Joe Bertani, a member of the Board of the United Nations Association of Pasadena sent us the following, chilling notice. Given the fundamentalist Islamic stand on women, this is particularly frightening:
Center for Inquiry Defends Freedom of Expression at the U.N. Human Rights Council
New Report Critiques Movement at United Nations that would Prohibit "Defamation of Religions"
United Nations, Geneva (September 17, 2008)—As a coalition of Islamic states leads a movement to restrict freedom of expression that "defames" religion, the Center for Inquiry is speaking at the Ninth Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to defend liberty to doubt, dissent, and blaspheme. At a September 17 briefing at the Council, CFI released a new position paper, which critiques an effort led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to undermine the universality of human rights.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an umbrella organization of 57 Islamic states, has appropriated the traditions of Islam and Islamic law to contend that so-called "Western" conceptions of universal rights do not apply to their citizens. This effort has penetrated even the Human Rights Council (HRC), the United Nations body charged with defending universal rights.
In place of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the OIC have adopted rival declarations, including the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Despite official claims that they are "complementary," both undermine equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law.
In the HRC, a March 2008 resolution assigned the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression with the task of reporting abuses of free speech that offend religious belief. Non-governmental organizations have been silenced. Meanwhile, the General Assembly has passed yearly resolutions combating "the defamation of religions" and "Islamophobia." However, believers are already protected from dangerous incitement by existing human rights instruments. The new proposals seek nothing less than a blasphemy prohibition to protect belief itself.
"Rights belong to individuals, not ideas," states the Center for Inquiry report, titled "Islam and Human Rights: Defending Universality at the United Nations." It describes the efforts by the OIC and its political allies seek to create a parallel system of human rights, and how some UN agencies are considering the integration of "defamation of religions" into international human rights law. Such an outcome would be "legally indefensible, morally objectionable, and politically disastrous," according to the report.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
· Permit free discussion of religious matters at the HRC. When states use religion or culture as a justification for either human rights resolutions or transgressions, they must not be granted immunity from criticism, regardless of the sensitivities or cultural particularities involved.
· Restore the original mandate of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. The proper limits to free expression and threats to religious liberty are addressed by existing instruments. An official who protects free speech cannot simultaneously limit it.
· Reject the concept of "the defamation of religions." Believers deserve protection. Beliefs do not. Member states must move to stop these resolutions by the General Assembly and prevent the legal entrenchment of the concept of "defamation of religions."
· Clarify the status of Islamic human rights. HRC members and UN member states generally must voice their concerns about the "Islamization" of rights discourse, and its consistency with universal standards.
On Friday, September 19, representatives of the Center for Inquiry will address the Human Rights Council main session on the topic of the defamation of religions. Past interventions by non-governmental organizations in favor of secularism have been interrupted by representatives of the OIC.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The Next Survivor Series
Six married men will be dropped on an island with one car and 3 kids each for six weeks.
Each kid will play two sports and either take music or dance classes.
There is no fast food.
Each man must take care of his 3 kids; keep his assigned house clean, correct all homework, and complete science projects, cook, do laundry, and pay a list of 'pretend' bills with not enough money.
In addition, each man will have to budget in money for groceries each week.
Each man must remember the birthdays of all their friends and relatives, and send cards out on time--no emailing.
Each man must also take each child to a doctor's appointment, a dentist appointment and a haircut appointment.
He must make one unscheduled and inconvenient visit per child to the Urgent Care.
He must also make cookies or cupcakes for a social function.
Each man will be responsible for decorating his own assigned house, planting flowers outside and keeping it presentable at all times.
The men will only have access to television when the kids are asleep and all chores are done.
The men must shave their legs, wear makeup daily, adorn himself with jewelry, wear uncomfortable yet stylish shoes, keep fingernails polished and eyebrows groomed.
During one of the six weeks, the men will have to endure severe abdominal cramps, back aches, and have extreme, unexplained mood swings but never once complain or slow down from other duties.
They must attend weekly school meetings, church, and find time at least once to spend the afternoon at the park or a similar setting.
They will need to read a book to the kids each night and in the morning, feed them, dress them, brush their teeth and comb their hair by 7:00 am.
A test will be given at the end of the six weeks, and each father will be required to know all of the following information: each child's birthday, height, weight,shoe size, clothes size and doctor's name.
Also the child's weight at birth, length, time of birth, and length of labor, each child's favorite color, middle name, favorite snack, favorite song, favorite drink, favorite toy, biggest fear and what they want to be when they grow up.
