How ‘Nasty Woman’ Became A Viral Call For Solidarity
By Emma Gray
10/20/2016 05:31 pm ET Updated Oct 21, 2016
More and more books of fiction being published return to those DARK AGES/RENAISSANCE detailing what life for those global 1% entailed and what life for those 99% of WE THE PEOPLE before we were CITIZENS----was like. Almost all create characters of women who are HAUGHTY, CONNIVING, RUTHLESS, NOT A FRIEND TO OTHER WOMEN------that was indeed the life of women when they had no power, no ability to be employed or owning property-----they were to be seen and not heard.
WE HAVE FOUGHT HARD IN THE US TO BREAK THOSE DARK AGES SOCIETAL STRUCTURES----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA HAVE WORKED HARD TO BRING THOSE STRUCTURES BACK FOR WOMEN.
If you think slogans like this are empowering to women---if you think the 2016 Presidential campaign with all that sexual propaganda COMING FROM THE CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL camp is EMPOWERING WOMEN-----and not degrading the character of women----we need our 99% of women TO WAKE UP.
Women being reduced to fighting for only reproductive rights while MOVING FORWARD back to DARK AGES takes all rights of women away----is like our black citizens feeling their only right is to be kept out of prison and policing abuses. What rights do white men have? Just as all other population groups---fighting to be in that 5% to the 1% ----soon going under the bus.
National Organization for Women Launches Anti-Trump ‘Nasty Women’s Choir’ to Carol for Advocacy
by Lindsey Ellefson | 10:50 am, December 14th, 2016
The New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women knows that activities to raise awareness or funds can be tedious. Bake sales, walks, and silent auctions get old; people stop caring. It’s important to do something new and innovative to grab their attention and get them interested in the cause at hand.
That’s why NOW-NYC is choosing to advocate for reproductive justice and various women’s rights by singing carols this holiday season. In honor of a now-infamous dig at Hillary Clinton made by Donald Trump, they’re calling themselves the Nasty Women’s Choir and you can participate in person or online.
The organization is posting sing-a-long videos for remote participants…
…and an in-person event for participants in New York.
Here is the full songbook, which features, “Hark! The Nasty Women Sing,” “Donald Trump Is Coming to Town,” and, “Single Belles,” among other feminist, pro-choice reimaginings of classic carols.
There will be caroling around Manhattan this upcoming Saturday. Check out the event page above for details, then start warming up your voice. If you can’t be there in person, follow the hashtag #NastyOrNice to see their progress.
Hillary being that global 2% of women MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% of MEN-----is indeed returning to propaganda steeped in the myths of women as dutiful and silent wives of powerful and rich men ---or single women as SIRENS AND MEDUSA'S intelligent and able to live on their own but known to be calculating and wicked.
THE SIRENS sing to bring wayward sailors to an island wrapped with deadly intentions------our 5% to the 1% players are singing to global labor pool and global 99% women---COME TO US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES with American freedoms ---but what is MOVING FORWARD making of US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones? The same enslaving, repressive, gender and class tiered society as existed during OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% EMPIRE.
Is Trump and the far-right Republicans making these images of women? No, far-right wing, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are creating these images of women.
THOSE 5% OF CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL WOMEN ARE SHOW ME THE MONEY WE'LL DO ANYTHING WE ARE TOLD ---JUST AS ARE THOSE 5% MEN. LIVING FOR TODAY---THEY DON'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO 99% OF US OR GLOBAL WOMEN.
The Original ‘Nasty Woman’
For centuries, Medusa has been used to criticize powerful women. So it’s no surprise the mythological Gorgon has re-emerged this election cycle.
Slava Gerj / WitR / Shutterstock / Zak Bickel / The Atlantic
- Elizabeth Johnston
- Nov 6, 2016
As a professor of English, I teach a humanities course on female icons in pop culture, and one of the first examples my students learn about is Medusa. A Gorgon from classical mythology, Medusa is widely known as a monstrous creature with snakes in her hair whose gaze turns men to stone. Through the lens of theology, film, art, and feminist literature, my students and I map how her meaning has shifted over time and across cultures. In so doing, we unravel a familiar narrative thread: In Western culture, strong women have historically been imagined as threats requiring male conquest and control, and Medusa herself has long been the go-to figure for those seeking to demonize female authority.
Benvenuto Cellini’s 1545 sculpture
Perseus with the Head of Medusa.
WikimediaIt’s perhaps no surprise, then, that Medusa has cropped up repeatedly during this heated election cycle, one that may end with the United States electing its first woman president. One image in particular keeps recurring—that of the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton as the mythological snake-haired monster. Clinton has been compared to Medusa by conservative writers like Joel B. Pollak at Breitbart News and bloggers like Ron Russell at Right Wing Humor, and in political merchandise sold online. Meanwhile, her opponent Donald Trump has been portrayed as her conqueror, the Greek demigod Perseus. On Zazzle, people can buy products emblazoned with an image of a stoic Trump raising the severed head of a bug-eyed Clinton, her mouth agape in silent protest—an allusion to a sculpture by the Italian Renaissance artist Benvenuto Cellini. Today, the political references to Medusa only underscore the pervasive misogyny that drives many attacks against Clinton and other so-called “nasty women.”
Medusa remains a potent icon at a time when women leaders continue to be viewed skeptically or, at worst, as inhuman. Indeed, almost every influential female figure has been photoshopped with snaky hair: Martha Stewart, Condoleezza Rice, Madonna, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, Angela Merkel. (Have a few minutes? Do a Google Image search: Type in a famous woman’s name and the word Medusa.) These businesswomen, politicians, activists, and artists made the same “mistake” that Susan B. Anthony identified when she commented on the lack of women’s voices in 19th-century newspapers: “Women … must echo the sentiment of these men. And if they do not do that, their heads are cut off.” These women infringed upon the domain of men. The only response, as suggested by their Medusa-fied images? To cut their heads off; to silence them.
The implicit violence of the Medusa comparison relates not only to beheading, but also to rape culture--another issue that has figured into the current election. Bits of Medusa’s story date back to at least Homer’s Iliad, but it’s with Ovid’s Metamorphoses that her story emerges most fully. A closer read of her tale may surprise those who only know her vaguely from popular culture. In Ovid’s story, the god Neptune sees Medusa, desires her, and decides that, because he is a god, he is entitled to her body (sound familiar?). He rapes her in Minerva’s temple, and Minerva, incensed that her temple has been defiled, punishes the victim rather than the perpetrator (again, sound familiar?). Minerva transforms Medusa into a snake-haired monster who now, instead of inspiring men’s desire, literally petrifies them. Later, Minerva gives her shield to Perseus to help him kill Medusa; he uses it as a mirror, deflecting Medusa’s curse. He beheads her while she sleeps and then carries her head in a bag, a trophy he pulls out as needed to destroy enemies.
Medusa has since haunted Western imagination, materializing whenever male authority feels threatened by female agency. As the art historian Christine Corretti has explained, Cellini believed Medusa symbolized both the threat of women’s burgeoning political power and a feminized Italy. Corretti notes that these sentiments were popularized during the Renaissance by Machiavelli who, in The Prince, alluded to the Medusa icon when he described the state as a woman “without head, without order, beaten, despoiled, torn,” desperate for a manly rescuer. Medusa again became a symbol of a monstrously feminized republic during the French revolution. In 1791, Marie Antoinette appeared as a beastly Medusa in the print “Les deux ne font qu’un.” A year later the English artist Thomas Rowlandson created a print depicting the vision of liberty espoused by the rebels of the French Revolution as Medusa-like.
