as a result, hospitals are over-stretched.
One resource that hospitals require, especially for traumatic injuries, is blood. And unfortunately, the only way to get it is to have it donated.
Donating blood is easy, almost entirely painless, and vital to the effectiveness of hospitals in treating injured patients. You can donate every few months, and it only takes an hour or so out of your day. Each time you donate, you provide the blood to save three lives.
There are several organizations that run blood drives, and there is almost always somewhere you can go near the holidays to donate. Call the Red Cross, or in my home city of Chicago, Life Source. Talk to your employer about organizing a company wide blood drive. Make sure that your local hospitals are prepared for the bad as well as the good this holiday season.
Save three lives today! Donate!
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (0)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Be The Change Friday- A New Kind of Blood Banking
- Aid for Somalia
- Why the Chicago Teacher Strike SHOULD be Good for Obama… but Isn’t
- Be The Change Friday: Spring Cleaning
- Be the Change Friday: End of Year Giving
November 24, 2011
|
|
Remembering Why Newt Gingrich is a Bad Idea
|
Unlike most of the contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich has been highly visible in his political career for a very long time. Most of us remember the public scandals of ten years ago when he served his wife with divorce papers while she was in treatment for cancer. He has never exactly been a sympathetic character. However, in recent weeks as he rises to the top of the garbage heap that is the GOP race, it seems that people have forgotten what made him such a bad choice.
After all, he wasn’t sexually harassing or assaulting any women, was he?
He can remember his own political positions, can’t he?
He isn’t Mitt Romney, is he?
Therefore, really, can he be so bad?
On Saturday, he spoke at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government about what he believes has, “done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy.” He was talking about child labor laws.
That’s right, Newt Gingrich wants to get rid of labor unions, and give their jobs to poor kids.
Because working all day and night for less than minimum wage is really going to help them get ahead more than… say… an education.
Thanks, Newt. We can all go back to being disgusted with you now.
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (0)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Gingrich Wins South Carolina- What it Means for the GOP
- Why the Todd Akin Mess Really Matters
- Expanding the Death Penalty to Include Marijuana Possession
- Good News for Romney?
- Ask the GOP- Women are Worth Less
November 23, 2011
|
|
Where is the GOP’s Anger?
|
Recently, a disturbed young man attempted to kill Barack Obama. His efforts amounted to nothing- the shots he fired at the White House didn’t make it inside, and at any rate Obama was out of the country. The man has been arrested, charged, and is making bizarre claims, like that he is Jesus and Obama is the anti-Christ.
What I want to know is, where is the anger from the GOP? Where are the condemning statements? Where is Republican leadership to say, “Shooting the president, no matter how much you disagree with him, is NEVER okay.”
While that has been conspicuously absent, the opposite sentiment has leaked out in the party. The leader of the University of Texas Young Republicans tweeted that day about wanting to kill Obama. She, and her Young Republican cohort, are claiming that it was a harmless joke. But it is not. When people are trying to kill the president, you never encourage them. You never say, “Ha ha! Boy would that be great!” You tell them that no matter what, killing is wrong.
Why aren’t all the presidential candidates up in arms about this? Because it’s THEIR crazy wackos firing bullets into the White House. But if an unhinged liberal had taken a shot at Boehner, I bet you anything we would hear from them.
For a lot of Christians, those folks really don’t seem to take “Thou Shalt Not Kill” too seriously.
…unless we’re talking about fetuses, of course.
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (1)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- When Obama Loses, We All Lose
- 10 Things I Wish A GOP Candidate Would Say
- Santorum’s Moment of Honesty
- Hate in the Judiciary
- Good News out of Texas
November 22, 2011
|
|
Reading and Leading- Not Mutually Exclusive
|
I grew up under the impression that the president was supposed to be… well… good at their job.
That the way to become president was to be smart and capable, to be able to understand the issues and explain your solutions in a way that everyone could get behind.
Then George W. Bush happened, and the divide between people who wanted a president who could do the job well- who could understand the issues and solve problems- and the people who wanted a president they could feel comfortable having a beer with began to grow to an alarming scale. The anti-intellectual sentiment in this country is terrifying.
So when Herman Cain had to make excuses for his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge- something he willingly owned up to back before he was a frontrunner- he came up with another media friendly soundbite. ”We need a leader, not a reader.”
I want a leader who DOES read. I want a leader who reads history, who reads about current events, who reads legislation before deciding whether or not to sign it. I want a leader who has the patience and ability to actually do a good job. I want a reader who can ALSO lead. And that’s the order of the priority.