The kids vote them off the island based on performance.
The last man wins only if...he still has enough energy to be intimate with his spouse at a moment's notice.
If the last man does win, he can play the game over and over and over again for the next 18-25 years eventually earning the right To be called Mother!
After you get done laughing,
send this to as many females as you think will get a kick out of it and as many men as you think can handle it.
Just don't send it back to me.... I'm going to bed.
Each kid will play two sports and either take music or dance classes.
There is no fast food.
Each man must take care of his 3 kids; keep his assigned house clean, correct all homework, and complete science projects, cook, do laundry, and pay a list of 'pretend' bills with not enough money.
In addition, each man will have to budget in money for groceries each week.
Each man must remember the birthdays of all their friends and relatives, and send cards out on time--no emailing.
Each man must also take each child to a doctor's appointment, a dentist appointment and a haircut appointment.
He must make one unscheduled and inconvenient visit per child to the Urgent Care.
He must also make cookies or cupcakes for a social function.
Each man will be responsible for decorating his own assigned house, planting flowers outside and keeping it presentable at all times.
The men will only have access to television when the kids are asleep and all chores are done.
The men must shave their legs, wear makeup daily, adorn himself with jewelry, wear uncomfortable yet stylish shoes, keep fingernails polished and eyebrows groomed.
During one of the six weeks, the men will have to endure severe abdominal cramps, back aches, and have extreme, unexplained mood swings but never once complain or slow down from other duties.
They must attend weekly school meetings, church, and find time at least once to spend the afternoon at the park or a similar setting.
They will need to read a book to the kids each night and in the morning, feed them, dress them, brush their teeth and comb their hair by 7:00 am.
A test will be given at the end of the six weeks, and each father will be required to know all of the following information: each child's birthday, height, weight,shoe size, clothes size and doctor's name.
Also the child's weight at birth, length, time of birth, and length of labor, each child's favorite color, middle name, favorite snack, favorite song, favorite drink, favorite toy, biggest fear and what they want to be when they grow up.
The kids vote them off the island based on performance.
The last man wins only if...he still has enough energy to be intimate with his spouse at a moment's notice.
If the last man does win, he can play the game over and over and over again for the next 18-25 years eventually earning the right To be called Mother!
After you get done laughing,
send this to as many females as you think will get a kick out of it and as many men as you think can handle it.
Just don't send it back to me.... I'm going to bed.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Now Conservatives Get A Taste of Sexism
Have Conservatives Discovered Sexism?
Below the Belt: A Column by NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy
September 5, 2008
Hey, have you heard? Conservatives have discovered sexism in the media!
And they're learning that it's disrespectful toward women, potentially damaging to their careers, intrusive into their personal lives, and just plain unfair. That is, unless a feminist like Hillary Clinton is charging the media with sexism -- then it's called liberal whining or playing the gender card.
Read the whole story at: http://www.now.org/news/note/090508.html
Below the Belt: A Column by NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy
September 5, 2008
Hey, have you heard? Conservatives have discovered sexism in the media!
And they're learning that it's disrespectful toward women, potentially damaging to their careers, intrusive into their personal lives, and just plain unfair. That is, unless a feminist like Hillary Clinton is charging the media with sexism -- then it's called liberal whining or playing the gender card.
Read the whole story at: http://www.now.org/news/note/090508.html
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Are We Done Yet?
Some young women think we don't need a woman president. Others think that
the whole feminist/women's movement is so over/unnecessary. Today in the
New York Times, Susan Faludi begs to differ:
the whole feminist/women's movement is so over/unnecessary. Today in the
New York Times, Susan Faludi begs to differ:
August 26, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Second-Place Citizens
By SUSAN FALUDI
San Francisco
MUCH has been made of the timing of Hillary Clinton¹s speech before the
Democratic National Convention tonight, coming as it does on the 88th
anniversary of women¹s suffrage. Convention organizers are taking advantage
of this coincidence of the calendar &lsqauo; the 19th Amendment was certified on
Aug. 26, 1920 &lsqauo; to pay homage to the women¹s vote in particular and women¹s
progress in general. By such tributes, they are slathering some sweet icing
on a bitter cake. But many of Mrs. Clinton¹s supporters are unlikely to be
partaking. They regard their candidate¹s cameo as a consolation prize. And
they are not consoled.