A caricature by the English artist Thomas Rowlandson titled “The Contrast, 1792.” WikimediaLater, as women’s colleges began to open in the United States, the 19th-century painter Elihu Vedder imagined Medusa as a self-absorbed woman who petrifies herself by looking into a mirror. Sigmund Freud notably used the myth to explain his concept of castration anxiety. And as women rallied for the right to vote, various anti-suffrage postcards linked suffragettes to the monster. Concerns about gender and power continued into the 1940s when the writer Philip Wylie, in his invective Generation of Vipers, evoked Medusa (and her Gorgon sisters Stheno and Euryale) in order to urge readers to resist the women who had entered the work force after the first two world wars. By then, Medusa’s history as a rape victim had been erased from the cultural consciousness. She had simply become a woman with a terrifying potential power to emasculate men.
However, with second-wave feminism, many writers and artists began to re-examine traditional myth. Hélène Cixous, Sylvia Plath, Colleen McElroy, and others searched the recesses of history for their lost matriarchal heritage and chose Medusa as their muse. “How to believe the stories I am told?” the poet May Sarton asked in 1971 when she looked on the Medusa and found herself not frozen but “clothed in thought.” Later, as discussions about rape culture evolved in the 1970s and 1980s, poets including Ann Stanford and Amy Clampitt channeled Medusa to engage in conversations about the silencing of sexual-assault victims.
Similarly, feminist scholars like Marija Gimbutas re-read the myth of Medusa as a beheading of early matriarchal societies by Greco-Roman culture. According to this interpretation, Neptune’s rape of Medusa and Perseus’s subsequent beheading of her represent the same effort to legitimize male privilege by muting female authority. Indeed, ancient mythology is rife with stories of gods who violate women. This devaluing of women was reflected in the norms and laws of a culture wherein women were traded as commodities between men and rape was permissible by law.
When Medusa pops up in pop culture today, her deeper significance is largely ignored. For example, in the 2010 film adaptation of Clash of the Titans, Perseus rallies his men before confronting Medusa: “I know we’re all afraid. But my father told me: Someday, someone was gonna have to take a stand. Someday, someone was gonna have to say enough! This could be that day. Trust your senses. And don't look this bitch in the eye.” In the film, Perseus knows Medusa has been raped, but she’s nonetheless treated with indifference by the plot, and with hostility by the other characters.
Those satirizing Clinton as a Medusa are likely unaware of the misogyny tied into the iconography.With this context, my students look anew on art like Cellini’s sculpture. Now, they can see that Perseus is the aggressor, not a hero but a symbolic rapist standing astride the body of his victim, her bloodied head held high in victory. Medusa’s closed eyes and lips speak volumes about both the history of women’s oppression and the submersion of women’s histories. It’s a submersion poignantly symbolized by a story that Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney shared recently at a panel discussion in historic Seneca Falls, New York. For years Maloney tried to get a statue of the first-wave feminists Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Lucretia Mott moved from the basement of the Capitol Building to center stage in the Rotunda. Colleagues, however, argued that it was “too ugly.”
Women’s physical appearances are often particularly used as a way to demean them, as the Clinton-Medusa images show, and tying women’s value to their looks has also been a feature of this election thanks to Donald Trump. The misogyny of the election comes through in much of the anti-Clinton imagery that abounds, including a t-shirt featuring a beheaded Medusa Clinton that reads, “Life’s a bitch, so don’t vote for one.” The shirt echoes the campaign’s most popular slogan, “Trump that Bitch” (and even the “bitch” quote from Clash of the Titans.) The fact that there’s even a market for such political paraphernalia testifies to the terror that powerful women continue to elicit even in the 21st century and to the related and troubling persistence of mythologies that endorse and perpetuate rape culture.
Unlike the eyes and mouth of the Cellini Medusa, those of the Clinton Medusa in the Triumph t-shirt are wide open, a grotesque caricature of female agency that likely gratifies her conservative foes. Those satirizing Clinton as a Medusa are likely unaware of the misogyny tied into the iconography. For them, Medusa is just a creature who castrates men and that must be defeated. In their minds, Hillary is monstrous, too, but in a slightly different way: She’s a woman who wears pantsuits, who calls attention to institutional sexism, who is ambitious, and who altogether refuses to conform to traditional gender roles. And yet, as Greco-Roman history makes clear, when the gods devalue women, the people will too. On Tuesday, voters in the United States will decide which candidate they want as figurehead, which representative they think best embodies the values of this country. The implications of that choice could not be more profound.
What we are seeing both in UK and US is a deliberate goal of creating tensions between men and women in all aspects of life-----women feel they need to be MORE EMPOWERED and men are afraid of these powers. Stats for 2016 Presidential election showed WOMEN FAILED TO COME OUT FOR HILLARY----WOMEN voted for Bernie Sanders over Hillary as they did Obama over Hillary. Men don't fear Hillary ----
EVERYONE KNOWS HILLARY IS THAT LYING, CHEATING, STEALING, NO MORALS OR ETHICS, NO US RULE OF LAW, NO GOD'S NATURAL LAW FAR-RIGHT EXTREME WEALTH NIHILIST.
WOMEN AND MEN don't like Hillary just as they don't like BILL CLINTON/BUSH
Do women really feel intense misogyny----in the KABUKI THEATER that is Congress MOVING FORWARD ending all US Constitutional rights and all Federal legal court precedence----we see THE 5% TO THE 1% MEN simply killing all rights 99% of citizens black, white, brown====men and women have gained these 300 years. These sexual harrassment cases have been around these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---
This same identity politics happened during Obama -----if you didn't vote for Obama it was because he was black and not because he planned to MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%.
Hillary a CONVENTIONAL CANDIDATE? After 1990s ----tens of trillions of dollars in global Wall Street and corporate frauds----building a global slave trading system to fill Foreign Economic Zones with workers having no sovereign rights especially GLOBAL 99% OF WOMEN.....no, not conventional to the US.
Why Men Fear a Female President
1 0 Share
Uploaded on Sep 12, 2017
Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has catalyzed a level of intense misogyny that probably won’t go away.
People & Blogs
Standard YouTube License
As far-right wing global 1% neo-liberals these two worked harder than any REAL right wing Republican to kill the rights of 99% of women and black citizens. WHITE MEN no doubt have that percentage not liking women's rights but we feel strongly most US white men know the value of having women empowered in family and workplace especially as unemployment soars with the goal of ending all job categories. Our US 99% of men need to understand this propaganda play trying to create tension between US men and women.
Hillary Clinton’s Problem With Men
Clinton is performing as poorly with men as Republicans do with Hispanics. She won’t win a general election unless she can close the gender gap.
- Josh Kraushaar
- Oct 7, 2015
When Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race, she expected to win overwhelming support among women in her bid to become the first female president. Instead, she’s finding out that an unprecedented level of resistance to her candidacy among men is undermining the conventional wisdom that she’d be the strongest Democratic nominee in the general election.
Put another way: Clinton is now nearly as unpopular with men as Donald Trump is with women. That’s saying something.
The latest round of polling for Clinton is brutal. This week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist survey in Iowa shows her favorability rating with men at a mere 27 percent, while two-thirds view her unfavorably. Her minus-39 net favorability with men is 28 points worse than Vice President Joe Biden and 27 points behind Sen. Bernie Sanders. The story is the same in New Hampshire, where the NBC/WSJ/Marist poll found both Sanders and Biden with net-positive ratings, while Clinton’s approval is deeply underwater, stuck at 30 percent.
The swing-state polling is a mirror image of her national numbers. Last week, Quinnipiac found Clinton’s negative ratings with white men at a stunning 72 percent—significantly worse than the Democratic Party’s already-serious struggles with that demographic group. Meanwhile, she’s not performing at nearly a strong-enough level with women to counteract the problem. Only 49 percent of women viewed her favorably in the poll, with 47 percent holding negative views. For all the self-inflicted problems that Republicans have in reaching out to a diversifying country, Hillary Clinton’s favorability with white men is worse than Jeb Bush’s with Hispanics, Ben Carson’s with African-Americans, and Carly Fiorina’s with women in the same survey.
Indeed, in poll after poll, both Biden and Sanders run much more competitively against Republican challengers, almost entirely because they don’t turn off half of the electorate.
