Nicholas D. Kristof is one of my feminist heroes. He and his wife, Sherly WuDunn (who is easily one of my feminist heroines) are the writers of the recently published book, Half the Sky. This book outlines the struggles of the most oppressed women around the globe and how women’s rights should be at the forefront of issue to tackle for our generation. In addition, Kristof has been writing about gender discrimination in 3rd world countries for many years and has shed light on issues such as forced-prostitution in Pakistan, rape in Bosnia and family planning in Africa.

But even heroes can let you down.

Recently, Kristof wrote on his Facebook page:

I’m worried about the degree to which the health reform debate is being overwhelmed by abortion politics. If the House, with its strong Dem majority, could pass reform by only 5 votes, then what will happen in the Senate, where Dems have no votes to spare? I’m pro-choice and think the curbs are wrong–but the top priority has to be to get reform through Congress this year.

Gulp. As a Independent liberal-minded woman this comes as a great disappointment. Abortion rights are one of the most resonating issues for liberal women and yet Kristof is all to willing to look past the anti-abortion amendment in the Health Care bill, apparently for the better of the common good. And I must ask myself, does this mean that some liberal men find liberal women’s issues not a crucial element in the common good? And will Kristof advocate on behalf of Western women to the same degree that he advocates for 3rd World Women?

In the United States we have much more gender parity than women in Afghanistan, for sure. But things are hardly equal. Women in the United States have only 17 percent representation in the Senate and Congress. Also in the United States, only 6 percent of rapists ever spend a day in jail. And Democratic women hold dear to them their reproductive rights – so much do they value reproductive rights that it keeps many Pro-Choice women voting Democrat.

So I must ask Kristof if he titled his book wrong. Perhaps he does not feel that women really need to hold up “half the sky”. Because if one of the most basic tenants of gender parity on the Democratic platform is inconsequential to this liberal man (in the face of the common good), then perhaps 17 percent of the sky is enough?

Nicholas D. Kristof – I still love’ya but today you let me down.

We knew it would end eventually. Just like a Hollywood romance, great love affairs just don’t seem to stand the test of time. As the Obama administration began, we were gleefully informed by a leading lady feminist that President Obama was Christmas and Hannukah and New Years all rolled into one when it came to women’s issues. Turns out, it’s a bit more like April Fools.

For the millions of women who voted for Obama on his promise to protect their reproductive rights, this past weekend’s whipsaw on abortion funding is just the latest example of a president who frankly could care less about women beyond their votes. Ladies, we were sold a political brand name that touted diversity. But we were delivered a president with a woman problem. Now it’s time to do something about it.

Women’s love affair with Obama started in 2007. Some loved the idea of him—while not questioning his ideas. So when some women leaders heard the candidate say things like “sweetie” or “you’re likable enough,” or saw Obama’s speechwriter Jon Favreau groping the breast of a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton on Facebook (no comment), these leaders ignored the signs of subtle misogyny. The National Organization for Women (under its former leader) endorsed its first all-male ticket. And NARAL endorsed Obama over Sen. Clinton, even though she had a proven track record on reproductive rights. In January 2009, Ms. Magazine’s cover featured a now-infamous image of Obama in a superman pose sporting a t-shirt that reads: This is What a Feminist Looks Like.

With these women leaders behind him, President Obama felt he could be himself. He appointed fewer women into his cabinet than President Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with czars, more than 90% of whom are male. He appointed Larry Summers, of “girls are inferior in math and science” fame, to a key economic post. He played basketball, golfed and fished with men and men only. He had beers with Skip Gates, but ignored it when Rihanna was almost strangled to death. And so on.

The love affair started to fade with Obama’s off-handed response during an MSNBC interview questioning his all-male outings: “I think this is bunk.” That remark gave women a reason to take a closer look at the inner workings of Obama and his ideas. And just as Betty Friedan described the subtlety of sexism as “the problem that has no name,” “bunk” revealed that the boys club was still alive and well at the White House.