³I see this nation differently than I did 10 months ago,² reads a typical
posting on a Web site devoted to Clintonista discontent. ³That this travesty
was committed by the Democratic Party has forever changed my approach to
politics.² In scores of Internet forums and the conclaves of protest groups,
those sentiments are echoed, as Clinton supporters speak over and over of
feeling heartbroken and disillusioned, of being cheated and betrayed.
In one poll, 40 percent of Mrs. Clinton¹s constituency expressed
dissatisfaction; in another, more than a quarter favored the clear insanity
of voicing their feminist protest by voting for John McCain. ³This is not
the usual reaction to an election loss,² said Diane Mantouvalos, the founder
of JustSayNoDeal.com, a clearinghouse for the pro-Clinton organizations. ³I
know that is the way it is being spun, but it¹s not prototypical. Anyone who
doesn¹t take time to analyze it will do so at their own peril.²
The despondency of Mrs. Clinton¹s supporters &lsqauo; or their ³vitriolic² and
³rabid² wrath, as the punditry prefers to put it &lsqauo; has been the subject of
perplexed and often irritable news media speculation. Why don¹t these
dead-enders get over it already and exit stage right?
Shouldn¹t they be celebrating, not protesting? After all, Hillary Clinton¹s
campaign made unprecedented strides. She garnered 18 million-plus votes, and
proved by her solid showing that a woman could indeed be a viable candidate
for the nation¹s highest office. She didn¹t get the gold, but in this case
isn¹t a silver a significant triumph?
Many Clinton supporters say no, and to understand their gloom, one has to
take into account the legacy of American women¹s political struggle, in
which long yearned for transformational change always gives way before a
chorus of ³not now² and ³wait your turn,² and in which every victory turns
out to be partial or pyrrhic. Indeed, the greatest example of this is the
victory being celebrated tonight: the passage of women¹s suffrage. The 1920
benchmark commemorated as women¹s hour of glory was experienced in its era
as something more complex, and darker.
Suffrage was, like Hillary Clinton¹s candidacy, not merely a cause in
itself, but a symbolic rallying point, a color guard for a regiment of other
ideas. But while the color guard was ushered into the palace of American
law, its retinue was turned away.
In the years after the ratification of suffrage, the anticipated women¹s
voting bloc failed to emerge, progressive legislation championed by the
women¹s movement was largely thwarted, female politicians made only minor
inroads into elected office, and women¹s advocacy groups found themselves at
loggerheads. ³It was clear,² said the 1920s sociologist and reformer
Sophonisba Breckinridge, ³that the winter of discontent in politics had come
for women.²
That discontent was apparent in a multitude of letters, speeches and
articles. ³The American woman¹s movement, and her interest in great moral
and social questions, is splintered into a hundred fragments under as many
warring leaders,² despaired Frances Kellor, a women¹s advocate.
³The feminist movement is dying of partial victory and inanition,² lamented
Lillian Symes, a feminist journalist.
³Where for years there had been purpose consecrated to an immortal
principle,² observed the suffrage leader Carrie Chapman Catt, her
compatriots felt now only ³a vacancy.²
Even Florence Kelley, the tenacious progressive reformer, concluded,
³Keeping the light on is probably the best contribution that we can make
where there is now Stygian darkness.²
The grail of female franchise yielded little meaningful progress in the
years to follow. Two-thirds of the few women who served in Congress in the
1920s were filling the shoes of their dead husbands, and most of them failed
to win re-election. The one woman to ascend to the United States Senate had
a notably brief career: in 1922, Rebecca Felton, 87, was appointed to warm
the seat for a newly elected male senator until he could be sworn in. Her
term lasted a day.
Within the political establishment, women could exact little change, and the
parties gave scant support to female politicians. In 1920, Emily Newell
Blair, the Democratic vice chairwoman, noted that the roster of women
serving on national party committees looked like a ³Who¹s Who² of American
women; by 1929, they¹d been shown the door and replaced with the compliant.
The suffragist Anne Martin bitterly remarked that women in politics were
³exactly where men political leaders wanted them: bound, gagged, divided and
delivered to the Republican and Democratic Parties.²
Male politicians offered a few sops to feminists: a ³maternity and infancy²
bill to educate expectant mothers, a law permitting women who married
foreigners to remain American citizens, and financing for the first federal
prison for women. But by the mid ¹20s, Congress had quit feigning interest,
and women¹s concerns received a cold shoulder. In 1929, the maternity
education bill was killed.
Meanwhile, male cultural guardians were giving vent to what Symes termed
³the new masculinism² &lsqauo; diatribes against the ³effeminization² that had
supposedly been unleashed on the American arts. The news media proclaimed
feminism a dead letter and showcased young women who preferred gin parties
to political caucuses.
