The latest NBC poll offers a nice recognition for today’s milestone reached by Roe:
According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions.
That’s the first time since this poll question was first asked in 2003 that a majority maintained that abortion should be legal. Previously (with just one exception in 2008), majorities said abortion should be illegal.
In addition, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision being overturned, including 57 percent who feel strongly about this.
There are many excellent pieces of writing reflecting on Roe to be found around the interwebz but here are a few I came across today:
Interactive: The Geography of Abortion Access (The Daily Beast)
Roe at 40: Judging a Mother’s Choice (NYT’s The MotherLode) but then be sure to read
Posts from young feminists (h/t to Sam Meier):
This topic is all the rage this week. Use the comments for discussion. Again, I go back to the esteemed Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor (comes at the 30 second mark) and their comments to Diane Sawyer in 2010. Btw, the whole clip is worthwhile to recall just how hard reaching parity has been and how nonpartisan this issue is:
Nine. I love that answer.
Diane Sawyer reports on the milestone met this year as 20 women come to serve in the U.S. Senate, the most ever:
But we can do better and we should. The U.S. House of Representatives is the most diverse ever, in part because the Democratic Caucus is, for the first time ever, is more than 50% women and minorities.
Why does this matter? Some people can’t help but ask that question. Read this article from National Journal about the insane difficulty reauthorization of VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) is experiencing and note in particular:
The 113th Congress, which gets sworn in today, will be the most diverse in our nation’s history. It will include 19 new people of color, the first Hindu representative and the first Buddhist senator, the first openly gay congressman of color, the first openly bisexual congresswoman, the first openly gay senator, and more female members than ever before. It still doesn’t come close to accurately representing the country it will govern. But it’s better than what we had before—and where the 112th Congress failed, the 113th very well may succeed.
The women in the clip above also address the question of why it matters. Honestly, though? I’m tempted to just say, “Because.”
A teaser from a piece I wrote for USAToday.com last week during election night:
So rather than watch the tick-tock around the swing states of Virginia, Ohio and Florida, I’m following the record number of women who are running for office this year. If you are not familiar with that statistic, check out the 2012 Project (which has corralled women to run in this first post-redistricting election, a time when the increase in open seats also increases the chance of women winning those seats).
Where might this history be made? In New Hampshire. Its situation reminds me of the 2010 Diane Sawyer discussion with United States Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor. During the conversation, Sawyer asked Ginsburg, how many women would be enough women on the bench.
“Nine,” Ginsburg replied with a smile. “There’ve been nine men there for a long time, right? So why not nine women?”
Something approximating Ginsburg’s prophecy has come true this election eve in the Granite State because its voters elected the first all-female congressional delegation.
So awesome – New Hampshire did indeed become the first state to have an all-female congressional delegation, with a female governor to boot. So coveting them.
Ohio – you’re next. No, really. I told Henry Gomez, so you know it’s going to happen.
From the very engaged, ever-active, nonpartisan The 2012 Project:
Women currently hold 73 House seats and 17 Senate seats and make up 17 percent of the US Congress. In this election, there are a record 163 women nominees for House and 18 for Senate. The 2012 Project’s campaign to hit “20 Percent in 2012″ requires women to hit 87 House seats and 20 Senate seats after Election Day.
To make the most educated guess, consult the 2012 Election Tracker. Predict how many women you think will win on Nov. 6th and be eligible to win fabulous prizes!!!
First prize: $250 Gift Card
Second prize: a Nespresso coffee machine from Nestlé
Third prize: Swag Bag from Lifetime Television
Contest deadline is Friday, November 2nd at 5:00 p.m. EST.
If you are into fantasy football, this might be for you. It is not as easy as it looks. You might also check out Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight for an assist. Not sure if I’ll give it a try – need sometime to brew over it. What does your gut say – can we break the record?
I’m very sorry that I won’t be able to listen to Thursday morning’s WCPN Sound of Ideas live but I’m sure it will be excellent listening:
There’s been a lot of talk this Presidential campaign season about women’s issues. And much of the talking is being done by supporters of President Obama, who say the GOP — with its platform opposing abortion — is against women. Republican women, of course, take issue with that. A sluggish economy , which they pin on the president, is a bigger concern, they say. Defining and debating women’s issues and women’s votes, Thursday at 9:00 on The Sound of Ideas. Join Mike McIntyre for the discussion.
Connie Schultz, journalist
Charlotte Hays, director of cultural programs, Independent Women’s Forum
Justin S.Vaughn, assistant professor of political science, Boise State University
Mike McIntyre – have fun!! (No – really!)
When will we see that headline? Because I saw the one I describe at the end of this sentence over an AP story in the Plain Dealer today and countless variations are all over the place regarding Marissa Mayer’s ascension at Yahoo. This is what we call pure unadultered linkbait: “All eyes on Yahoo’s mom-to-be chief exec.”