And then came the Stupak Amendment. There were signs that Obama was agnostic on choice, but this sealed the deal. Analyst Taylor Marsh sums it up most eloquently: “It was Pres. Obama who opened the door to sell us out when he decided to put the Hyde Amendment in the budget, something Bill Clinton never did. But Mr. Obama didn’t stop there. During the stimulus fight, at the first sign of displeasure, our president personally asked that contraceptives be taken out. Now the president seems ready to finish the job, with Democrats in the House helping him do it.”

But did women let this pass? Not this time. The sleeping giant—America’s majority constituency—is awakening. Note how few men are speaking out about the fact that a major issue for women was thrown under the bus to get a deal done: That women were not valued. It is the women leaders doing the talking and the typing.

Women’s organization such as Emily’s List, NOW, Planned Parenthood and The New Agenda spoke out—each with its own message and solutions—loud and clear. Women on Capitol Hill, led by vocal heroines like Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, built a coalition unwilling to sign a bill including the Stupak Amendment. Passionate women advocates such as Phyllis Chesler and Jane Hamsher among countless others penned their displeasure.

And it stuck. By midday Monday, the story line in the media had shifted from the public option to abortion funding. And just as women’s love affair with Obama came careening to a end, the president noticed—and very publicly tried to distance himself from what went down over at Pelosi’s house. In an act of pure politics, Obama chose to equivocate.

What lessons have we learned?

Lesson one—we need more women in leadership roles. Women’s organizations need to drop partisanship and work together to get more women into public office for both parties. Sisters, we cannot count on either party to represent our interests; we can only count on ourselves. (And when our women leaders do, on occasion, get it wrong—as Speaker Pelosi did this past weekend—we need an ample bench of women politicians surrounding her, and strong advocacy groups to steer her right).

Lesson two—with this awakening, there will be a quest to get a woman into the White House in 2012. Find us a woman leader who might have her personal beliefs, but will agree to keep them as just that, and you might just have a deal!

The health insurance reform bills passed by the House and being considered by the Senate are not, contrary to beltway conventional wisdom, good for women. In fact, they will hurt women, as well as some men. I have my own ideas about what’s best for our nation in terms of addressing the health care issue, and I hope readers have given the matter a fair amount of thought and come up with their own conclusions. What I do know is that the bill that passed the House on Saturday night will hurt women especially in the areas of finance and in access to health care.

Everyone today is talking about the neat abortion amendment trick of Saturday night, though few have considered it yet for all its ramifications. But in addition, the bill will financially hurt women more than men. Not only do we have required health insurance purchases which will de facto translate into more costs for women (who earn less and tend to support more people with their income), the matter is complicated by two further factors: the rather large group of women who care for children without financial backing from fathers, and the fact that the bill does very little to address issues of inequality in the private market.

As to the first, 12.9 million families are single parent households. Of that number, 80% are women.  These parents are forced to survive raising their children without the co-parent paying for his or her financial obligation. The law requires that individuals pay for their offspring, but the reality is that it only happens some of the time. I’ve read statistics as high as 62% of custodial mothers do not receive child support. The number is somewhat lower for men, but they will be affected too.  A lot of these parents are barely making it, and some of them do not qualify for basic services. These folks might get a partial credit on their tax returns, but in the meantime they are going to have to figure out how to integrate a substantial sum of money for a family policy that covers the kids into a monthly budget. As I said before, this bill will make it substantially harder to make it out of the borderland between poverty and the working class, and will make entry into the middle class harder.

Now, about the private market: Employers are legally required to charge all employees the same amount for insurance coverage. The corporate market is the only place, ironically enough, where such financial fairness is required. Women in the private market purchasing individual policies (something a lot of working mothers who work for employers who do not provide insurance will have to do) can be and are charged higher premiums than men, which the insurance industry justifies with a lot of rhetoric about “child bearing” and complicated formulas which allow for what is called gender-rating. While the bill tosses out pre-existing condition underwriting and does curb gender-rating, but it does not ban cost adjusting and does not create a one-price, equal treatment opportunity plan. People will have the option to pay more money for better coverage, but if they have health issues which will cost more, that will be accounted for using cost adjusting. We already know what happens to women when this many exceptions are written into a bill.