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (1)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Fun Facts about Herman Cain
- The GOP Thinks Women are Ignorant
- Obama Doubles Down on ’08 Supporters
- Bachmann Backs Out
- Discriminating Against the HIV+ in Kansas
November 21, 2011
|
|
Finally- A Feminist Princess Movie
|
Women of my generation have been fighting an intense internal battle their entire adult lives. On the one hand, they love the Disney Princesses of their childhood. We fondly remember singing with Ariel, feeling like Belle *got us* because of her love of books, laughing at the endless antics of anthropomorphic sidekicks. But at the same time, we are aware of the deep sexism that plagues these movies. Women as currency, women who’s only asset is beauty, women in constant danger of abuse.
The Princess generation grew up, became empowered women, and began griping that there were no feminists in Princess movies. When Fiona came along (as a parody, mind you), it was refreshing. But not enough.
But now? Finally? This summer, Pixar (how did we know it would be Pixar?) is releasing its first Princess movie. Optimistically titled, “Brave,” it’s the story of a Scottish Princess who abandons her duties as a Lady to seek adventure- as an archer.
What makes this movie so much better than Mulan? Mulan’s heroic actions are shaming to her family. Even after succeeding- rescuing all of China from the Huns- the only way she really brings honor to her family is by presumably marrying the well connected army commander.
But Brave looks like the one we’ve been waiting for- a girl actualizing her destiny, who’s attractiveness is irrelevant to her story. A story of a girl who HAPPENS to be a Princess, but who can be a hero. The fact that she’s also a marketable princess is just icing on the merchandising cake.
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (2)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- A Woman You Should Know
- Herman Cain- Master Misogynist
- Anti-Semitism in America
- Feminist of the Month: The Girl Scouts of America
- Michele Bachmann’s Family Values- Gay Teens and Suicide
November 18, 2011
|
|
Women in the Military and the Right to Chose
|
During the Clinton administration, the then Republican run congress passed a law that denies servicewomen abroad the same access to abortion care that women in the United States can recieve. It even made this law unchangeable by executive order, meaning that ONLY an act of congress can repeal it.
Servicewomen abroad face an unthinkable dilemma should they become pregnant. First, to abandon their career in order to remain pregnant (and probably face disciplinary action for sexual activity in a war zone), or to fight for an abortion- and abortions can ONLY be obtained in the case of rape or incest, and ONLY if the woman pays for the treatment herself. And then, only if the doctors (all officers) are willing to okay procedure. And this means leaving their jobs to return to the United States for care, and putting themselves in a position where their superior officers know the heartbreaking and humiliating details of their medical history.
The fact that so many women in the military ARE raped only compounds the problem. The stigma of rape and the reluctance of women to accuse men they must work with every day in a war zone makes these women increasingly desperate. More and more, women in the military are attempting their own abortions- coat hangers replaced by bayonets.
Consider this. The women in the front of our wars abroad are some of the most vulnerable to our domestic War on Women.
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (0)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Soldiers Speak Out About Sexual Assault
- Military Culture and Sexual Abuse
- Women of the 113th Congress: Carol Shea-Porter
- Women of the 113th Congress: Tammy Baldwin
- The Solution to a Rape Problem is Not to Redefine Rape
November 17, 2011
|
|
Shocker- Rush Limbaugh is an Outrageous Pig
|
So far, Sharon Bialek is the only woman to come forward with details of the sexual harassment inflicted upon them by Herman Cain (although in Washington D.C. the actions she accuses him of are legally defined as “sexual assault”). While the victim-bashing she has suffered in the media is no surprise, there seem to be no bounds that some right wingers won’t overreach.
Last week, Rush Limbaugh made comments about the scandal on his talk show. He mocked Sharon Bialek’s name, making slurping noises and pointedly pronouncing it, “buy-a-lick.” In short, he claimed that if Sharon Bialek suffered sexual inappropriateness from her male colleague, it was her own fault for having a suggestive name.
But accusing her of deserving disrespectful and degrading treatment wasn’t where Limbaugh stopped. He also joked that the only reason that the accusers of Herman Cain for sexual misconduct- which we KNOW occurred from the two settlements he paid out- was that the victims wanted to, “synchronize their periods.”
This sort of dismissive jab at women just for being women is hurtful and dangerous. It’s just one step from verbal dehumanization to actual violence. And in an instance where the women in question are already victims of sexual violence, it is all the more insensitive and cruel. In other words, Rush Limbaugh’s bread and butter.
What do you think? Click here to leave a comment: Comments (0)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Twitter: Tweet
Stumble:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like this blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (it's free!)
(what is a feed reader? )
or by email!
Thanks! We really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- He Said She Said, Bialek’s Fiance Said
- Surprise: Rush Limbaugh Says Something Insane
- Victim Bashing Rhetoric from John Huntsman
- Domestic Violence is Partisan Politics
- Herman Cain- Master Misogynist
Next Page »