Really? Really? As if we will ever see, “All eyes on Yahoo’s dad-to-be chief exec.” Please.
MarketWatch had it right: Wall Street to Yahoo’s Mayer: Why Bother? or some other variation of the mammoth challenge related to her…JOB. Even an article discussing what should be disclosed is acceptable. But seriously. From now on, media? When a guy ascends to the top of a Fortune 500 company, you better run several graphs if not entire articles about the man’s obligations and circumstances outside of the C-suite. This is just ridiculous.
Because I have not seen enough or many women-oriented sites covering this. I’m not sure what’s up with that, and it’s absent from all along the political spectrum.
From Minnesota Public Radio which seems to be covering it well: Sexual Assault in the US Military
The Daily Beast: Lackland Rape Scandal Shines Spotlight On Military Failure
Short answer? None.
Long answer? Read his full analysis here. An excerpt of how he breaks it down:
Actually, Mr. Romney has a bit of a problem. The Republican women with the most traditional qualifications for the vice presidency tend to be moderates, especially on abortion choice, probably making them unacceptable to the Republican base. Another group of up-and-coming female governors and senators may not be adequately seasoned for the rigors of the campaign trail. The few exceptions are probably too old, or too controversial, to be smart choices with swing voters. It has nothing to do with their gender, but any of the women that Mr. Romney might choose would be at least a little risky.
Then again, when I watch stuff like the new Political Animals, all I can think about is how primal people’s quest for power can be. Unsavory doesn’t begin to describe it.
Update: Let’s add Teri Christoph and ShePac to the list of folks who could easily give a statement on the Young Guns gender imbalance. This is not gotcha – I don’t care or have illusions about what the conservative women’s orgs will say about this matter. But the silence is deafening, as they say. In the ShePac solicitation email, after all, it says, “Support, Honor & Elect conservative women.”
I don’t get it but then I don’t know if I ever will. How exactly are the women conservatives coming up through the system again? I’d be okay with groups like the Republican National Committee Women (which has a sidebar list of elected Republican women), Smart Girl Politics or the National Federation of Republican Women making some comment, any comment about this – I’d just like to hear their rationale – or their anger – related to the dearth of women being named to this program. Do they really not thinking anything about this at all?
If this sounds like old news, it is – I wrote about this several times in the past and the program didn’t do any better previously in terms of recruiting women. Then again, apparently there’s a growing belief that the Republican recruiting isn’t going well in the Senate side either no matter the gender.
This Forbes.com column by Deanna Zandt tells you everything you need to know about the effort to make visible the myriad talents in the tech world that repeatedly get overlooked. It’s definitely a teach them how to fish not just a give them a fish approach – which is to say it seeks to change the culture and the cultural conditions that lead to women and minorities being left out in disproportionate numbers to their presence from the tech world.
Please read the column, use the Twitter.com hashtag #one4one and identify folks you think should be more visible and pass it on. From the column:
Imagine if we could break out of the linear constraints that bind us when we’re making lists of favorite people. What if it were like a trading card game, where you got to pick your Babe Ruths, and also see who’s picked you? And what if we made one of the parameters of the game that you got more points for picking people in your field from underrepresented groups?
A bunch of us who work in the tech and information industries are tired of pointing out that women and people of color are missing from lists, from panels, from articles about the industry, and that it’s the same six straight white guys having conversations about the future of media, technology and, well, everything. And a lot of people are tired of hearing it. So, let’s jump in and do something, and, as Rachel Sklar has been pushing for, change the ratio.
Go to Twitter right now, before you even finish reading this post, and share your One.
You heard Deanna – now go. Then read her column in its entirety and pass it on. Thank you.
The New York Times kindly published the Declaration of Independence in print and online. You can see it here.
But as all Americans should know, there are huge chunks of our population who were not covered by that document, certainly not as fully as others. Kathy Groob has a nice post about its failure when it came to women.
And this post, by several legislators who are women, including my state senator, Nina Turner, declares the current state of how women contribute and need to continue to contribute – aggressively so – if we want to be sure that no other declarations related to this country excludes so many Americans, for so long.
How did you declare your independence, today or at any other time in your life?
Did you know that working moms who don’t watch Fox are socialists? Neither did I.
But then I asked some folks on Twitter, who were beating up on a friend of mine who is a left of center lady, not unlike myself, and was on Fox this morning (the national cable version, not the local), if they could link to the clip about which they were razzing my friend, since, being a working parent, I don’t watch the morning news shows because, well, I’m working – and parenting. (I know – many of us have the television or radio on in the background while parenting and working but that is not the norm in my home at all – way too distracting; I can parent & work at the same time, but add cable morning news shows to the task list and I’m on overload.)
