Religious extremists are religious extremists, regardless of religion. What's with the obsession of so many to step backwards in time? How does any government, whether in the US, Israel or wherever, move a country forward when such a substantial percent of the population controls so much political power? Some politicians are speaking out but there appears to be precedent for segregating trains, unfortunately.
The company building a light railway across Jerusalem is considering segregating some carriages along gender lines to serve the city's ultra-orthodox Jewish population.
The railway, which is due to be operational next spring, could have separate compartments for men and women, Yair Naveh, the chief executive of CityPass, said today.
"The train was built to serve everyone," he said. "It is not a problem to declare every third or fourth car a mehadrin [kosher] car."
The suggestion was swiftly condemned by Jerusalem city councillor Rachel Azariya, who said: "Naveh was appointed to run a project – that doesn't mean that he can tell people where to sit and where not to sit, nor does it mean that he knows anything about values and democracy."
Huh? This was forwarded by a reader who commented, "I am sure there is a perfectly good explanation for this, because no one could possibly be this blatantly sexist on purpose." At AMERICAblog, we're not so sure.
The context: During a meet-and-greet event, Colorado Senate Republican primary candidate Ken Buck is asked by a woman in the audience, "Why should we vote for you?"
Buck's answer: "Because I do not wear high heels" (emphasis his). Note that he was talking to a woman at the time. Synchronicity at work.
The context of the context is provided by Ben Smith at Politico:
Buck was apparently responding to his rival Jane Norton's recent ad blaming him for independent attacks on her.
"You'd think he'd be man enough to do it himself," she says in the ad.
The connection isn't immediately clear in the video, in which he responded to a simple question from a woman in the audience.
And now the walk-back from this quasi-macaca moment. Explanation 1:
"She has questioned my manhood. I think it's fair to respond," he explained. "I have cowboy boots. They have real bulls*** on them." (euphemistic typography theirs)
Oops, that won't fly. Explanation 2:
Buck spokesman Owen Loftus e-mails, "Obviously, the comment was made in jest after Jane questioned Ken's 'manhood' in her new ad."
Questioned his manhood? Click the link for the ad — that "manhood" seems rather easily questioned.
From former party (and Charlie Crist) finance director Meredith O'Rourke: O'Rourke stated that she was aware of Greer having "men only" meetings. As an example, O'Rourke recalled a "Thank You Trip" that Greer planned for the major donors to Governor Crist's "Yes on 1" amendment dealing with property taxes. As a thank you to major donors, Greer took several major donors on a trip to the Bahamas. No female staffers were allowed to go on the trip although Delmar Johnson and Greer's travel aide, Jeremy Collins went on the trip. O'Rourke also recalled speaking to a female lobbyist friend, Beth Kigel who relayed to her of a "men's only" meeting at the Governor's Club in Tallahassee, Florida wherein Greer and Governor Crist were attempting to solicit major donors for the Governor's "Yes on 1" initiative. Kigel informed O'Rourke that she was excluded from the meeting while one of her clients, a male client, was allowed in to the meeting....
(AFP/Getty photo) Besides looking as ugly as just about every statue around the world by a communist country artist, it's ridiculously sexist. At a minimum, let's hope the proceeds actually make it to the children.
Read More......
If you thought the Chinese police were bad, this guy is even worse. How could anyone possibly think like this and be responsible for governing a country? It doesn't say much about their future as long as he's around together with the new president who is another knuckle-dragger.
Women's groups in Ukraine have angrily reported Azarov – who presides over an all-male cabinet – to the country's ombudsman following his remarks last week. They accuse him of gender discrimination and holding Neanderthal views.
Speaking on Friday, Azarov said Ukraine's economic problems were too difficult for any woman to handle.
"Some say our government is too large; others that there are no women," he said. "There's no one to look at during cabinet sessions: they're all boring faces. With all respect to women, conducting reforms is not women's business."
Ukraine's new woman-free government was capable of working 16 hours a day with "no breaks and weekends", Azarov boasted.