Finally, about last night’s abortion amendment and the full ramifications. Consider that 87% of health insurance policies today cover abortion services. Now, ask yourself what that will look like in 2013 when this bill (if it passes; when it passes) goes into effect. What about 2015? 2018? People are not yet considering what a blow to abortion access this will represent. I have not even begun to examine how this will affect access to birth control, but the Hyde Amendment will likely complicate that as well. Pro-life politicians on both sides (but largely the Democratic side) accomplished in one night with insurance companies what it took Operation Rescue 20 years to do with abortion providers/clinics.

These are just a few reasons this bill is a bad bill, and a brief rundown of the major reasons it will disproportionately affect women. The big question is: Now what?

I was happy when John McCain chose a woman for his running mate this past election season.  I didn’t know anything about Sarah Palin.  In fact, I’d only heard her name a couple of times.  Besides thinking her speech at the Republican National Convention was dynamic, I’d pretty much forgotten her for a while.

I have been one of those loyal Democrats most of my life, a left wing liberal, who supported Hillary’s bid for the presidency with joy and fervor.  I was dismayed and furious over the treatment Hillary received at the hands of the mainstream media, the Obama campaign, the Democratic National Committee, progressive talk radio, and some of the more prominent Democrats.  I actually couldn’t believe what I was seeing.  Cognitive dissonance displayed and experienced.

Soon the attacks moved to Governor Palin and her family, not her political positions or ideology, mind you, but her children, her family.  It was truly an epiphany for me and lots of other people who, like me, became PUMAs and then Independents, leaving the Democratic Party in droves.

The most troubling of all these attacks for me, at any rate, were those from women – feminists – whom I’d respected for years.  Women who had been leaders in the women’s movement and whose voices carried weight.  I’ve been a women’s rights activist for years, a leader in my local community and state and the comments and attacks coming from these women leaders were not just troubling, they caused me to rethink my deeply- held beliefs and raised some questions for me as well.

For instance, who had the right to decide who a “Real Feminist” was?  Did anyone?  Could only those individuals who believed in a certain set of guidelines, priorities, and policies be considered “Real Feminists?”  I wondered if an actual vote was taken, say in the sacred conclaves of some Secret Feminist Council through burning certain ritual herbs, scattering certain energy stones or meaningful ashes, sharing a profoundly meaningful imbued with decades of rituals handshake, and finishing with a set of a deeply enhanced tarot deck reading which then culminated in The Answer – this final outcome?  Was that how the decisions were made for the rest of us as to who was a “Real Feminist?”  Hmm, it was a thought worth pondering.  One I pondered right into supporting Sarah Palin and her running mate, John McCain.

These tactics, by these “vaunted leaders,” inevitably led me back to personal experiences and memories.  My family was interned in Japanese concentration camps during WWII.  Other members of my family lived under the jackboot of the Nazis.  I was raised on these stories.  My great-aunt and other relatives would tell me over and over again about the fear, the cruelty, and the deprivations that existed during the Nazi occupation.  Some of our countrymen were so afraid that they not only cooperated with the Germans, they actively helped them.  They were called collaborators, and most of them were shot after the war for making it that much harder and more terrifying for the rest of the country’s population.

Sarah Palin is a strong woman.  A woman who has achieved power and prestige through hard work and determination.  She personifies the necessity and success of Title IX.  She is tough and feminine at the same time, and while she and I don’t agree on numerous ideological lines in many areas we do agree, and to me she is an exemplary role model.

So, now that Sarah’s book is about to be released, there are of course anti-Sarah books to be released as well.  One, an anthology penned by these self-same feminist leaders (the ones who passed all the “particular and peculiar rites” which made them the only “Real Feminists of Note,”) hurtling stones at another woman through their writings.  This, of course, is politics at its finest and best.  The kind none of us should aspire to.