If Clinton is looking to narrow the gaping gender gap, she isn’t showing it. Instead, her campaign looks to be doing the opposite—rallying her liberal base and trying to lock down supporters that once seemed squarely in her camp. She sat down for an interview last week with Girls creator Lena Dunham, where she underscored her feminist bona fides. She’s appeared on television shows with a sizable female audience, including Ellen, in hopes of making her look more relatable. Her call for robust gun control in the wake of the Oregon school shooting isn’t going to make her any friends with Democratic gun owners, who are disproportionately male. The early diagnosis from the campaign is that she’s underachieving with women—her natural base—and that’s the most crucial short-term fix, not the dismal showing with men.
Part of her back-to-the-base strategy is to counter momentum from Sanders, who is shaping up as a serious threat against Clinton, at least in the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses. Sanders’ biggest weakness is on guns—he’s opposed various gun-control measures during his congressional career—and Clinton is now advocating for stricter regulations to draw a sharp contrast. Even among Democrats, Clinton lags behind Sanders with men, but she holds significant advantages with women. As the only woman in a primary field of men, it’s logical to play to your primary strength.
But at some point, her campaign will have to grapple with why her support has cratered so badly among men. Did the campaign’s initial plan to play up Clinton’s soft, grandmotherly persona backfire at a time of mounting global turmoil? Is it a consequence of the campaign’s unabashedly liberal turn on social issues, particularly on abortion rights, immigration, and gun control? Or is it simply a product of her overall low approval numbers, dampened by the ongoing developments about her handling of classified email at the State Department?
Make no mistake: Biden is leaning into the presidential race directly because of these electability issues. He expressed little interest in the race until Clinton's numbers started to tank. Look at his recent campaign-style schedule; he’s already demonstrating that he’s able to unify disparate elements within the Democratic Party—backslapping union rank-and-file in Pittsburgh on Labor Day, holding an event about combating sexual assault weeks later, and giving a well-received keynote address to the Human Rights Campaign last weekend. Among the general electorate, Biden fares better than Clinton with both women and men. He’ll subtly make the case that nominating Clinton is too much of a risk to take in such a consequential election—an argument that seems to be receiving a fair hearing at the White House.
It’s awfully ironic that some of the Democratic Party’s sharpest strategists, who once saw Clinton as uniquely capable of mobilizing the Democratic base because of her groundbreaking biography, are now hedging their bets—by looking at the 72-year-old Biden as a more-credible candidate capable of stopping the party’s problems with men.
'you would expect that candidate to be doing better with women than her male rivals'
The only way Hillary was able to get 35% of Democratic women voters over age 45 was ELECTION FRAUD AND RIGGING. No voters KNOW the Clintons better than those over 45 years. We are glad our young adults stood with wanting REAL left social progressive platform---we simply need our young adults especially 99% women to understand BERNIE SANDERS is FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT MOVING FORWARD further and further right wing authoritarian fascism.
Hillary has been that SIREN ----shouting to women being placed into global corporate executive positions---THIS IS GOOOOOD-----YOU ARE WINNING------when US women as well as men should have been FIGHTING AGAINST CORPORATE MONOPOLY and especially global corporate monopoly is indeed they want freedom, rights, and power of choice.
Why the female generational divide for Hillary Clinton?
By Kelly Wallace, CNN
Updated 4:30 PM ET, Tue February 9, 2016
(CNN)If you were writing a Hollywood screenplay about the race for the White House centered around an experienced woman with a real chance of becoming the first female president, you would expect that candidate to be doing better with women than her male rivals. In fact, if you wrote that she was not resonating as well with women voters, executives might pass on the script saying it wasn't believable.
And yet, that's exactly what's happening in today's presidential race when it comes to Hillary Clinton's support from younger women. Some 64% of women Democratic voters younger than 45 backed Bernie Sanders, while just 35% supported Clinton, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist College poll in New Hampshire last week. When it comes to women 45 and older, Clinton leads Sanders by 9 percentage points, the poll found.
Why aren't younger women more excited about Clinton? The lack of support from younger women is something that's clearly gotten under the skin of some Clinton supporters, particularly women who are of her age and stage.
First, Gloria Steinem on "Real Time With Bill Maher" suggested that young women are only supporting Sanders because they want to meet men. "When you're young, you're thinking: 'Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,' " Ms. Steinem said. (She has since apologized for those comments, saying she "misspoke" and called it a "case of talk-show Interruptus.")
The day after Steinem's appearance with Bill Maher, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright uttered something she has said repeatedly over the past several years about women helping women crack glass ceilings, but did it for the first time at a rally for and with Clinton in New Hampshire.
"There is a special place in hell for women who don't help each other," she said.
Well, that isn't exactly going over well with younger women, who aren't backing Clinton.
"As a young woman who supports Bernie Sanders, I'm frustrated and outraged by being constantly attacked by older feminists for my refusal to vote according to my gender," said Ariana Javidi, a sophomore studying human rights, economics and gender studies at the University of Connecticut.
"Like my fellow young feminist women, I recognize that voting for a woman because she's a woman is sexist, just like voting for a man because he's a man is also sexist," said Javidi. "When older feminists like Albright and Steinem engage in increasingly baseless and wild explanations about why young women don't support Hillary, they display the limitations of their brand of feminism, while young women like me realize that one's gender isn't what makes them a feminist."
Vera Ezimora, 30, says she always encourages women to help their fellow women on her lifestyle blog Verastic.com, but she also said she does not believe that help or support should be offered blindly and based only on gender.
"I don't think that being a female and not voting for Hillary means you're a bad person. It would be bad if your sole/main reason for not voting for her is because she's a woman," said Ezimora, a Democrat turned independent who says she has "no idea" who she might support in the election.
Gabrielle Greaves, a student at the University of New Hampshire who supports Sanders over Clinton, says her decision is based on policy, not on getting the first woman into the White House.
"It's not just about having a woman president. You want somebody that values all of your principles and the morals that you stand for," said Greaves during an interview with CNN's Brooke Baldwin.
"And I think that a lot of the young voters, and especially in Iowa, we saw the majority of the young women voters voted for Bernie Sanders, is because he talks about, he gives a voice to the young voters," said Greaves, pointing to issues that Sanders advocates such as making tuition free at public colleges and universities.A different 'sense of urgency'
Amanda Rodriguez, 37, said she and other younger women are more concerned about the issues and whether their political beliefs align with the candidates than possibly older women who may be more focused on seeing women gain some footing when it comes to the White House.
That said, Rodriguez understands why older women may feel as they do.
"Younger women aren't as used to the sexist battles that professional older women had to struggle through to acquire the positions they have now," said Rodriguez, a mom of three and founder of the blog Dude Mom. "The struggle is real; they just haven't had to live it."
Caucusing for Clinton at 102 years old
That is something you hear over and over from older women who are hungry to see a female president in their lifetimes, and who believe that younger women think they will see a female president at some point and that Hillary Clinton might just not be the one for them.
Janis Brett Elspas is a 59-year-old mom of four who has worked full-time running her own business while raising her kids, now in college.
"I don't think millennial women feel that same sense of urgency for a woman president because they are young, haven't waited an eternity like my generation and their thinking is there is always the next presidential election four years after this one is over to look toward," said Elspas, founder of Mommy Blog Expert. "I also think Hillary's own age may simply have less appeal and relevancy to those female voters who are much younger than she is."
Baby boomers see Clinton as a "pioneer who spent decades breaking new ground for women, but younger women take those achievements for granted," said Allie Nault, who was named Miss America's Outstanding Teen and who has spent the past six months encouraging young people to vote through public service announcements and interviews with all the candidates.
"We see many women lawyers, and we've only ever known Hillary Clinton in her powerful roles as first lady, senator and secretary of state," said Nault, 18, who will be voting this year for the first time. "I think women my age are confident that a woman will soon be president and do not view it as the milestone it really is."'No Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg, Carly Fiorina'
Rollene Saal, my mother-in-law and a former Wellesley grad like Clinton, said if young women today don't feel an allegiance to Clinton, it's because they are "post-feminists" and because women such as Clinton cleared the path for them today.
