You don’t have to take my word for it – and it sure fits with the “you don’t want to ruin a cute, promising white guy’s life” rape culture cases, in my opinion.
The link to coverage of the UN Delegation is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/foreign-women-assess-us-gender-equality_us_566ef77de4b0e292150e92f0
One of my favorite quotes from many in the coverage of the delegation’s review states:
The delegates were appalled by the lack of gender equality in America. They found the U.S. to be lagging far behind international human rights standards in a number of areas, including its 23 percent gender pay gap, maternity leave, affordable child care and the treatment of female migrants in detention centers.
The most telling moment of the trip, the women told reporters on Friday, was when they visited an abortion clinic in Alabama and experienced the hostile political climate around women’s reproductive rights.
“We were harassed. There were two vigilante men waiting to insult us,” said Frances Raday, the delegate from the U.K. The men repeatedly shouted, “You’re murdering children!” at them as soon as they neared the clinic, even though Raday said they are clearly past childbearing age.
“It’s a kind of terrorism,” added Eleonora Zielinska, the delegate from Poland. “To us, it was shocking.”
In most European countries, she explained, abortions are performed at general doctors’ offices and hospitals that offer all kinds of other health services, so there aren’t protesters waiting to heckle the women who enter.
The women discovered during their visit that women in the United States have “missing rights” compared to the rest of the world. For instance, the U.S. is one of three countries in the world that does not guarantee women paid maternity leave, according to the U.N. International Labour Organization. The U.N. suggests that countries guarantee at least 14 weeks of paid parental leave. Some countries go further — Iceland requires five months paid leave for each parent, and an additional two months to be shared between them.
“The lack of accommodation in the workplace to women’s pregnancy, birth and post-natal needs is shocking,” Raday said. “Unthinkable in any society, and certainly one of the richest societies in the world.”
Christopher says
“In most European countries, she explained, abortions are performed at general doctors’ offices and hospitals that offer all kinds of other health services, so there aren’t protesters waiting to heckle the women who enter.”
I’ve suggested this for awhile, but keep getting told (maybe at Daily Kos rather than here) that we couldn’t possibly just do this at every and any hospital because then all such facilities would be targeted for harassment.
I would urge just a bit of caution about UN findings. I think it is instructive how we compare to the rest of the world, but I also sometimes feel that other countries just like to mess with us too. There have been times where the likes of China and Syria have been on the UN Human Rights Commission which to me makes a mockery of the concept.
SomervilleTom says
This must be Hillary Clinton’s fault. We mustn’t do anything about this, because to do so will hurt white working-class men.
/Sarcasm off
It is shameful and a national embarrassment. Just like the fact that a flagrant misogynist is our GOP nominee and is supported by more than a handful of Americans despite his bigotry against women.
You must be careful about all this, though, amberpaw — you’re threatening the current “progressive” dogma advocated by some. How dare you “play the gender card” during a presidential campaign. America isn’t sexist. The intensity of our hostility towards Hillary Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with sexism, just like our complaining about the recent passage of the equal pay law here In MA has nothing to do with sexism.
I’m glad you posted this, and I enthusiastically encourage you to continue reminding us of how deep sexism courses through our body politic — whether or not some of us admit it.
Peter Porcupine says
…that the Obama administration chose to do nothing about this, especially when they had a House and Senate with majority of Democrats.
/sarcasm off?
And don’t hospitals DO abortions? I thought the clinics were an alternative – although come to think of it, PP doesn’t actually do many abortions, according to them. Where ARE most abortions performed?
jas says
some hospitals do abortions but not all. They also tend to do late second trimester abortion or those in which there are higher risks for complications. Abortions in hospitals are significantly more expensive than in clinic.
As to Planned Parenthood – it is not that they do not do many abortions – abortions are one of the most common surgical procedures for women and most abortions are done in clinics and many in PP clinics. But most of what PP does is not abortions. The vast majority of what they do are visits for family planning and contraception, STI testing and treatment, well woman visits (including gyn exams, breast exams, pap smears. In some places in the country were there are less medical options than in MA PP will do prenatal care, menopause care and even some primary care. So some might conflate the information that most o what PP does is not abortion with the idea that they do not do many abortions.