This brings me to the point of this whole opinion piece:  If we, as women, conspire and are complicit in helping other woman fail through attacks, ridicule, and judgmental behavior, how will we – all of us who are women – ever get ahead?  Do we not become collaborators in the misogyny and sexism which we have endured since time began?  And how do we ever achieve anything if not on the shoulders of the last generation and the cooperation of each other?  Remember the ERA?  It failed.  Remember the last woman President of the United States?  Exactly, she doesn’t exist.  But will she?  That is the important question we must all ask ourselves..

In a piece in the “Beltway Confidential” section, the J.P. Freire notes:

Amy Siskind of The New Agenda suggests that this is such a critical issue, women’s groups like Planned Parenthood and other reproductive “rights” organizations should mobilize against the bill, going so far as to suggest:

“The leaders of women’s groups devoted to choice should immediately set up meetings with Michael Steele, Chair of the RNC, to make their pitch. While opinions in our country are split on abortion, most believe that this a personal decision.”

This amendment makes for some strange bedfellows. No pun intended.

See our Media – Print and Internet section to see more of TNA’s media presence.

After yet another evening of being thrown under the bus, it is high time that women’s organizations drastically change their approach!

Women in the Democratic Party have been taken for granted and have lost their bargaining power as a result. Ladies – this is business, plain and simple, and what it comes down to this: We can no longer work with only one political party – that is “speaking.” Women’s organizations must learn to “negotiate” and establish dialogues with all political parties. Party exclusivity is why women’s organizations are failing in their missions to protect their members and their members’ interests. Women’s organization must become non-partisan immediately.

Last night, our Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi primarily and President Obama secondarily, approved a healthcare bill that does not include funding for abortion. What did they gain for this concession: Nothing. Still 39 blue dog Democrats voted against the bill. There is no better indication of how little bargaining power organizations such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood currently have thanks to their efforts with one party.

The organizations and religious groups that are against abortion have amply made their case with the Democratic leaders. The DNC Chair is anti-choice. Half our country does not know whether President Obama is pro-choice.

Here are some short-term suggestions for women’s advocacy groups:

1. Change of leadership – I agree with parts of what Jane Hamsher wrote last night at HuffPo. Groups set up for this issue failed. Nancy Keenan in particular who endorsed then Senator Obama over Senator Clinton in 2008 when only Clinton had any clear record on reproductive rights – the sole issue on which her organization is focused — should step down immediately. Records show that Keenan has had ample access to the White House and yet has been ineffective at advancing her organization’s cause. She must go.

2. The leaders of the women’s group devoted to choice must immediately head this bill off at the next pass. These organizations should mobilize their members to write to their senators and ask them NOT to pass the bill in its current form.

3. The leaders of women’s groups devoted to choice should immediately set up meetings with Michael Steele, Chair of the RNC, to make their pitch. While opinions in our country are split on abortion, most believe that this a personal decision.

4. The leaders of the all women’s organizations should open lines of communication with political leaders of all political parties. Starting immediately. On all issues concerning women and girls. We need advocates in all parties and this is attainable.

The days of women’s organizations being an appendage of the DNC must end immediately. Women have been taken for granted and speaking to one political party has led to defeat after defeat for causes important to women.

It is high time that women’s organizations blaze a brave new path for their constituents. It is time that we fight for women and girls. And in order to do so, we need to make our case to all political parties. Else, women and women’s issues will continue the easiest give for the Democrats.

Sgt. Kimberly Munley

The hero of the day at the Fort Hood shooting last week was actually a heroine. Sergeant Kimberly Munley is a civilian police officer on contract with the United States Army.  She was in the area to pick up her vehicle from a local repair shop when she heard the call over her police scanner of shots fired at Fort Hood. She immediately made her way to the scene and soon after exchanged fire with Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who was the shooter. Sgt. Munley emptied four shots into Hasan as he pumped two bullets into her thigh and wrist, leaving them both on the ground. Other officers were then able to secure the scene. Sgt. Munley was a weapons expert, and one of two officers to be credited with bringing the rampage to an end. The other officer was Sgt. Mark Todd. In the end, more than 100 bullets were fired and 13 people died, and many more were wounded. It could have been much worse had Sgt. Munley not responded so quickly or been so well trained in the use of her weapon.