"There would be no Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg, Carly Fiorina, if it were not for the work, the road that she has paved, she and Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem, these icons of the women's movement," said Saal. "Now these young women, how wonderful that this is no longer a burning issue."
Lori Day, 52, says women her age have seen Hillary Clinton fighting for women's human rights and reproductive rights for decades.
"We don't take for granted any of the progress she helped create because we know that we could lose it, and if a Republican wins the White House, we will," said Day, an educational psychologist who runs her own consulting business and author of a book on mother-daughter book clubs. "Younger women have no collective memory of this, and they do tend to take things like birth control and legal abortion for granted, simply because these things have always existed in their lifetimes."
Diane Smith, an Emmy award-winning broadcast news journalist and co-author of the best-seller, "Obsessed: America's Food Addiction -- and My Own," wonders whether millennials and younger women think all the hard work of feminism is done.
"If so, they need to look at how many women make it to the C-suite, and how women and men may start out at the same salary, but men quickly move ahead," said Smith who cited stats from a report by Lean In.org and McKinsey & Co, which found that at the current pace, it will take more than a century for gender quality at the highest level of companies.
Katharine Zaleski, co-founder and president of Power to Fly, which helps women find the best remote jobs in tech, believes younger women, namely the ones in college, haven't experienced the unequal landscape for women that Clinton has worked to overcome because they haven't started work yet.
"About five years into working, they'll see the results of not having stronger female leadership in this country: unequal pay, one of the world's worst parental leave policies and thinning numbers of women at the executive level," said Zaleski, who is soon to turn 35.
Her message to younger women who are not supporting Clinton? "If you want to talk about a revolution, then revolt against a system that keeps 50% of its population from properly achieving its dreams."
Cecily Kellogg, a blogger, speaker, mom of a 9-year-old and Clinton supporter, summed up the frustration felt by both younger women and older women who hold opposing views of the best Democratic presidential candidate to win the White House.
"Just like I don't want Bernie supporters lecturing me about choosing Hillary, I don't want to lecture Bernie supporters for choosing him," said Kellogg. "Both are pretty good, choices, frankly. Whoever gets the nomination will get my support."
Added blogger and author Avital Norman Nathman, who is still undecided between Clinton and Sanders, "It's exhausting to have all of this inner fighting when we should be working together for the greater good."
This is what national media and FAKE ELECTION POLLS have done to US politics. Here is CNN telling us BABY BOOMER women see HILLARY as breaking new ground for women. Bill and Hillary created FAILED STATE US CITIES by killing a once thriving US economy throwing hundreds of millions of American workers especially women out of work through 1990s----2000s-----2010s. The Clintons looted our 99% wealth and savings assets-----especially 99% of women----AND the Clintons created the global human capital distribution system filling sovereign nations with global workers taken from families back home---or being women taken from families back home---now MOVING FORWARD to making US citizens those EX=PAT global labor pool ---again taking US women into global labor pool.
So, there is absolutely nothing happening from HILLARY having to do with BABY BOOMER WOMEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT of 1960s-70s.
'Baby boomers see Clinton as a "pioneer who spent decades breaking new ground for women',
Again, there is that 5% US women being lifted into global corporate executive positions---they are those NASTY LADIES.
Where Hillary is headlined is in the UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL 1% NAKED CAPITALIST ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE group.
Hillary Clinton to Headline United Nations Women's Conference
A month of women-centric events begins next week.
February 19, 2015, 4:41 PM EST
Former United States Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks on stage at the 2014 Massachusetts Conference for Women at Boston Convention & Exhibition Center on December 4, 2014 in Boston, Massachusetts.
Photographer: Lisa Lake/Getty Images for Massachusetts Conference for Women
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will address a major United Nations gathering on women’s rights next month, just as the Clinton Foundation releases a major report on women and girls more than a year in the making.
We can be sure that EVEN THOSE GLOBAL 2% WOMEN do indeed have TACIT SUPPORT-----as global 99% of women KNOW MOVING FORWARD will be bad for them.
We can be sure 99% of South African women do not agree with this UN Women Executive Director-------as too 99% of US women.
“Whenever there’s a woman candidate, our support is necessarily behind that candidate,” she said in an interview Monday. “Because she is a woman, she has got our support.”
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon (2nd R) meets with UN Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka (L), former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2nd L) and her daughter Chelsea Clinton at United Nations headquarters in New York on February 4, 2014.
U.N. Women Executive Director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka quietly acknowledged that she and U.N. Women support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the presidency, although she stopped short of a full endorsement.
“Whenever there’s a woman candidate, our support is necessarily behind that candidate,” she said in an interview Monday. “Because she is a woman, she has got our support.” She said it would be “odd” if they were to support anyone else, since increasing women’s representation in government is a major priority for the organization.
The comments came on International Women’s Day, amid events in more than 40 countries to demand gender equality and in anticipation of the Commission on the Status of Women.
Mlambo-Ngcuka emphasized that her statements do not constitute an endorsement of Clinton, since the U.N. typically does not offer endorsements in elections in member states. But Clinton’s 1995 speech at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, in which she famously said “women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights,” is one of the major touchstones of U.N. Women’s platform, and Clinton has been heavily involved in many U.N. Women events on gender equality, often giving major speeches at U.N. Women events.
Supporting Clinton’s candidacy was just one of several calls to action leading up to International Women’s Day. The Executive Director also called on Latin American countries to change their laws to allow more abortions in the devastating wake of the Zika virus. “We would like women to have the option to have an abortion if they so desire, and we really think these laws should change,” she said, noting that Latin America also must invest more resources into family planning and address the massive unmet need for contraception.
Mlambo-Ngcuka says that U.N. Women has “always been pro-choice,” but that the response to the Zika virus requires the organization to be extra vocal in its support for abortion access. “Whenever we have an opportunity to articulate our position, we should take it,” Mlambo-Ngcuka said. “The issue of Zika makes it imperative to us as U.N. Women to be very clear on this subject.”
The support for Clinton and condemnation of Latin American abortion laws are just two threads of U.N. Women’s larger mission of global gender equality. Last year, U.N. Women helped draft the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals: 17 global targets, including everything from clean water to good education to reduced inequality, for the world to achieve by 2050. Gender equality is one of the goals (Goal 5,) but Mlambo-Ngcuka explained that the other 16 goals also represented major steps forward for gender equality, because the participation of girls and women is embedded in the implementation of every goal. “In order to achieve any of the goals, they have to achieve gender equality,” she said.
Amid discussion of the Sustainable Development Goals in anticipation of the Commission on the Status of Women, Mlambo-Ngcuka condemned the lack of protection for women migrants flooding into Europe (some estimates suggest that up to 10,000 women and children migrants are missing, stoking fears of human traffickers targeting refugees fleeing the Middle East) and admitted that everyone, including intergovernmental organizations, has to do better. “It is difficult to say we’re on top of it, because I don’t think we are,” she said. “Governments are overwhelmed by the size of this problem.”
She also called for more financial investment in women’s equality. “Money talks, and gender equality is expensive if you want to do it properly,” she said, noting that investing in women is “one area where you’re guaranteed to get a good return.”
We are not going to rehash that our baby boomer women rights leaders from 1960-70s sold by national media as LEFT ACTIVISTS were never REAL women's activists-----they were ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT far-right wing women always intending to MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD----and dismantle all of last century's women gains.
Here we see such a media outlet ----selling the idea that these women pols are LEFTIST DEMOCRATS -----ANTI-FA simply being today's ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT group undermining REAL left social progressive voters---candidates---policies.
We educate today so our young adults especially women can see what baby boomers saw back in 1970s----we saw the FAKE taking control of our real left political movements and yes these women---PELOSI , WATERS, FEINSTEIN, BOXER were those 5% to the 1% women players.
When we know who the 5% women players are---we KNOW when the policies they push as pro-women are actually killing 99% of US WOMEN and global women.