Finally – the number of abortions has been dropping – particularly among teens who are experiencing fewer unplanned pregnancies.
SomervilleTom says
What a pity that someone who claims to care about women and feminism squanders so much energy supporting the GOP war against women.
I invite you to review the issues enumerated in the thread-starter:
– 23 percent gender pay gap
– maternity leave
– affordable child care
– treatment of female migrants in detention centers.
I now invite you to review the history of the GOP and the Democratic Party — nationally and here in Massachusetts — going as far back as you like, and gather information about which of those two parties has supported and which has resisted initiatives for each of those.
You take a cheap-shot at Barack Obama, while ignoring the policies of George W. Bush, George H. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and for that matter Richard Nixon.
You have chosen to remain affiliated with the Massachusetts GOP. What has your party done, nationally or locally, to advance any of these issues?
I grant you, by the way, that it is shameful and disgusting that it took so long to pass our local equal pay legislation. Still, we did it.
What has the been contribution of your chosen team towards the four issues cited in the thread-starter?
AmberPaw says
Not to mention the highest rate of child poverty in the industrialized world because the USA is pro greed and anti woman, anti pregnancy support, anti family – and all about profit for the billionaire class. Its not just abortion y’all – it is ZERO paid maternity leave, ZERO respect for pregnancy and child rearing. Did you know in some countries there is a guaranteed average income for stay at home parents ! IMAGINE THAT. Respect for parenthood AND for the needs of pregnant, nursing, and child raising parents INCLUDING women.
johntmay says
When our presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket denigrates child rearing and running a household as baking cookies and having teas, we’ve got lot to do in order to sway her opinion that stay-at-home moms are deadbeats.
Christopher says
…that you were a Dittohead when that comment was actually made:(
johntmay says
I objected to it then and I still do today (the baking cookies) and while I would have applauded the “deadbeat” comment back then when I agreed with her assessment that the poor are to be shamed, I no longer hold that belief.
Christopher says
Any comment suggesting that has been taken out of context, obvious when you consider her career and record. The complaints about the cookies and teas comment came from folks on the right who objected to her “audacity” to have her own profession (and even at first keep her maiden name), and should never be repeated by someone who claims to be on the left.
johntmay says
What did she mean when she described women on welfare as deadbeats? is there a definition of deadbeats that I have missed?
Christopher says
The Salon article you linked above (a largely anti-Hillary site during the primaries, for the record) takes a couple of phrases that might make one cringe. However, I don’t see any problem with encouraging a move off of welfare, which as her husband often said should be a second chance, not a way of life. Lots of people given the choice would prefer a paycheck.
johntmay says
Money Is Not The Best Motivator
How Motivation is Driven by Purpose – and not Monetary Incentives
A low paying job without benefits and any real chance of advancement is not a solution. It just sweeps the problem under the rug.
jotaemei says
There were some passages in one of her books about children finally having pride in their mothers once those mothers were collecting checks (at the poverty level) rather than receiving money to survive from the government.
Either that passage or another one she removed from a reprint after the truth has come out about how many lives the Clintons’ helped destroy (with the aid of Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan and their ilk) in “Ending Welfare as we knew it.”
SomervilleTom says
I’m not sure I understand your comments and downrates here.
You remind us that Ms. Clinton was referring to fathers who weren’t paying child support. As a father who paid child support for twenty years, I wonder what else you call a man who fathers children and then walks away from them. The courts have processes for handling situations where a father is out of work or where the father’s income is reduced. There really is no excuse to simply walk away. The phrase “deadbeat dad” strikes me as an appropriate characterization for the men Ms. Clinton was referring to.
What is your issue with that?
johntmay says
Clinton wrote that “too many of those on welfare had known nothing but dependency all their lives.” She suggested that women recipients were “sitting around the house doing nothing.” She described the “move from welfare to work” as “the transition from dependency to dignity.” Or a “substitute dignity for dependence.” Put more simply, she stated, “these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive.”
centralmassdad says
was you
SomervilleTom says
I responded to comment with the following subject:
“My understanding was that she was referring to the men who weren’t making paternity payments”
Tell it to jotaime.