The prime minister's gaffe echoes comments made recently by the man who appointed him – Ukraine's new president, Viktor Yanukovych. During February's election campaign, Yanukovych declared that his female opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko, should "go to the kitchen".
They're not even trying to hide the obvious sexism. Critics say this is all about show for the outside world. In the long run, discouraging qualified workers is never good news. How does anyone possibly think such treatment is the sign of an advanced society? More from Radio Free Asia:
Authorities in the southwestern Chinese city of Chongqing have recently advertised for new female recruits to their traffic department, but only women of "above average appearance" and about 165 cm in height need apply.
The advertisement, which rippled through Chinese cyberspace in recent days, drew widespread scorn from rights activists, as it came just days after dismal statistics showed the best qualified Chinese women struggle to find work.
"If anything, I think things have got worse," said Liao Tianqi, Germany-based chairwoman of the writers' group Independent Chinese PEN. "Women are treated like commodities."
Liao said the advertisement showed that Chinese women still have a long way to go before they are truly given equal treatment with men.
"If you look at the [recent] parliamentary sessions, you can see that the hostesses who fetch and carry things and who pour tea for everyone at the National People's Congress (NPC) are all very young and pretty," she said.
In the old boy network, it's always a strong possibility but certainly the new foreign minister isn't doing herself any favors either. It should be noted that the two countries being accused of sexism have done a much better job than the UK in recent years with promoting women in senior government positions. The UK is not necessarily known for promoting a fair distribution of senior positions in either government or business. Thatcher is of course, the exception that proves the rule in modern Britain. Sexism surely is playing a role though lack of visibility during the recent crisis isn't helping. (Think about Bush being a no show after Katrina.)
It should also be noted that northern Europe is the model for sharing business and government between men and women. Most countries in the world could learn a few lessons from those governments, the US included. The choice of Catherine Ashton for this position has seemed as odd as the decision to promote Herman Van Rompuy as EU President. Neither had a record of substance and nothing suggested that they had the experience necessary for what should be high profile jobs.
You almost have to feel bad for both since they were thrown into the spotlight without much experience handling that brutal environment. It's as if both were set up for failure. When I read about the new foreign minister being protective of her personal time, on a personal level I'm in complete agreement. I don't take phone calls or check work emails after a certain hour and I enjoy having dedicated time with my wife. However, even in my field of work, it's understood that this is not always possible as you move up the ladder. It's not right and it's probably not healthy, but that's the way it is. When you accept the job of foreign minister or president, it goes without saying that your personal schedule is going to be limited while you are in that role.
What were the Brits thinking when they promoted a non-elected, unknown person in the first place? A peer in the House of Lords? Really? The Independent:
But supporters said criticism of what may have been an error of judgement is now degenerating into a personal character assassination. "The French seem to have it in for her. It is open to question how much of this is about her being British and a woman. And they have a huge guilt complex over Haiti anyway, which they might channelling through her. But it is becoming excessive," said one senior diplomat, referring to a recent French article that alleged that Lady Ashton "switches off her phone after 8pm" and makes off to London every weekend to visit her husband and school-going child, instead of travelling the globe.
Imagine had a Democrat smiled and nodded because someone suggested you shove a hot curling iron up a woman's ass. Imagine had candidate Obama done this. It would be the end of their campaign. But the media let John McCain and Sarah Palin get away with it when their supporters called Obama a terrorist and suggested that someone kill him. And so far, Scott Brown is getting away with finding it funny when his supporter suggests his female opponent be basically raped with a hot iron. And to think six months ago this was Ted Kennedy's seat.
PS: Before the Teabaggers claim that someone else had yelled something too, so perhaps Brown was smiling and nodding affirmatively about some completely unrelated remark, they'd be correct. Right before the curling iron remark someone appears to suggest that Martha Coakley kill herself. So perhaps Scott Brown was simply smiling and nodding approvingly about the notion that his opponent die.
POSSIBLE CORRECTION: One of the readers noted that it is possible that Limbaugh meant the female CNN reporter should go get douched by a fire hydrant, rather than f'd by it. I stand possibly corrected.