STANFORD/BERKELEY always that GLOBAL 1% neo-liberal outlet for FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT leaders.
Leftist Democrats: Pelosi, Waters, Feinstein, Harris refuse to condemn Anti-FaAnti-FA needs to be denounced by the Deems]
By Nicolas Bowling On Aug 28, 2017
Cowardice Anti-FA invaded another peaceful protest and stir up major violence. When will the leftist Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters condemn Anti-FA?
BERKELEY, California – The “Rally Against Hate” rally/peaceful protest was suppose to be set for Sunday afternoon, but had to be cancelled due to the threats they were receiving from Anti-fa groups.
The “Rally Against Hate” was supposed to be a peaceful protest to share their thoughts and speak freely among normal human beings. So of course, Anti-FA can’t have that. So Anti-FA showed up to the cancelled event and starting causing major ruckus.
Throwing sticks, using pepper spray, beating people wit sticks of Anti-FA flags, and the assaults go on and all. The video below is taken from Fox’s Tucker Carlson Tonight. The young man in the video is “Joey Gibson”. And in the video he explains all what happened from a his point of view. And also goes on to say that he feels the Police officers were told to send down. Sound familiar?
My questions is, the Democrats were ALL OVER Trump for “not” condemning the neo-nazi’s and white supremacists in Charlottesville. Even though he literally tweeted about it hours after it all started. Where is California Senators Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Dianne Feinstein? We the people demand that they immediately denounce this hateful domestic cowardice terrorist group Anti-FA NOW! They have been silent on this matter, silent while many innocent peaceful people get brutally beat up simply because of a “Make America Great Again” hat, or just if they simply don’t agree with them.
We all need to Tweet these California Democrats over and over asking them if they support Anti-FA, and if they will denounce them! We cannot continue to be bullied!
We have always known RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS----whether male or female----work for 1% corporate wealth and power. That has been true throughout 300 years of American history. So, these women are no more working for 99% of US or global women as well----they are the same as FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL 1% CLINTON/OBAMA------almost all Congressional Republicans including women are global 1% Bush neo-cons-----loving far-right wing Clinton neo-liberalism-----
KILLING 99% OF US AND GLOBAL WOMEN.
Women will never win or have rights under right wing corporate economics.
The 5% of women in US politics are all FAR-RIGHT WING.
Newsmax's 50 Most Influential Female Republicans
Sarah Palin (Wikimedia Commons), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wikimedia Commons), Laura Ingraham (John Moore/Getty Images).
By John Blosser | Thursday, 05 May 2016 07:36 AM
Despite the oft-repeated line from the left that Republicans are conducting a "war on women," the GOP is filled with strongly principled women and many traditional conservatives who make their voices heard loud and clear.
The National Federation of Republican Women numbers close to 100,000 members nationwide, and conservative females are heavily represented in state, local, and federal government, including in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. One was even in the running for president this cycle.
Here, Newsmax has compiled a list of 50 of the most influential female Republicans who will play a key role in shaping America's future.
1. Sarah Palin — The former governor of Alaska was up for vice president in 2008 and has been an outspoken Tea Party leader, television star, author, and political commentator.
2. Cathy McMorris Rodgers — The congresswoman from Washington since 2005 is the chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, a position that makes her the highest-ranking woman in Congress.
3. Laura Ingraham — A best-selling conservative author, editor-in-chief of LifeZette, and host of the "Laura Ingraham Show," as well as the guest host for Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" and a contributor on ABC News' "This Week."
4. Nikki Haley — The current governor of South Carolina who delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union message in January, Haley was born Nimrata Nikki Randhawa to a family of Indian Sikh immigrants and was elected governor in 2010.
5. Kelly Ayotte — The junior senator from New Hampshire, Ayotte was elected in 2010 and holds a doctorate of law from Villanova University.
6. Mary Fallin — Now the governor of Oklahoma, Fallin previously served as the state's lieutenant governor and also put in two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.
7. Peggy Noonan — The leading conservative author and conservative columnist for The Wall Street Journal is a member of the Manhattan Institute's Board of Trustees and a television commentator. Served as primary speechwriter and special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.
8. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen — The most senior U.S. representative from Florida is the first Cuban-American and the first Latina elected to Congress. Also served as the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee from 2011 to 2013.
9. Ana Navarro — A native of Nicaragua, Navarro is a leading Republican strategist who served as co-chair of Sen. John McCain's Hispanic Advisory Council and as Gov. Jeb Bush's Director of Immigration Policy. Also a political contributor on CNN.
10. Nancy Brinker — A New York Times best-selling author, Brinker serves as the chair of global strategy for Susan G. Komen, the breast cancer organization named for her sister, who was just 36 when she died of the disease in 1980. Worked in the George W. Bush administration as Chief of Protocol of the United States from 2007 to 2009, the same year she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
11. Jan Brewer — The former governor of Arizona is an outspoken conservative who has supported strong border protection and voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. Author of the best-selling book, "Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America's Border."
12. Marsha Blackburn — Represents Tennessee's 7th congressional district since her election in 2002.
13. Joni Ernst — A junior senator from Iowa, Ernst is a retired lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard and served in the Iowa state Senate from 2011 to 2014, when she was elected to the U.S. Senate.
14. Carly Fiorina — The former candidate for the Republican nomination for president and former CEO of Hewlett-Packard was the first female to lead a top 20 company. Author of the autobiography, "Tough Choices," as well as a former on-air contributor for Fox Business Network. Ted Cruz also briefly named Fiorina his vice presidential running mate before the Texas senator suspended his campaign.
15. Mary Matalin — A leading Republican political strategist, Matalin worked with President Ronald Reagan and served as campaign director for President George H.W. Bush. Also hosted CNN's "Crossfire" and her own talk radio show, "The Mary Matalin Show."
16. Mia Love — The congresswoman from Utah is the first Haitian-American and first black female Republican in Congress and the former mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah. Elected to the House in 2014.
17. Susana Martinez — The current governor of New Mexico and chairwoman of the Republican Governors Association, Martinez is the first female governor of New Mexico and the first female Hispanic governor in the U.S.
18. Nicolle Wallace — A frequent guest host on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and one-time co-host of "The View," Wallace served in the George W. Bush administration as communications chief and went on to work as a senior adviser for the McCain-Palin campaign in 2008.
19. Cleta Mitchell — Attorney, former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, and a conservative activist, Mitchell served as legal counsel for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the NRA.
20. Katie Packer — Packer, Mitt Romney's former deputy campaign manager in 2012, is a veteran Republican strategist who founded Our Principles PAC, an anti-Trump super PAC "focused on conservative principles and ensuring that voters have the necessary information to make a wise decision on Election Day," she told Politico earlier this year.
21. Pam Bondi — A former prosecutor, Bondi now serves as one of Florida's most powerful elected officials — attorney general. Prior to her election, she appeared often on Fox News as a legal analyst.
22. Kathleen Shanahan — A prominent Florida businesswoman who found success in both business and politics, Shanahan served as chief of staff for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Vice President-elect Dick Cheney, and worked as a special assistant to then-Vice President George Bush and staff assistant on President Ronald Reagan's National Security Council. Currently serves as chairman and CEO of URETEK Holdings, Inc.
23. Callista Gingrich — The president of Gingrich Productions and wife of former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Callista Gingrich is a power player in her own right. Served as chief clerk of the House Committee on Agriculture from 1995 to 2007 and authored several New York Times' Best Seller children's books.
24. Ann Coulter — The outspoken conservative columnist, attorney, and author of 11 books — including several best-sellers — has served as a legal correspondent for MSNBC, as well as a guest commentator on many television shows, including "The O'Reilly Factor," "The Today Show," "Lou Dobbs Tonight," "The Sean Hannity Show," and a host of others.
25. Katrina Pierson — Once called a "feisty fighter for freedom" by Sarah Palin, Pierson is a Tea Party activist who serves as the national spokesperson for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
26. Susan Collins — The senator from Maine was first elected in 1996 and is the Senate's most senior Republican woman. Deep ties to Caribou, Maine, where her family runs a five-generation lumber business that was started in 1844.