I have no issue with Ms. Clinton’s view that welfare is intended to be a temporary support, while the recipient builds or rebuilds their life. Do you?
jotaemei says
Do you believe you saw me say I had a problem with calling fathers who don’t pay child support payments as “deadbeats”?
I’ve had the misfortune of having such irresponsible jackasses as roommates, and they frequently attempt to figure out a way to avoid paying their share of the rent and utilities too.
I just wanted to clarify whom I believed Clinton had been referring to.
Beyond that, I have lots of thoughts about calling people “deadbeats” while claiming to be a heroine of progressivism, which I didn’t care to get in.
The larger picture is that the Clintons have played no small roll in helping the Republicans destroy the social safety net that millions of people in poverty (particularly single mothers) have been able to survive through.
Absolute poverty (single mothers living on less than $2 a day) has exploded thanks to her husband’s “The era of big government is over!”, “We ended Welfare as we knew it,” and of which she praised (read: hoped to take partial credit for) in her books. This is absolutely disgusting.
AmberPaw says
I do wish you would not do this. Dilutes the discussion by making the thread unwieldy.
jconway says
In social democracies with less restrictive abortion policies than the US, their abortion rate and unplanned pregnancy rate is substantially lower. In many cases 20-30% lower. Also their infant mortality rate is substantially lower than ours. It’s not just that more women in the US feel they can’t afford to have a child or the disruption the 9 months causes and opt for abortions, it’s that poor women, particularly in communities of color, who choose to have children are far less likely to see those children live to adulthood because our prenatal care is so poor here. On the bottom of the industrialized world.
I might add, with a few exceptions (Mark Shea and Michael Sean Winters) you almost never see the issue of gun violence tackled from a pro-life perspective. Thousands of children are dying every year due to gun violence, hundreds of school aged children in Chicago alone. And we see locally a DCF system that has let children die and is now stretched to the breaking point with no relief in sight.
The right and left talk a good game about adoption as an alternative, but it’s substantially more difficult for willing parents in good homes to adopt children on the waiting list than it is to keep bad parents away from their kids. That’s really messed up especially in this state.
It’s also 8 x less likely a black child in MA foster care gets adopted. I’m proud of my brother and sister in law for putting up with an agonizing 5 year process with a false positive (custody was remanded to the bad mother, also a relative) and now two wonderful African American children I am proud to be an uncle to. But the hoops they had to jump through scare off all but the most committed and desperate to be parents.
Finland gives a year supply of diapers away in a free crib full of other duties, and both parents can take a year off with their new born. To me that is the small c Christian thing to do. I really wish our ‘Christian’ companies were adopting those issues and practicing what they preach with their own internal family leave and parental leave policies rather than telling their employees what medicine they can and can’t take.
johntmay says
We flunk on health care, worker’s rights, now this. Will it change after eight years of another Clinton presidency? Hard to think it would considering how it actually got worse during the last one. But we can hope. can’t we?
jotaemei says
will make this election look like a cakewalk. Hillary seems to just be getting warmed up, while Bill seems to believe that he’s made of Teflon.
AmberPaw says
This is about the fundamental, toxic sexism, materialism, and greed that are treated as if they are normal in the culture of the USA and total lack of support for parenting, families, or children.
johntmay says
if the next president and her agenda are off limits for discussion?
jotaemei says
I was going to say that too about how unfortunate it was that the conversation veered so quickly into a rehashing of the primary. This toxic element obviously started with Tom lashing out at people who didn’t support Hillary and bashing the hell out of his already beaten to a pulp straw man action figure.
SomervilleTom says
This is hilarious commentary coming from a self-described angry working class white man who posted a diary whining that the equal pay legislation might end the pay dominance he has been enjoying at the expense of working women around him, together with a sycophant who scatters his own sexist commentary throughout the thread.
I enthusiastically agree with this diarist’s comment: “This is about the fundamental, toxic sexism, materialism, and greed that are treated as if they are normal in the culture of the USA and total lack of support for parenting, families, or children.”