During the presidential race of 1924, newspapers ran headlines like ³Woman
Suffrage Declared a Failure.² ³Ex-feminists² proclaimed their boredom with
³feminist pother² and their enthusiasm for cosmetics, shopping and
matrimony. The daughters of the suffrage generation were so beyond the
³zealotry² of their elders, Harper¹s declared in its 1927 article ³Feminist
&lsqauo; New Style,² that they could only pity those ranting women who were ³still
throwing hand grenades² and making an issue of ³little things.²
Those ³little things² included employment equity, as a steady increase in
the proportion of women in the labor force ground to a halt and stagnated
throughout the ¹20s. Women barely improved their representation in male
professions; the number of female doctors actually declined.
³The feminist crash of the ¹20s came as a painful shock, so painful that it
took history several decades to face up to it,² the literary critic Elaine
Showalter wrote in 1978. Facing it now is like peering into a painful
mirror. For all the talk of Hillary Clinton¹s ³breakthrough² candidacy and
other recent successes for women, progress on important fronts has stalled.
Today, the United States ranks 22nd among the 30 developed nations in its
proportion of female federal lawmakers. The proportion of female state
legislators has been stuck in the low 20 percent range for 15 years; women¹s
share of state elective executive offices has fallen consistently since
2000, and is now under 25 percent. The American political pipeline is 86
percent male.
Women¹s real annual earnings have fallen for the last four years. Progress
in narrowing the wage gap between men and women has slowed considerably
since 1990, yet last year the Supreme Court established onerous restrictions
on women¹s ability to sue for pay discrimination. The salaries of women in
managerial positions are on average lower today than in 1983.
Women¹s numbers are stalled or falling in fields ranging from executive
management to journalism, from computer science to the directing of major
motion pictures. The 20 top occupations of women last year were the same as
half a century ago: secretary, nurse, grade school teacher, sales clerk,
maid, hairdresser, cook and so on. And just as Congress cut funds in 1929
for maternity education, it recently slashed child support enforcement by 20
percent, a decision expected to leave billions of dollars owed to mothers
and their children uncollected.
Again, male politicians and pundits indulge in outbursts of ³new
masculinist² misogyny (witness Mrs. Clinton¹s campaign coverage). Again, the
news media showcase young women¹s ³feminist &lsqauo; new style² pseudo-liberation &lsqauo;
the flapper is now a girl-gone-wild. Again, many daughters of a feminist
generation seem pleased to proclaim themselves so ³beyond gender² that they
don¹t need a female president.
As it turns out, they won¹t have one. But they will still have all the
abiding inequalities that Hillary Clinton, especially in defeat, symbolized.
Without a coalescing cause to focus their forces, how will women fight a foe
that remains insidious, amorphous, relentless and pervasive?
³I am sorry for you young women who have to carry on the work in the next 10
years, for suffrage was a symbol, and you have lost your symbol,² the
suffragist Anna Howard Shaw said in 1920. ³There is nothing for women to
rally around.² As they rally around their candidate tonight, Mrs. Clinton¹s
supporters will have to decide if they are mollified &lsqauo; or even more
aggrieved &lsqauo; by the history she evokes.
Susan Faludi is the author, most recently, of ³The Terror Dream: Myth and
Misogyny in an Insecure America.²
------ End of Forwarded Message
Friday, August 15, 2008
Great Theater - Don't miss it!
Leonard Jacobs, Theater Critic for Backstage.com went to the Inernational Fringe Festival this week and had this to say about Ellen Snortland's play, Now That She's Gone
Barbro Snortland was an enigma, mostly an infuriating one, to her youngest daughter, Ellen, from the time Ellen was born, we learn, until Barbro's death in 2002. Now That She's Gone, however, is considerably more than a poignant and insightful recounting of the lives of a mother and daughter who never connected well.
Directed by John Mitchell, author-actor Ellen Snortland's script examines her tumultuous personal history as an attorney, a journalist, a recovering cocaine addict, and a stage practitioner, set against the backdrop of the American feminist movement of the 1970s and '80s — she is a baby boomer, after all. She also weaves in dramatic material regarding the one gift her mother gave her: an abiding appreciation for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Eleanor Roosevelt persuaded the United Nations, against all geopolitical odds, to approve.