27. Sarah Elizabeth "S.E." Cupp — A conservative political commentator and writer who was a panelist on CNN's "Crossfire," Cupp is the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity."
28. Liz Cheney — An attorney and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney is a Republican conservative activist and co-founder of Keep America Safe, which seeks to promote American military strength. Co-author, along with her father, of "Exceptional: Why The World Needs a Powerful America."
29. Cynthia Coffman — The current attorney general of Colorado first served as legal counsel to former Gov. Bill Owens.
30. Kim Guadagno — The first lieutenant governor of New Jersey (the state was one of the few that did not have one) also doubles as the N.J. secretary of state.
31. Jenean Hampton — The lieutenant governor of Kentucky is the first African-American to hold any statewide office there. A captain in the United States Air Force, she was deployed to Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
32. Kim Reynolds — A former state senator from Iowa, Reynolds now serves as the lieutenant governor of that state. Co-chairs and sits on many councils and boards, including the governor's Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Advisory Council; the Iowa Partnership for Economic Progress board; and the Military Children Education Coalition.
33. Evelyn Sanguinetti — The lieutenant governor of Illinois is the first Hispanic to be elected to that position and the first Hispanic female lieutenant governor in the country.
34. Kay Ivey — The one-time Alabama state treasurer is now the lieutenant governor of the Yellowhammer State.
35. Mary Taylor — The lieutenant governor of Ohio successfully climbed the ranks of state politics, from city council to Ohio General Assembly to state auditor.
36. Rebecca Kleefisch— This former TV newscaster is currently serving as the lieutenant governor of Wisconsin. Also the first person in that position to ever face and win a recount election in 2012.
37. Lisa Murkowski — The senior senator from Alaska has served in the Senate since 2002, winning office in 2010 as a write-in candidate.
38. Elise Stefanik — Became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress at age 30 in 2014. A U.S. representative from New York, Stefanik serves on the Armed Services and Education and the Workforce Committees. A Harvard graduate who also worked on the White House staff in the George W. Bush administration.
39. Condoleezza "Condi" Rice — The first black woman ever to serve as U.S. national security adviser and secretary of state, Rice also spoke before the Republican National Convention in 2000. Co-author of four books, including "Germany United and Europe Transformed." Also an accomplished golfer and pianist.
40. Marjorie Dannenfelser — The president and founder of the Susan B. Anthony List, which assists pro-life female candidates in running for office, also served as staff director of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.
41. Michelle Malkin — Conservative blogger, political commentator, and author, whose syndicated weekly column appears on a number of websites, Malkin is the founder of Twitchy.com and Hot Air. Boasts an enormous online presence with more than 950,000 Twitter followers and 1.7 million Facebook fans.
42. Christine Todd Whitman — New Jersey's first female governor went on to serve as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush. Author of "It's My Party, Too: Taking Back the Republican Party and Bringing the Country Together Again," and founder of the political action group IMP-PAC, which merged into the Republican Leadership Council's PAC. Currently runs the Whitman Strategy Group.
43. Deb Fischer — The senior senator from Nebraska was elected in 2012 and serves as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
44. Shelley Moore Capito — The senator from West Virginia served seven terms in the House before running for Senate and winning in 2014 as the first female senator in the Mountain State's history. Daughter of former Gov. Arch Moore.
45. Diane Black — The representative from Tennessee was first elected in 2010 and serves on the House Ways and Means and Budget Committees.
46. Erin Stewart — In 2013, at age 26, Stewart ousted Democrat Tim O'Brien in a contest for the mayorship of New Britain, Connecticut, and won a resounding re-election this past November. According to The Hartford Courant, "Republicans in the state are talking about Stewart as a possible candidate for governor in 2018, while Democrats at the Capitol wonder if she might take a run at U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty's seat this fall."
47. Michele Bachmann — A GOP presidential hopeful in the 2012 election, Bachmann represented Minnesota's 6th district in the U.S. House of Representatives and was a member of the Minnesota Senate. Founder of the House Tea Party Caucus.
48. Susan Brooks — The congresswoman from Indiana is the former deputy mayor of Indianapolis and former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, appointed by President George W. Bush.
49. Kay Granger — The congresswoman from Texas was the first Republican woman to represent her state in the U.S. House. First assumed office in 1997.
50. Leslie Rutledge — Before being elected the first Republican and first female attorney general of Arkansas in 2014, Rutledge founded and practiced law at her eponymous firm.
Here is that far-right wing global 1% neo-liberal pipeline in Maryland. Each state has these organizations built by Congressional pols bringing LOBBYIST money to states to assure global corporations have future candidates---FARM TEAM 5% PLAYERS. The reason women are being pushed hard today is that MOVING FORWARD far-right, authoritarian, militaristic extreme wealth extreme poverty is going to BE UGLY ----send in THE SIRENS when conditions are dire.
Here we have TOTALITARIAN MIKULSKI funding this pipeline of DEEP, REALLY REALLY DEEP STATE.
When Clinton/Obama neo-liberals are bringing back to our states all that global corporate lobbying money to assure future 5% players----how do we get REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES!
First, 99% of women voters KNOW these organizations tied to FAKE 'LABOR AND JUSTICE' 5% PLAYERS. If someone is tied to these organizations they are PLAYERS FOR GLOBAL 1% killing women's rights and freedoms.
About Emerge Maryland'
Our Mission: To increase the number of Democratic women leaders from diverse backgrounds in public office through recruitment, training, and providing a powerful network.
Our Vision: To change the face of power, politics, and leadership in this country in order to have policies that are responsive to all Americans.
Since our founding in 2012, we have trained 88 women to run for office. So far 28 women have run and we expect to have more than 30 alumnae to appear on ballots all across Maryland in 2018.
Emerge Maryland is changing the face of Maryland politics by identifying, training and encouraging women to run for office, get elected and to seek higher office. Our intensive, cohort-based six-month training program is unique. As the number of elected Democratic women remains flat or even declines, the need for our work is growing.
In the 225 years since its statehood, Maryland has elected a total of 8 women to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1 woman to the U.S. Senate, and no woman has ever served as Governor of Maryland. Currently, about 31% of Maryland State legislators are women.
A pool of highly qualified Democratic candidates is being left untapped. Too often, women do not see themselves running for office—they assume they aren’t experienced enough or they don’t know where to begin. Emerge Maryland is changing that!
It is no secret that the expansion of equal protection in government for women, labor, people of color, disabled came with those population groups filling the Federal, state, and local government positions.......who started PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS to end all public sector agencies? CLINTON GLOBAL 1% NEO-LIBERAL IN 1990S. So , as white men lost big in labor union busting and US industries being sent overseas----so too were those public sector jobs hiring a majority of women.
BUSH/OBAMA have super-sized privatization of all that is public as far-right wing extreme wealth global corporate power.
Women and black workers had nothing to do with US corporations moving overseas---that was MOVING FORWARD EMPIRE-BUILDING so white men must stop thinking each population group must FIGHT FOR ITSELF-----come together to build REAL FREE MARKET SMALL BUSINESS, LOCAL ECONOMIES and there will be plenty of jobs for men, women, immigrants ---black, white, and brown 99% of citizens
While 5% freemason/Greeks are going GAGA FOR EMPIRE-BUILDING global markets they are killing the very public structures that give 99% of US citizens voice, power, and economic stability---they don't care=====WE DO.