Bingo.
jotaemei says
to which you linked to my comment on a thread of another diary (which you’re obviously stilly fuming about), in which I called you out for cynically co-opting the struggle for Black Liberation in order to attack the author of the piece and accuse him of sexism.
Now, I don’t know if you’re really indeed that stupid to believe that what I wrote there to break these things down to you is sexist. TBH, I have a really hard time believing that you don’t understand what I wrote. I mean, you even addressed it then by telling me that I must not have understood you (I did) in this classic condescending Tomsplaining (which we all know this condescension of yours definitely wouldn’t stop when around women, and that you’d be one of the worst examples of a regular mainsplainer to them). And, you didn’t make any such accusation then that it was sexist.
So, let’s me honest here. You tried to smear me as sexist and linked to a comment I wrote calling you out in order to try to impress Amber that you’re a good ally and should get a good ally cookie.
If it weren’t obvious enough, after referring to me as a “sycophant,” you quoted Amber and tried to hide behind her after once again getting called out for being just a horrible person on here and always attacking others unnecessarily. The remark that I’m sycophantic is the icing on the cake. At this point in time, irony detection meters which you have sat on, have springs flying out of them.
SomervilleTom says
I can only respond to what you write, and I do so.
I stand by my characterizations.
jotaemei says
This is one of the most classic concessions of failure. (“I’m too lazy or unable to defend my argument, so I’ll just say that I know I was right and I’m still right.”)
SomervilleTom says
It is also one of the only ways to end an utterly unconstructive argument.
I get that you believe that my argument has failed. It joins the long and growing list of apparent beliefs that I do not share with you.
Christopher says
While we’re on the subject, what’s eating you? You’ve gotten rather generous with the downrates on this and another thread, particularly with me it seems.
jotaemei says
n/t
Christopher says
…but are you really telling me it’s just petty payback?
jotaemei says
No, Christopher. What my point was that…
1) Yes, there’s obviously some petty mutual aversion between us, and
2) The pot was calling the kettle black, and
3) Stop pretending that you do not engage in this nonsense. I probably cannot fill one hand with incidences of comments I’ve made in the past week that you didn’t downrate just for the hell of it. I mean, you downrated a comment where I voiced that I appreciated Ernie’s contributions here.
And, then there’s the fact that I uploaded a video of my support for Pat Jehlen, and you commented just to ask me if I knew that the video was flipped horizontally. So obnoxious.
AmberPaw says
And as to Hillary’s “agenda” in matters that are considered state law issues such as length of alimony, the federal government has no say. And it is the overall culture that tolerates zero paid maternity leave, putting education behind “no new taxes” on the state level. States are free to legislate paid maternity leaves, parental leave, rational “fair share” taxes without any presidential input. The USSCT won’t touch divorce laws, either. Nor state’s rights to determine issues like parental leave. The reality that in this rich state areas like Dorchester have child poverty rates of 42% is our shame, no federal issue. Read the coverage of why this country and THIS STATE flunked on gender equality.
jotaemei says
This is horrible apologia for the federal government not taking action. There’s blame to be spread locally in municipalities, in states, and nationally. And there are solutions to be launched as well at those 3 different levels.
The more this mentality persists that Hillary can’t do anything about this shameful reality because of reason x, y, or z, the longer it will be before her supporters wake up and stop attempting to shut down and decry those calling on her to be accountable and take action.
All of this played out with President Obama, and only now in his last year,so many have said that they’re disappointed, that they were let down by PBO, and that somehow Hillary Clinton will fix all the matters that Barack Obama couldn’t.
So much sophistry. Either we want to address these matters, or we don’t.
IMHO, it appears we’d rather not and make excuses for why we didn’t.
johntmay says
Yes indeed, excuses. My favorite being “the money HAS to come from somewhere”.
centralmassdad says
Whoever said that HRC can fix all these things? The entire point is that these are not necessarily fixable by a POTUS, who turns out not to be an emperor. The entire primary was about how President Sanders could, by some sort of fiat, take care of all of these things, notwithstanding a hostile Congress and GOP control of most states.