At precisely 90 minutes, there are moments when you wonder if Snortland will succeed in knitting together the threads of her tapestry. When she does, it's a moment that's thrilling in its simplicity. Yes, Snortland does learn why her mother was the cold, laconic creature she was. No, it wasn't because the elder Snortland didn't want a third child — or three girls, for that matter. Detective work and intuition pay off for this performer in a family story beautifully brought to the stage.
Presented by EMP Theatricals as part of the New York International Fringe Festival at the SoHo Playhouse, 15 Vandam St., NYC. Aug. 12-22. Remaining performances: Fri., Aug. 15, 3 p.m.; Mon., Aug. 18, 7 p.m.; Fri., Aug. 22, 5:30 p.m. (212) 279-4488 or (866) 468-7619 or www.fringenyc.org.
http://www.backstage.com/bso/news_reviews/nyc/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003839288
Barbro Snortland was an enigma, mostly an infuriating one, to her youngest daughter, Ellen, from the time Ellen was born, we learn, until Barbro's death in 2002. Now That She's Gone, however, is considerably more than a poignant and insightful recounting of the lives of a mother and daughter who never connected well.
Directed by John Mitchell, author-actor Ellen Snortland's script examines her tumultuous personal history as an attorney, a journalist, a recovering cocaine addict, and a stage practitioner, set against the backdrop of the American feminist movement of the 1970s and '80s — she is a baby boomer, after all. She also weaves in dramatic material regarding the one gift her mother gave her: an abiding appreciation for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Eleanor Roosevelt persuaded the United Nations, against all geopolitical odds, to approve.
At precisely 90 minutes, there are moments when you wonder if Snortland will succeed in knitting together the threads of her tapestry. When she does, it's a moment that's thrilling in its simplicity. Yes, Snortland does learn why her mother was the cold, laconic creature she was. No, it wasn't because the elder Snortland didn't want a third child — or three girls, for that matter. Detective work and intuition pay off for this performer in a family story beautifully brought to the stage.
Presented by EMP Theatricals as part of the New York International Fringe Festival at the SoHo Playhouse, 15 Vandam St., NYC. Aug. 12-22. Remaining performances: Fri., Aug. 15, 3 p.m.; Mon., Aug. 18, 7 p.m.; Fri., Aug. 22, 5:30 p.m. (212) 279-4488 or (866) 468-7619 or www.fringenyc.org.
http://www.backstage.com/bso/news_reviews/nyc/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003839288
Monday, August 11, 2008
Nerd Girls
Math. Science. Girls. Sexy. Its not very often that those four words are used together. There is, after all, a stereotype about math and science that that's for boys and men. And if a girl is interested in math or science they must be ugly and gross.
On July 18th the Today Show had a group of the Nerd Girls on the show - watch the clip here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25736678/
Spread it around. Nerd Girls are Hot!!!
On July 18th the Today Show had a group of the Nerd Girls on the show - watch the clip here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25736678/
Spread it around. Nerd Girls are Hot!!!
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Your 2 minutes is worth $1.5 million for the Women of Somalia
The Somali Women’s Scholarship Fund sends Somali women to college in Somalia for one full year for only $1,000 each (including tuition and other expenses). The project is a partnership between the UN Development Program and 7 Somali Universities. Please learn more at www.undp-usa.org/somalia.
The Fund is currently participating in the American Express Members project. Now in its second year, the Members Project allows individuals to vote on which of the participating programs, like the Somali Women's Scholarship Fund, get $2.5 million in American Express® funding. Last year, Members Project participants helped provide clean drinking water to children all across Africa. This year lets support women in Somalia as they work to rebuild their nation and in the process make the world a safer place for all of us!
We need your help!
Please vote for the Somali Women's Scholarship Fund before August 31st by visiting: www.membersproject.com/project/view/RKUOAS.
You don’t need to be an American Express card holder; you can participate as a "guest user" to vote for this project.
Thanks so much for your help!!!
The Fund is currently participating in the American Express Members project. Now in its second year, the Members Project allows individuals to vote on which of the participating programs, like the Somali Women's Scholarship Fund, get $2.5 million in American Express® funding. Last year, Members Project participants helped provide clean drinking water to children all across Africa. This year lets support women in Somalia as they work to rebuild their nation and in the process make the world a safer place for all of us!
We need your help!
Please vote for the Somali Women's Scholarship Fund before August 31st by visiting: www.membersproject.com/project/view/RKUOAS.
You don’t need to be an American Express card holder; you can participate as a "guest user" to vote for this project.
Thanks so much for your help!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