Sgt. Munley is one of roughly 84,000 female police officers in the United States, and one of more than 524,000 sworn officers nationwide. Because of her gender, 100 years ago Sgt. Munley would have been denied the opportunity to join an American police force and acquire the skills that eventually brought Hasan down. That’s because 100 years ago there were no female sworn police officers in the United States. Munley and other female officers have Alice Stebbins Wells to thank for the opportunities they have today.

Alice Stebbins Wells

Exactly 100 years ago, Alice Stebbins Wells was a social worker working for the Los Angeles police department. Because of the advent of modern social work thanks to women such as Dorothea Dix and Jane Addams, police departments had been using such female social workers since the 1890s to provide humane treatment to female and juvenile prisoners. In 1909 Wells petitioned the Mayor and the City Council of Los Angeles to allow females to be sworn police officers. An ordinance was passed the next year and in September of 1910 Wells was sworn in as the nation’s first female officer. Two years later there were 6 female officers on the LAPD, and by 1916 sixteen other cities had hired female police officers, as had several foreign countries.

Wells was not quite done, however. In 1918, she persuaded the University of California (now UCLA) to offer the first course in women’s police work. 10 years later she was elected president of the Women’s Peace Officers’ Association, a group she helped found. She retired from the force in 1940, after 30 years of police work. Her interests were primarily with female and juvenile offenders; in this she followed up on the important work started by the aforementioned Dorothea Dix.

Today, women comprise roughly 9% of police officers nationwide, a statistics that suggests our society has more work to do when it comes to equality and fairness for women in police work. Other statistics, such as the fact that 67% of female officers have reported sexual harassment at the hands of male officers, complicate the world of police work for women. Leadership statistics round out the big-picture view: About 1.4% of the highest ranks in police work are filled by women, and women comprise just 2.5% of lieutenants and 3.7% of sergeants nationwide, though some police departments, such as New York and Miami, have higher numbers.

Sgt. Kimberly Munley is one of the 3.7% of female police sergeants in the United States. Last week she became an important symbol in the fight for fairness and equality on our nation’s police forces. Since women began in police work, the conversation around their participation has largely been about whether women can do the hard, strenuous work of policing, and her actions proved once again that they can. Fortunately, we do now have voices, such as that of Chief Joseph Polisar and Donna Milgram, who recognize the important work women are doing, and how the inclusion of them in police work can strengthen police departments. They call for greater fairness and targeted recruiting of women.

100 years ago when Wells began her official work, women were expected to focus solely on the humane treatment of females and juveniles. Today, like their male counterparts, they are expected and do address issues of social violence and answer the call to prevent more of that violence. Sgt. Munley is a heroine and an inspiration to women everywhere. Today, Munley is recovering from the bullet wounds she suffered at the hands of Hasan, one of which hit an artery. She is listed in good condition and has released a statement thanking people for all the support they have offered.

Additional sources:

Female Police Officers in the United States

Effectiveness of Female Police Officers

Handbook of Police Administration, Chapter 5

Women cannot count on a single party to protect their interests.  Tonight as our Congress passed a historic healthcare bill, something missing?  Yes, coverage for women who choose to have abortions.

Now as folks who follow The New Agenda well know, we have consciously chosen to leave this one issue aside, and tonight is another example of exactly why.

Despite the fact that 56% of women voted for Obama in 2008, many around the issue of choice, the DNC party leadership had no problem tonight, yet again, selling this constituency down the river.  Politico reporting:

A last-minute abortion fight left a particularly bitter taste in the mouth of Democratic women who spent the early part of their careers fighting for reproductive rights.

“People are furious,” said Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette.

After hours of negotiations with a group of abortion opponents, led by Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pelosi made a final painful sacrifice to pick up crucial support, allowing a vote on an amendment sponsored by Ellsworth and Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak that would bar any insurance company participating in the exchange program from covering the procedure.