It seems to me that HRC supporters have always been realistic, even grimly so, about what a POTUS can accomplish and what she can’t, which probably explains why HRC supporters are not as enthusiastic as the supporters of either of her opponents, both of whose supporters seem to think of the POTUS as an absolute monarch that can rule by decree.
You want to federalize all of these state-controlled matters like alimony, education spending, divorce and the like? Great– but that takes many years of sustained political success at multiple levels of government, and cannot be accomplished by a flash-in-the-pan cult of personality campaign that is dormant in non-presidential years.
johntmay says
But a Democratic Party can IF they stop accepting the nonsense that taking money from Wall Street is not at the root of their impotency on these issues.
jotaemei says
Let’s start by emphasizing that the “these” in your sentence refers to the items that Obama could not fix. To reiterate, I quote myself
And the answer to your question is
1. Her husband
2. Lynn Forester de Rothschild
3. Michael Eric Dyson
4. All the people who copy their talking points, and I’m sure you can find quite a few wherever you see links to David Brock’s bluenewsreview.com being shared.
5. Republicans and hawkish Dems who believe that the solution to defeating terrorists is to wage more war in new countries and use more firepower in the countries where there are already plenty of bombs being dropped. The people who hold that Obama was “soft on terror,” and yes, many of them will be voting for Hillary and admire her greatly (ex. Henry Kissinger, John Negroponte, and all that PNAC ilk)
6. People like Tom who believe that Bill Clinton is one of the greatest presidents we’ve ever had, that Barack Obama was a complete disappointment, and that a golden age of riches will return to the USA once we put the Clintons back in the White House.
If you would like me to provide quotes and links to substantiate items 1-3, just let me know.
centralmassdad says
I don’t think that anyone, anywhere, has claimed that Hillary Clinton as president is going to somehow reform state alimony laws, divorce laws, or any of the other things that are purely state law issues.
You guys are like the opposite of what has always seemed like the usual liberal approach to voting.
I have always thought that liberals focus too much on policy details: “Well, I agree with candidate X on 11 of 20 issues, and Candidate Y on 18 of 20 issues; also I like this little detail about Candidate Y’s implementation plan, and so I am going with Y,” without ever considering how these things might be actually happen. And so they wind up debating how Jill Stein’s plan to transition through public option to single payor.
Conservatives go the other way: “I dont give a crap about how A’s plan would balance the budget; I like his values.”
You two treat everything like the conservative: you don’t give a fig about wonkish detail– for instance that neither the Congress nor the President has much to say at all about state employment laws or divorce/alimony laws. You know who you don’t like, and everything else be damned, because big money wall street blah blah blah.
Thus, all you have to say is “big money wall street goldman sachs blah blah blah” and behave as if it is some sort of drop-the-mic argument, even though you make no attempt to connect it with anything that has happened or is proposed.
Then, everyone here tries to reply with things like facts, and we wind up in a huge thread of crap.
I don’t much care if you and johntmay vote for Bernie, Hillary, Jill Stein, or Ben Stein, or Donald Trump. You don’t like Hillary, or apparently, any Democrat that has been in Congress or the White House since the 60s. Duly noted for the record.
I do care that this is a season when, for at least 12 years, the posts and commentary on this board are at their most interesting, but that, in 2016, they just aren’t, because the discussion here has gone full Fox News. Arguments are bumper stickers (Wall Street!),and context, whether historical or textual, is ignored if only one can score a bumper sticker point! Wall Street! And it must be repeated again and again and again, as if BMG is a lousy cable news network.
jotaemei says
My only question ATM is, after you wrote in your post’s title “I call BS,” did you have even the slightest intention to address what I wrote, or did you just figure, “You know what? Here would be a great place for me to deliver one of my boilerplate rants about progressives I hate?””
AmberPaw says
Again, I wish you would not do this. I do find it somewhat annoying as well as of no use.
jotaemei says
…it’s quite obvious that I’ve been responding to comments where tangential threads had already been created, and yet you’re only calling me out for contributing to them and no one else.