Oh my. This is a great short video. Now, I feel a bit sorry for the general, because he may call all men "sir" and all women "ma'am." I don't per se find any problem with that. But still. I suspect women like Senator Boxer have been on the receiving end of sexist treatment for decades, so they know it when they see it. But damn, watch her in action. I wish our other Senators, and president, could find that kind of testicular fortitude in general.
A GOP lawmaker is apparently incensed that the Republican party made a "pussy" joke about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. At least there's one civilized human being among them.
Read More......
Seriously. They've just launched a new video called "Pelosi Galore," a take off of the Bond film "Pussy Galore." From Politico:
The wisdom of equating the first woman speaker of the House with a character whose first name also happens to be among the most vulgar terms for a part of the female anatomy might be debated – if the RNC were willing to do so, which it was not. An RNC spokesperson refused repeated requests by POLITICO to explain the point of the video, or the intended connection between Pelosi and Galore.
But what isn’t open to debate is that the waterboarding conflict has been accompanied by a cascade of attacks on the speaker, not as a leader or a legislator, but as a woman.
Earlier this week, Pittsburgh radio host Jim Quinn referred to the speaker on his program as “this bitch”; last week, syndicated radio host Neal Boortz opined “how fun it is to watch that hag out there twisting in the wind.”
There has also been a steady stream of taunts about the speaker’s appearance, and whether it’s been surgically enhanced. On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said, “I think if Speaker Pelosi were still capable of human facial expression, we’d see she’d be embarrassed.”
I'm annoyed with what Ed Rendell said but am not sure what he said was sexist. Discriminatory against anyone who doesn't live a "normal" American family life, but not sexist. It would come as no surprise to me if I heard the same thing said about a man or a couple (like Joelle and I) that have no kids. In fact I've heard the same here in France regarding the Paris mayor (Bertrand Delanoë) as well as the mayor of Lyon a few years ago. Neither mayor is married and neither are women. It's no shock to hear similar remarks about couples who don't have kids. Sure, they can work more and are given less slack during difficult times since they have more time to devote to work, right? (I can think of many married men who invest very little time with their family, but that doesn't enter into the story as far as I hear.) There is an enormous double standard when it comes to couples without kids versus couples with kids, straight and gay, as many of us notice especially over the holidays.
I like Campbell Brown but here I think she's wrong. Rendell's comments could just as easily be made about many other people, men and women, married and single. It's not right, but it's also not sexism.
Read More......
This is surrounding McCain's latest claim of "sexism," accusing the phrase "lipstick on a pig" of being sexist when used by Obama but not being sexist when used by McCain. Oh, and for anyone who's counting, the McCain campaign did in fact invoke John McCain's former POW status in relation to lipstick and pigs. Yes, they did. :-)
And even better, the McCain people today accused Obama of calling McCain "a fish." Seriously. No word on whether McCain took the fish to be a herring (losing his bearings), a snapper (temper temper), a cod (rhymes with cad) or perhaps something more exotic like a mahi-mahi (no, that's the kind of fish McCain would accuse Obama of being).
If I may paraphrase Jake, John McCain thinks some pigs are more equal than others (and for the McCain camp, that's not a reference to Palin or McCain, it's a reference to "Animal Farm" (that is, unless Sarah Palin banned it)). It was hard to excerpt Jake, but here's a portion:
Why should anyone believe McCain didn't mean it about Hillary Clinton, but Obama meant it about Palin?
And yet, the inaugural conference call of what the McCain-Palin campaign is calling the "Palin Truth Squad" addressed Obama's remark.
And interestingly, the Truth Squad call was full of half-truths and statements that weren't true at all.
Speaking on behalf of the McCain campaign, former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift tonight flatly stated that Obama had called Palin a pig.
"[T]he formation of the Palin Truth Squad couldn't have happened too soon, as we saw when Sen. Obama in Lebanon, Va., this evening uttered what I can only deem to be disgraceful comments comparing our vice presidential nominee Gov. Palin to a pig," Swift said.