Ladies – it’s time that we make our case to BOTH parties, just as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops successfully did today. Democratic women can no longer blindly vote along one issue. And if they do continue to give away their vote for free, then women will continue to get crumbs in return.

An article on Huffpo by Jane Hamsher: NARAL and Planned Parenthood: Ineffective Anti-Choice Democrats Can Rely On:

Yet these women use their gender to give glowing testament to just how great this bill is for women across America. And they’ll pay no price.

Why? Because helping the Democrats stay in power by giving them the Official Good Gyno Seal of Approval is what NARAL and Planned Parenthood do — even when those Democrats do things like voting for Samuel Alito and tell rape victims to take a cab to another hospital if they want to get Plan B contraception.

But Jane misses an important point – NARAL and Planned Parenthood have been negotiating with one side. Well, not negotiating actually – speaking to one side.

It’s time for a new agenda.

I never thought that a feminist’s understanding of rape would be a controversial issue, especially within the feminist community. However, the misguided concept that rape fantasies are “empowering” has clearly demonstrated that rape is controversial even within the feminist community.

Rape fantasies are dangerous to feminism because they validate the misogynistic beliefs that all women wish to be raped and that women deserve to be raped.

Why do women have rape fantasies? I have two basic explanations, both delving into psychology and both equally valid. A rape fantasy can be symbolic of a psychological rape or spiritual loss of innocence – someone from a broken home, for instance with verbally abusive parents and a violently negative attitude toward both the self and the world. Rape fantasies can also stem from a woman’s own internalization of the misogynistic culture around her; if internalization is the cause, then she needs to adjust the media around her and to retrain her mind whenever a fantasy starts to occur.

Writing this and reading my sources make me cringe, but I believe this must be said. I see the sentences that declare a woman likes rape fantasies because they “offer a chance to flip the script of domination, abuse, and silencing. Rape fantasies turn a normally horrific encounter into a sexual experience that the fantasy “victim” can control and orchestrate herself. She’s into rape fantasies because they allow her to convert her fears and weaknesses into sexual power.” Whenever I read something like that, I think: Please, let’s keep rape in its place – as an evil violation and never something to be glorified, even in fantasy.

Those sentences I quoted demonstrate a poor understanding of the human imagination. It might seem like empowerment because the person’s imagination is in control of both the rapist and the victim, but you need to look at the real reasons up above. Her fantasy is about the absence of her body’s sanctity, but a genuine empowering sexual fantasy would be consensual and passionate. There is nothing powerful about being a rape victim except PTSD. Also, trumping it up as a positive causes rape to lose its place in society and in people’s minds. The best statement to describe the sick and disgusting conundrum is:

[Her boyfriend raping her] was, in part, a result of an “unfortunate miscommunication.” It was, in part, a result of the couple’s failure to discuss boundaries and expectations at an earlier stage. But it was also a result of her boyfriend laying claim to her body without bothering to ascertain her consent. Isn’t that what rape is?

The victim in this case expressed a rape fantasy and a wish to be raped, but she wanted “consensual rape” whereas he wanted real rape. Because the real thing is so horrific, does it really deserve to be glorified in the imagination? Does glorifying it in the imagination devalue the real nightmare?

People are ultimately products of their society and their culture. We need to contemplate rape and its rightful place, which is an evil violation. We also need to contemplate what the prevalence of rape fantasies and the acceptance of rape fantasies can say about our culture.

Please, people, let’s keep rape in its place and condemn it in every area of our lives.

A civilian female police officer is being hailed as a heroine.  Sgt. Kimberly Munley is being credited with ending the rampage of muslim fundamentalist and military psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan.  Despite being shot herself, she managed to hit Hasan, who remains comatose, four times.

Sgt. Kimberly Munley responded within three minutes of receiving reports of shots being fired by Hasan, who according to witnesses was exclaiming “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) as he began his terrorist rampage.  Hasan killed thirteen individuals at the Fort Hood Texas training center and wounded thirty.