If you’d prefer to have a rule like “jotaemei may not contribute to the conversation in any way or form on my posts,” just specify it.
scott12mass says
The office of the President cannot arbitrarily fix things but the power of the office cannot be underestimated. When Pres Kennedy gave a speech and set the bar for going to the moon he established his case (through the media) and rallied the country to support an idea which benefited the country in many different ways.
I expect Pres Johnson to use the media to highlight problems in the country which will show the main problems have been exacerbated by partisan Dem, Repub bickering. The idea that both parties would rather not give the other party credit for something good has been hampering efforts to do what’s best for the country.
johntmay says
This state, this nation gets an “F” on so many issues and it’s not the fault of one person or party. If I had to direct fault to anything, it would be us, all of us who accept this as the only reality. We accept terms like “Global Economy” as if it was as natural as the leaves falling from the trees in October.
Christopher says
…but in a time when transportation can get people to the most distant point on earth from where they are in less than a day, and communication and money transfers occur instantaneously, a global economy pretty much IS as natural as leaves falling in October.
johntmay says
People use the term “global economy” to justify low wages for labor and an obscene level of wealth disparity. Hate to break is to you, but we do not have low wages and obscene wealth disparity because I can get stuff from far away in a matter of hours.
SomervilleTom says
A reason why manufacturing jobs have fled the US is because the resulting goods can be imported from various foreign sources in a matter of hours at far lower cost (in no small part because of our collective willingness to exploit desperately poor people everywhere).
I suggest that our ability to get stuff from far away in a matter of hours is a major driver of our low wages and obscene wealth disparity.
johntmay says
They are not “natural occurrences”. Our low wages and wealth disparity are by design.
jotaemei says
Quite difficult to imagine one aspect of globalization without having the other parts. Sad to say. 🙁
Wherever there is a model that can decouple them (European Union?), would be good to see it to believe it.
johntmay says
The wealthy class justifying the oppression of the labor class, it’s a justification for the race to the bottom. If “globalization” was the great equalizer that they say it is, our CEO’s would be making the same lower salary as the CEO’s in other nations and we would have health care as a right, just as the other nations in the developed world do.
jotaemei says
I don’t really disagree with your description. I was just expressing that I have difficulty seeing how (definitely could be that I have a blind spot in this part of political imagination) we could do away with only the detrimental aspects of it.
jconway says
Hillary will be President, she will be more progressive than her critics allege and less progressive than her supporters expect. Such is the reality of governance. AmberPaw brought up a really important and undervalued subject that should bring us together around ideas of how to change policy and it still gets sidelined by sniping that should’ve ended after the primary.
johntmay says
and that depends on us.
jotaemei says
As much as I find the Clintons loathsome, if Hillary and a Dem Congress can end the Hyde Amendment (and I believe she and they will try), and she can bring Pat Jehlen’s equal pay model to be federal law, then she’ll get my support in any way that might help.
The US is shameful on so many level, and lack of support for women is one of the greatest examples. This is one of the few areas in which I believe Hillary Clinton will actually attempt to pursue progressive legislation.
I’ll take the progress wherever it can be found. Let’s all support Hillary to make this a more equitable and fairer country.
johntmay says
Yes, but not just for women in the labor force.
jotaemei says
If a President Clinton with the cooperation of Congress can do away with the Hyde Amendment, then we’ll be looking at countless (and countless GOP assholic obstruction moves and lawsuits) lower-income women having access to a reproductive health option that they could otherwise not afford. I believe it’s important to understand that the injurious effects of the Hyde Amendment is not only to restrict women’s rights over their own bodies but also an attack class-based attack against poor women.
Beyond that, I’m expecting a President Hillary to offer more initiatives for the creation of more female-run independent businesses and assorted grants for women, assistance for childcare, more support of women in STEM fields, women in sports, etc.
But, yes, the most wide-eyed dreams I have is that she will fix the violence her husband signed off on to “End Welfare as we knew it” to re-instate a strong social safety net, that she’ll fix her husband’s mass incarceration system and the treatment of prisoners so that they’re not treated like caged animals anymore – even if it’s driven mostly just for better treatment of women in prison, and that she starts to have the same level of concern for Honduran, Palestinian, Iraqi, and Libyan children (and their mothers) as she would for any of her grandchildren’s playmates.