No More Women’s Unhealthy Healthcare

I want to write an original post for the Women’s Day of Action on Health Care Reform, but I have to work on my book and get ready for tonight's Body Politic program at The Tank (hope to see you there--doesn't last night's election news tell you we need to redouble our work? President Obama, are you paying attention? You need to get out there and make the change we said we needed, not allow yourself to get coopted by big insurance, big pharma, and big financial dudes--but that's another post I want to write and don't have time to do today).
Special thanks to Lucinda Marshall over at Feminist Peace Network for allowing me to share this excellent post, to which I can only say "what she said."

Health insurance provider Humana’s recent announcement of a 65% increase in their 3rd quarter earnings really got my attention because last week I participated in a health care reform rally at their corporate headquarters in Louisville, KY.  After an outdoor gathering attended by 150 or so people, many

Click to read more ...

At the UN, Criminalizing Rape as a Weapon

By Bia Assevero, a dual French-American citizen and a graduate of the American University of Paris with degrees in international politics and international communications. A Women's Media Center exclusive, reprinted here  with permission of the WMC In the last week of October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made headlines and sparked anger in travels to Israel and Pakistan. Her role some weeks earlier was less controversial yet critically important, as she led UN diplomats forward in an action that could ease the suffering of countless women and girls living in conflict zones around the world. November 3, 2009 Last year, the United Nations classified the deliberate use of rape as a tactic of war and a major threat to international security. On September 30, 2009, the Security Council went one step further. Secretary Clinton at the UN Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chaired the session as the Security Council unanimously adopted a U.S. sponsored resolution (S/Res/1888) that called for the appointment of a special envoy charged with coordinating the efforts to combat the use of rape as a weapon of war and assist governments in ending impunity for the perpetrators. Having met with women who survived rape and violence in her recent visit to the Congo, Clinton said in remarks to the council, “The dehumanizing nature of sexual violence doesn’t just harm a single individual or a single family or even a single village or a single group. It shreds the fabric that weaves us together as human beings.” Violence against women and young girls in conflict zones is not a new phenomenon. In the Rwanda genocide of 1994, up to half a million women suffered sexual violence. Sixty thousand women were victimized during the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s and a further 60,000 plus in Sierra Leone from 1991 to 2001. Today, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the calculated use of violence against women and girls claims an average of 36 women and girls a day. The numbers are staggering, and it is too easy for those of us far removed from the horrors to forget that these women are mothers, daughters and sisters who laugh and cry, rejoice and mourn just like the rest of us. Resolution 1888 is a significant step towards meeting what the Security Council acknowledges as the UN’s special obligation to protect women and children who are “war’s most vulnerable and violated victims.” It is designed to create the legal framework, both nationally and internationally, to ensure that those responsible for war related sexual violence are prosecuted and punished. Conflict zones are by definition politically unstable. If, as was the case in Guinea recently, those in political power are responsible for the atrocities, holding them responsible is complicated to say the least. This makes the legal framework outlined in the resolution even more critical. Given these considerations, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon must appoint a special envoy with not only a comprehensive understanding of the challenges but also the courage of her or his convictions. “It is time for all of us to assume our responsibility to go beyond condemning this behavior to taking concrete steps to end it, to make it socially unacceptable, to recognize it is not cultural, it is criminal,” Secretary Clinton told the council. “We must act now to end this crisis.” The issues will not be resolved overnight. Progress will undoubtedly be measured incrementally over months, years or even decades. But the international community, starting with whomever is appointed as special envoy, must never lose sight of the ultimate objective. We are not merely dealing with statistics and legalities. We are dealing in the reality of human lives—lives that are lost or traumatized by brutal violence. It is unacceptable that a large majority of the criminals who commit these acts escape unscathed. The women who suffer at their hands are left to survive through sheer force of will and human resilience. If resolution 1888 is successfully implemented, it will open a door for these women. It will solidify their resolve and offer hope for a life that is free from fear and free from violence. That’s a life that every single one of them deserves.

What is Feminism?

Check out my interview with Ted Simons, host of KAET-TV Horizon news show. We covered a wide range of questions on this topic. I'd love to know how you'd answer them. I posted this on Heartfeldt because we inevitably talked politics quite a bit.

Obama's Nobel: Premature Adulation

As thrilled as I am that the world has such a positive view of Obama, for him to be given the Nobel Peace Prize at this stage of this presidency is premature adulation.

I was at my computer frantically trying to finish a book chapter in the wee hours this morning when I noticed a tweet saying Obama had won the Nobel. I thought it was one of those Twitter rumors that spread like wildfire, but it piqued my interest enough that I clicked BBC, CNN, and AP until I was convinced this was no hoax.

My first reaction was a feeling in the pit of my stomach that winning this global prize so soon on his presidency would be a political loss at home. It’s not going to help him pass health care, and there’s going to be a lot of skepticism—not just from the right--about whether he’s earned such an honor yet. Because he hasn’t, really.

And I hope there is never a hint that any kind of campaign was waged for him to receive the prize, for that would devastate his standing and sully the honor.

No matter about any of that, I still see a hugely important message to America in this award. It starts with "Thank you."  The same “breathing out” moment many of us had when Obama won the election reverberated around the globe, and it was as much about what a bad leader George Bush was on the world stage as how good Obama might be. So the promise of Obama is almost as important as the performance.

When you are taking on a leadership position, it’s always wise to follow someone who has made a big mess, as Bush did so egregiously, with world opinion. But Obama as leader of the free world is not just a breath of fresh air, he’s also a global citizen who respects and walks easily in multiple cultures. The un-Bush. The beautiful American with the winning smile. Our standing in the world has skyrocketed since Obama’s election. We're the 900 pound gorilla, and voters need to need to realize how important a message it is to the rest of the world that we elected a president who believes in talking before pulling the trigger.

So I’m happy about all this. But still, it would be better for Obama’s standing in the U.S. for him to have received it a few years hence.

Daylight Lessons from Letterman’s Late Night Escapades

Guest post By Ellen Bravo, originally published as a Women's Media Center exclusive.

The author, an expert on the prevention of sexual harassment and other issues of women in the workforce, suggests that human resources professionals and corporate executives take the occasion of David Letterman’s revelations to revisit their companies’ policies with the understanding that “sexual favoritism is sexual harassment.” I'm posting her commentary here because I think it is one of the best and most realistic about 21st century sexual mores for the workplace that I've read on the Letterman affair(s). Your thoughts? Read on...

I don’t know David Letterman or any of the staffers he had sex with.

I believe fidelity is the business of only one person, the philanderer’s partner.

Extortionists aren’t whistle-blowers—they’re criminals, and should be put away.

But whenever I hear the justification, “I didn’t violate company policy and no one complained,” my hackles jump up.

Let’s talk about why it’s bad business for the boss to sleep with subordinates.

The key part of consent is that the right to say “yes” is balanced by the right to say “no.” When the person doing the asking is the boss, declining becomes dicey.

Even if there’s no threat or demand involved, how do you know there won’t be repercussions for refusing to go along?

If there’s a problem, whom do you tell? Especially when company policy is silent on the matter,

Click to read more ...