"Sen. Obama owes Gov. Palin an apology," she said.
Asked why she was so confident Obama was "comparing" Palin to a pig, she said Palin was the only one of the four candidates on both parties' tickets who wears lipstick.
"She is the only one of the four candidates for president, or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick," Swift said. "I mean, it seemed to me a very gendered comment."
But, Swift added, if "as part of his apology Sen. Obama wants to say, no, he was calling Sen. McCain -- who is a true hero in our country -- a pig, then I suppose we could wait en masse for an apology to that, as well."
It was pointed out to Swift that, after the line about the pig, Obama had said, "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,' it's still gonna stink after eight years."
Swift then suggested that Obama was calling McCain a fish.
"I have a fourth-grader and two second-graders at home," she said. "I would not teach them that this is sort of a high-minded debate on policy issues when they are calling people rotten old fish or a pig. In fact, it sounds a lot like some of the least intelligent debates on the playground sound like at our elementary school."
A reporter then reminded Swift that in December, McCain was asked about criticisms coming his way from then-opponent Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., and McCain replied, "Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."
Was McCain calling Romney a pig? a reporter asked Swift.
Of course not, Swift said.
It seems to me we should have one rule. If Obama was calling Palin a pig, then McCain was calling Hillary Clinton one. If McCain wasn't, then Obama wasn't.
Speaking to Diane Sawyer, Cindy McCain blasted the overall coverage of Palin as sexist -- and specifically an Us Weekly cover headlined "Babies, Lies and Scandal."
"I think it's insulting," McCain told Sawyer. "I think it's outlandish. And for whatever reason, the media has decided to treat her differently, because, I believe, because she's a woman."
While McCain believes sexism has fueled much of the criticism against Palin, she didn't disagree with conservative commentator and radio host Rush Limbaugh's assertion of the governor.
"We're the ones with a babe on the ticket," Limbaugh said.
"She is. She's lovely. I think she's beautiful," McCain said in response to the comment.
Yes, the Republican party. Great defender of the oppressed. Promoter of equal rights. Standard-bearer of the right of women. Now claiming that the only reason anyone in the media or the public is concerned about Sarah Palin is because she's a woman. Almost brings a tear to my eye how much they care.
McCain is desperate to change the conversation. First it was complaining about those crazy bloggers. Then the rude media that just wouldn't stop talking about "the pregnancy" (ignore the fact that McCain leaked news about the pregnancy to Reuters). Then it was sexism. Then it was a few other things I can't recall, and now we're back to sexism again.
Yes. The only reason anyone has a problem with Sarah Palin is because she's a woman. We'd be tickled pink if an uber-conservative man, who wanted to ban all abortions (unless the mother were going to die), who lied about her foreign policy experience (duty-free shopping in Ireland, anyone?), who was under investigation in her own state for corruption, whose husband was a tad sketchy, who courted an anti-American political party for votes, whose church invites anti-Semitic speakers who think terrorist attacks against Israel are God's revenge on the Jews for not turning Christian (and whose church seems to hink you can "cure" gays), who wants to ban books, who sought and received the most legislative pork of any governor, who lied about her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere (she supported it), who thinks the Iraq War is God's will, whose church's preacher suggested that if you vote for John Kerry you might not go to heaven, who seems to have fired a trooper because he was married to her sister, who doesn't even know what the vice president of the United States does - yes, we'd be silent if a guy were nominated who had done all of that.
Is it sexist as well to think that John McCain must have lost his marbles to pick someone so unqualified with practically no vetting whatsoever?
No, Mr. McCain. Sexism is when you attacked Chelsea Clinton as a teenager.
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
So please, let's do have a discussion of John McCain's record with women. John McCain is 72 years old and has had four bouts of cancer. There is a very real possibility that if John McCain is elected president, Sarah Palin will become president some time in the next four years. Sarah Palin is unfit to govern America in a time of war, and John McCain's recklessness in picking Sarah Palin won't be glossed over by the Republican party's sudden discovery that women suffer prejudice. You're a bit late to the parade, boys.
Read More......