The public-sector jobs crisis
Women and African Americans hit hardest by job losses in state and local governments
Report • By David Cooper, Mary Gable, and Algernon Austin • May 2, 2012
Briefing Paper #339Download PDF
The Great Recession created tremendous hardship for millions of Americans. One aspect of this recession and its aftermath has been particularly damaging for women and African Americans: the decision by many state and local governments to respond to diminished revenues and budget shortfalls by cutting public-sector jobs. Because women and African Americans have historically been overrepresented in public-sector employment, they have been disproportionately affected by state and local government budget cuts. Since the official end of the recession in June 2009, the private sector has slowly recovered some of the jobs it lost during the downturn, while the public sector has continued shedding jobs at a rapid rate. Indeed, in 2011 state and local governments experienced their worst job decline on record. Without a change of course in state and local governments’ budget decisions, women and African Americans stand to suffer disproportionately from continued cuts in the public sector.
This briefing paper begins by providing background on the public sector’s commitment to equal opportunity and affirmative action in employment, and then explores the degree to which women and African Americans are overrepresented in state and local government jobs. It next turns to a discussion of how state and local public-sector workers have significantly higher levels of education than their private-sector peers, yet are consistently underpaid relative to similar private-sector workers. Then, it compares racial- and gender-based wage disparities in the state and local public sectors and the private sector. The briefing paper next explains the disproportionate impact of state and local public-sector job cuts on women and African Americans, and concludes by contrasting the private sector’s slow jobs recovery with continued employment declines in the public sector.
Key findings include:
- Historically, the state and local public sectors have provided more equitable opportunities for women and people of color. As a result, women and African Americans constitute a disproportionately large share of the state and local public-sector workforce.
- Overall, the wage gap across genders is similar in the state and local public sectors and in the private sector. However, it is smaller for highly educated women employed in state and local government.
- State and local public-sector workers of color face smaller wage disparities across racial lines, and at some levels of education actually enjoy a wage premium over similarly educated white workers.
- The disproportionate share of women and African Americans working in state and local government has translated into higher rates of job loss for both groups in these sectors. Between 2007 (before the recession) and 2011, state and local governments shed about 765,000 jobs. Women and African Americans comprised about 70 percent and 20 percent, respectively, of those losses. Conversely, Hispanic employment in state and local public-sector jobs increased during this period (although most of that increase likely occurred in the lowest-paid jobs).
- Job losses in the state and local public sectors stand in contrast to the jobs recovery in the private sector. From February 2010 (the month the labor market “bottomed out”) to January 2012, the United States experienced a net increase in total nonfarm employment of more than 3.2 million jobs, while state and local government employment fell by 438,000. Over this period, every major sector of the economy experienced net growth in jobs except the public sector.
The public sector’s commitment to equal opportunity and affirmative actionIn the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government, through a combination of executive orders and legislation, prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex and race in employment and the payment of wages. Studies of the hiring practices and wages of the state and local public sectors have shown the effectiveness of anti-discrimination policies, especially in contrast to the private sector. Since the creation of equal opportunity and affirmative action programs, women and African Americans have seen greater employment opportunities in the economy as a whole, but particularly in the public sector (Crosby 2004). Though discrimination in the public sector likely still exists, government remains a model of how to achieve greater equality in employment and workplace diversity.
While some would argue that the United States’ labor market today is largely free of prejudice and discrimination, a substantial and growing body of research suggests that gender- and race-based prejudices continue to afflict the U.S. workforce.
These prejudices often take the form of wage disparities. Today, women earn only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts, and the situation is worse for African American and Hispanic women, who earn only 62 cents and 54 cents, respectively, for every dollar paid to their non-Hispanic white male counterparts (National Women’s Law Center 2012). Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continues to win settlements against employers in race discrimination cases based on compensation disparities.
Research buttresses this evidence of wage discrimination with findings of significant race- and gender-based discrimination in hiring. For example, Harvard University researchers found that résumés with “white-sounding” names such as “Emily” are 50 percent more likely to elicit interviews than equivalent résumés with “black-sounding” names such as “Lakisha” (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). In addition, a multi-year, national study on race and sex discrimination in large and midsized private businesses found that intentional discrimination exists in every region of the country and in each of nine occupational categories, and it “is so pervasive that affirmative action programs continue to be necessary” (Blumrosen and Blumrosen 2002). Even as recently as this year, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that FedEx engaged in discrimination against 21,000 applicants in 15 states (U.S. Department of Labor 2012). In short, although the American ideal may be to judge individuals by the content of their character, we have not yet guaranteed equal opportunity in all cases.
Today, every job in state and local government is subject to federal regulations concerning equal opportunity (Dale 2005), and many state and local governments require affirmative action plans beyond federal equal opportunity requirements. When compared with the private sector, the state and local public sectors have gone to greater lengths to enact affirmative action policies. However, many of the affirmative action programs implemented by state and local governments have met opposition from state legislatures and governors proposing to ban such laws.
In the private sector, affirmative action laws and regulations are comparatively few. Federal law requires only two types of private-sector employers to implement affirmative action plans: those that have federal contracts or subcontracts in excess of $50,000 and that also have at least 50 employees, and those with 15 or more employees that have faced a judicial finding of discrimination.
Tallying the number of public- and private-sector jobs subject to monitoring requirements and set-aside programs, about one in four American workers hold jobs covered by mandatory federal affirmative action programs (U.S. Department of Labor 2002).
Despite the persistence of discrimination in state and local government, affirmative action and equal opportunity policies have transformed the public sector, relative to the private sector, into increasingly hospitable employers of women and African Americans. Fifty years of efforts to redress past discrimination have proven their effectiveness in greater numbers of women and African Americans entering state and local government. As a result, public-sector jobs at the state and local levels remain critical to their livelihoods.
The importance of the state and local public sectors to women and African Americans
Even the private sector having the most job categories filled by women are disappearing. Global 1% and Clinton neo-liberals have maintained their control through the never-ending FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development overseas---now coming to US Foreign Economic Zones and our US 99% of men being in that global labor pool. Throughout these few decades the DEVELOPMENT WING OF ECONOMIC GROWTH is where our 99% of white, brown, and black men have been pushed. Women losing health care ---teaching-----retail-----a 5% of women being placed into media, politics, and global corporate executive positions.
IF MOVING FORWARD US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES CONTINUE IN AFRICA AND US-----THEY WILL HAVE FINISHED GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS BUILDING IN ONLY A FEW DECADES---WHAT THEN GLOBAL LABOR POOL 99% OF MEN BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN MEN.
See the FREE ENTERPRISE under jobs? What was a thriving free market economy last century filled with local, regional, and national businesses was taken crony and monopoly -----all 99% of population groups would be working and strong men and women if we stop MOVING FORWARD and build real free market US economies.
She The People
Women losing retail, government jobs as men get back to work in construction
By Joann Weiner February 9, 2014
On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the American economy added 113,000 jobs and the unemployment rate had fallen to 6.6 percent.
While this sounds like good news, initial analysis interpreted the data otherwise. The jobs news was bad because the increase was much lower than expected, while the unemployment news was bad because it doesn’t capture the underlying changes in the nature of unemployment.
What’s really going on in the job market, especially the job market for women?
Well, as usual with economic data, especially data related to jobs, there are two sides to every data point.
Take the unemployment data first. After peaking at 10 percent in October 2009, the unemployment rate has fallen rather steadily to 6.6 percent in January, putting it at its lowest rate since October 2008. The unemployment rate for women shows a similar trend. It peaked at 9.0 percent in November 2010 and has now fallen to 6.4 percent.
However, the unemployment rate can be pretty misleading in a weak economy for one key reason — a person who doesn’t have a job is considered unemployed only if that person is still looking for a job.
The unemployment rate doesn’t reflect “discouraged workers” — people who want a job and are available to work and have actually looked for work in the past year, but who have given up looking in the past month because they don’t think any jobs are available or they don’t qualify for the ones that are. Because they’re no longer “actively seeking work,” they’re no longer considered out of work even though they aren’t working. And they’re no longer in the labor force because they’re no longer considered unemployed.
Taking into account all of the people who aren’t working changes the picture. Economist Heidi Shierholz at the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the unemployment rate would be 9.9 percent instead of 6.6 percent if what she calls “missing workers” were included in the official unemployment rate.
Furthermore, what you see in the jobs picture depends upon where you stand. If you’re a woman, the news in January was pretty grim. Yes, the economy did create 113,000 jobs last month. But, all of those gains and more went to men, who added 164,000 jobs. Taking the men out of the picture shows that women actually lost 51,000 jobs in January, according to calculations from the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC).
As Joan Entmacher, vice president for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center, said in a news release, “Today’s jobs figures are especially worrisome for women who lost 51,000 net jobs in January, including 30,000 public sector jobs.”
Now, the question is, why are women doing so poorly in the job market? Women are losing jobs for three main reasons.
First, the government workforce is shrinking.
The government had 30,000 fewer workers in January than in December. This was particularly devastating news for women. Even though women make up only about half of government workers, they accounted for the entire decline in government employment in January.
The NWLC paints a very bleak picture for women working in public service. The fact that the government workforce is shrinking is well known, with more than 17,000 federal workers deciding to retire in January.
What’s less well known, however, is that women are bearing the full brunt of the overall trend towards a smaller public sector. According to the NWLC, women account for not just January’s job losses but for all of the 51,000 total public sector job losses in the past four months.
Whereas some might see the reduction in government jobs as an overdue shrinking of the public sector, women are also facing troubling job losses in the private sector. This development is the second reason why women aren’t doing so well in the job market. Women tend work in areas — retail is one of these — where the private sector is scaling back.
For example, women lost about 5,000 jobs in the retail trade sector in January, which is the second largest private employer for women, according to official government data. About 7.7 million women work in retail stores like Target, Sam’s Club, Best Buy, Sears, J.C. Penney and Nordstrom. These retailers have all cut back over the past few months.
If you’re thinking that retail stores always cut back on their workforce in January following the Christmas shopping season, think again. In seven of the past 10 years — including the immediately preceding four — more people were working in retail stores in January than in December. It’s 2014 that’s the aberration with its reduced retail workforce following the holidays.
Third, women aren’t reaping big gains in the areas where jobs are growing.
With 48,000 jobs added in December, it’s good news that the construction sector is finally showing long overdue signs of a turnaround. But it’s not such good news for women, who got just 3,000 of those jobs. Moreover, since women account for just one out of eight construction workers, growth in this area isn’t a major growth area for women.
It’s also good news that manufacturing employment expanded — for men. For women, there were actually 1,000 fewer women working in manufacturing in January than in December. Employment in professional and business services tells the same story. While men gained 50,000 jobs in this area last month, women lost 14,000 jobs here at the same time
The jobs news isn’t all bad. Despite the weak employment growth and the loss of jobs in many areas, keep in mind that the unemployment rate fell in January.
Hmmm. There doesn’t seem to be much cheering about that news. I’m not surprised.
After all, if job losses increase as the unemployment rate falls, why should we cheer?
AEGON UK and TRANSAMERICA are two global investment corporations tied to the looting of Western nations' assets and wealth---including our 99% of women tied heavily to these retirement structures. Look who is writing this global 1% review of the condition of 99% of women-----a WOMAN ECONOMIST writing for Washington Post saying women did not SAVE ENOUGH.
Joann Weiner teaches economics at George Washington University. She has written for Bloomberg, Politics Daily, and Tax Analysts and worked as an economist at the U.S. Treasury Department.
We know we will not read any public policy that is good for 99% of women from here
She The People
Women hope for a leisurely retirement, but many fear financial stress or even poverty
By Joann Weiner December 8, 2014
Most women expect a leisurely retirement, but many fear poverty (Source: Washington Post)
Retirement is supposed to be a time for relaxation, to spend time with family and friends, to take up gardening or volunteering, and generally to be free from financial worries.
Yet, for a substantial number of women, the thought of retirement calls up negative feelings. Will they have enough money when they retire, or worse, will they live out their golden years in poverty?
These dismal findings are particularly severe for women around the world. When asked what words they associate with retirement, nearly one in five women said “poverty” and one in four said “insecurity.”
American women aren’t immune from these fears. About one in 10 American women fears that poverty will define retirement while one in seven says that retirement will be associated with insecurity.
Those conclusions come from a survey of more than 16,000 people in 15 countries conducted by Aegon UK and the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies and reported by Plansponsor. Women made up half of those surveyed, and more than half of these women had at least an undergraduate college degree, 62 percent were married or cohabitating, and 65 percent worked full time. The countries include Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States. Details are available in “The Changing Face of Retirement. Women: Balancing family, career and financial security” available on the Aegon Web site.
Not having enough money can cause financial stress throughout life, of course. And one reason that financial stress may be a feature of retirement is that women aren’t putting enough money away to fund their retirement.
Worldwide, just one of every five women thinks she’s saving enough to have a financially secure retirement, and two of every five women have no idea whether they’re on course to retire in financial security.
The situation isn’t much better in the United States. Among American women, just 15 percent say they’re putting enough money aside, while 22 percent say they’re hardly saving at all for their retirement.
A not insignificant share of women isn’t even interested in saving for retirement. In terms of how they approach the need to save, fully 8 percent of women say they have never saved and never intend to save for retirement.
Not having enough money in retirement is a big problem, especially since a 65-year-old American woman is likely to live another 21 years and will need a pretty big nest egg to meet her retirement needs. Yet, only one of every four women thinks she’ll have enough income during her retirement to meet those needs.
Most retired American women won’t end up in poverty, of course, yet it’s eye-opening that such a large share of women fears financial insecurity or poverty in their retirement years.
Why is that? Well, beyond the fact that many people aren’t saving enough, a big part of the problem is that people don’t know how to figure out how much money they’ll need in retirement. If they can’t figure out how much they’ll need, then it’s hard to put aside enough money to meet those needs.
To illustrate the problem that not having any savings can create for tomorrow’s retirees, I used a calculator from Kiplinger’s business magazine to figure out how much a person who plans to retire in 20 years would need to start saving to have a comfortable retirement. Specifically, I assumed that I wanted to replace 65 percent of a $50,000 income (that’s roughly a household’s median income) during a retirement that would last 20 years and made the extreme assumption that I had no other savings, had no pension, and wouldn’t receive any Social Security benefits.
Under this scenario, I would need to save about $1,500 each month to reach my goal. Unfortunately, if I’ve only decided to start saving just 20 years before I plan to retire, with my $50,000 income, I may not be able to afford to put aside $1,500 a month to fund my retirement.
There are a couple of things that would make it easier to save for retirement. Both of them operate through the employer.
First, since a lot of retirement savings occurs on the job through employer-sponsored plans, employers could make retirement benefits, including matching contributions to a 401(k) plan, available to all employees, not just to those who work full time. This would be a simple way to help all employees start building a nest egg and would specifically benefit women, who are more likely than men to work part time.
Second, since defined contribution plans have largely replaced traditional defined benefit pension plans, meaning that employees are now responsible for making contributions to their retirement plans, employers could make it easy for employees to start saving by automatically enrolling them in retirement saving plans.
Requiring employees to “opt out” rather than to “opt in” to retirement savings plans would act like a forced saving plan and overcome the inertia that stops people from putting money away into a savings account.
This is a good idea, and it’s supported by research. A recent government report found that providing automatic IRAs could both expand retirement coverage and increase retirement benefits for all households. (Some 401(k) and SIMPLE IRA plans already have automatic enrollment.)
The rather broad-based support for automatically enrolling people in savings plans is based on a concept developed a few years ago by researchers at the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution. President Obama has included a provision to provide for “Automatic IRAs” in each of his budgets. Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) has introduced legislation that would provide similar benefits.
These are good ideas. But women shouldn’t wait for their employers or for Congress to act to avoid a retirement that could sink them into financial insecurity or poverty. Women need to think long and hard now about how to make sure they have enough money during their retirement years. They should take advantage of the benefits that their employers offer and start contributing to their 401(k) plan. And, if such options aren’t available, they should set up their own tax-deferred savings accounts. There’s no reason for so many women to fear that retirement is a life of poverty rather than the life of relaxation that they have earned.