And their response to my simple and, if I might say so myself, civil request (intended to allow me to make an actual judgement on the razzing they were giving my friend which included them saying that the way she said the word “privilege” regarding Ann Romney was in a perjorative way) was to tell me that, for saying I was working, parenting and not watching Fox, I spoke like a “true Socialist.” Later tweets included mentions of their belief that I envy male anatomy and some other things that have nothing to do with anything, except to demonstrate perfectly how the motherlode of all linkbait is the often-called always-maligned Mommy Wars.
If ever there was a subject in need of being limited to civil discourse-only, this has got to be it.
Read the rest at the Civic Commons (where this working mom works, from home and from wherever civic engagement takes me).
I’ve got a lousy cold and a lot of work – and ideas – backed up but I cannot endure one more column headline opining on why there’s a gender gap between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
The gap exists because of reality: when women look around and on an every day occasion, see and experience where we aren’t included or even thought about, or, when we are included or thought about, how we’re treated – whether in real life (Ginni Rometty) or fake life (anything on Mad Men) – we don’t like it. And we see the statements and policies of conservatives as, in general (yes, there are exceptions), upholding, supporting and keeping in stasis what we don’t like, while we see the statements and policies of moderates and liberals as, in general, seeking to change, alter, take down and improve that which we don’t like (though of course there are plenty of exceptions there too – start with any sex scandal).
And, as if to underscore how clueless the men are, US Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that his female colleagues certainly would support him in calling out the “war on women” as being manufactured. Thanks, Mitch, for demonstrating how completely you haven’t heard a word your female colleagues have said and how thoroughly you expect them to follow you in lockstep, to wit, from that link:
“Talk about a manufactured issue. There is no issue,” McConnell said. “Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (from Texas) and Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe from Maine I think would be the first to say—and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska—’we don’t see any evidence of this.’”
Then, there’s the whole gaslighting aspect to what McConnell and others like Republican National Committee Chair, Reince Priebus, are saying – Preibus analogizing his belief that the notion of there being a war on women is as far-fetched as suggesting there’s a war on caterpillars.
We’re not being gaslighted – reality bites. And no amount of optics of Republican female spokespeople on the trail or a strong spouse, daughter-in-law or mother will begin to cut into the reality.
From MSNBC this morning:
Read more here.
Read my thoughts on that question in my post, “Why Women Voters Will Dictate Ohio’s Super Tuesday Results,” at iVillage and let them know what you think!
Nothing like first-person accounts such as this one at Plunderbund to tell the stories Rick Santorum wants to ignore that form the basis of most people’s reality. I just watched the Santorum campaign’s newly hired national press secretary, Alice Stewart, completely dance around the questions asked by Andrea Mitchell related to this topic. If she or anyone who is directing her work thinks that her dancing will make this issue go away, when women voters outnumber men, then she and those advising her should be fired. Watch here (relevant segment starts at the 5:14 mark):
(More about Bernadine Healy here – she mandated that women be included in health trials – about women’s health. Hello.)
There’s a lot of excellent commentary on that photo around the web but here’s US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) speaking up about it – with the image full blown behind her:
And we can’t ignore that here are the menz pundits this morning on MSNBC (read more about the optic debacle here) talking about what else – women’s health and contraception. Nary a woman. Unbelievable in 2012.
I think, and I’ve heard from multiple others who also think that Rachel Dissell’s front page article today in the Plain Dealer, “Jimmy Dimora trial reveals former Cuyahoga County commissioner’s coarse talk about women,” does a very good job of putting the information revealed through Jimmy Dimora’s trials about how he and those around him treated women in both a local and a broader context.
Definitely check out the cleveland.com comment thread – be sure you’re sitting down, even if you’re used to the tone they sometimes take on. And also browse this comment thread on Connie Schultz’s Facebook page.
Folks, we have a long, long way to go. If this cause inspires you, please check out Name It Change It, an effort to catalogue and call out, on a non-partisan basis as you will see from the examples, just how rampant the sexism is, especially when politics is involved.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:10 pm February 2nd, 2012 in Cleveland+, CuyahogaCounty, Ethics, Gender, Government, intolerance, leadership, Ohio, Politics, Scandal, Sexism, Social Issues, Women | Comments Off
Last time, however, it didn’t hold. Will it today? And to be clear, we’re not talking the gap between how men versus women vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. We’re talking about the gap between who women prefer between the two candidates.
Citing his combative style and personal life, many women in Florida say they won’t support Newt Gingrich in the Republican primary. That gender gap has allowed Mitt Romney to open a commanding lead in Florida over the former Speaker, WSJ’s Neil Hickey reports.
This WSJ report covers why, very specifically, the women going for Newt thing in South Carolina won’t happen in Florida: