Does calling it “Domestic Violence” downplay the seriousness of the crime?
February 18, 2009
by Sheryl Lee
|
Yesterday, commenter Kathleen left the following response on Violet’s post about the murder of Aasiya Hassan:
Can we stop calling it an “honor” killing? There’s nothing honorable about it. I propose we change it to vanity killing or some other term that more accurately describes the male arrogance behind these kinds of murders.
There’s the rub: culturally-specific details aside, crimes of violence against women are almost invariably crimes of vanity — for what are passion and despair and rage and jealousy but vanity?
As The New Agenda embarks on an initiative to have violence against women included in hate crimes legislation, it seems like a good time to consider the language we use when we talk about violence perpetrated on women by acquaintances or intimate partners.
I asked The New Agenda’s founders whether they thought the term, “domestic violence,” was an appropriate label for crimes of violence against women. Here’s what some of them said:
“I would like to see the once very useful term Domestic Violence changed to ‘woman hating.’ This, in my opinion, is the source of the DV. It then branches into various forms of sexism.”
“I agree on getting rid of the dumbing-down term ‘domestic violence.’ It is Hate and Violence. It is women-hate, but the motivators for that hate can come from diverse sources, such as Male as all-powerful and should be deferred to; this may be stated in religious beliefs, also. It has to do with power and control, and I suppose psychoses, neuroses, as well.”
“The term ‘domestic violence’ is usually limited to forms of violence by someone who knows the victim: eg. a family member, spouse, roommate, lover, acquaintance, etc., and it can be perpetrated by women against men as well as by men against women, or violence in gay relationships. The type of violence the New Agenda is primarily concerned about is violence targeted specifically against women. Therefore our focus is narrower than ‘domestic violence’ in that we are concerned about the treatment of women but broader in that we also condemn all forms violence against women, including that perpetrated by strangers. ‘Violence against women’ is a more appropriate term for our mission.”
What do you say? Is calling it “domestic violence” misleading? Are these crimes commited against women because they are women, or because the perpetrators are moved by some irresistable passion, by vanity? Does a cultural attitude persist that says women bear part of the responsibility for crimes commited against them, and does the label “domestic violence” help to perpetuate that? Can we change the way we talk about these crimes in order to change the way these crimes are percieved?
I like the term “violence against women”. Violence against women takes many forms. The term ‘violence against women’ is clearer and it gets away from preconceived notions about ‘domestic violence –”Oh, it’s just a domestic matter” type of thinking.
Violence against women, violence against children, violence against men. All wrong. Zero tolerance. Let’s label ‘violence against women’ every time we see it, and further clarify it as needed–i.e. murder, rape, etc. And let’s work to specifically identify violence against women as a hate crime.
The guy that beheaded his wife committed first degree murder, a heinous crime. It was also violence against a woman.
Yes these crimes are committed against women because they are women and they are perceived to be too weak to protect themselves or carry out revenge. Crime is usually carried out against people who are considered to be too weak to defend themselves. But anyone who has a crime carried out against them is a legitimate victim and their circumstance is tragic and they are deserving of our sympathy and help. What difference does it make which emotion the criminal who committed the crime is feeling? I am curious what are some of the more positive emotions you think criminals might be feeling when they commit crimes you don’t label hate crimes?
Violence against women is a good term. There is also spousal abuse. We already have the terms child abuse and elderly abuse.
what do you think would be suitable punishments for forms of violence such as bruising and breaking bones? How are men punished when two men get into a fight?
Someone earlier this year proposed we start calling these acts of violence against women lynchings. This beheading is a brutal display of the righteousness of the patriarchy. To call it an “honor” killing is meant to excuse the man from blame, to justify murder. I think ” violence against women” is a good descriptor. “Domestic violence” and “spousal abuse” remove the act from the public sphere where it would have to be paid attention to. Putting it in the “private” sphere allows society to avert it’s eyes and pretend it isn’t the business of the public sphere, where it would have to named for what it is-criminal behavior. There are so many terms for criminally violent behavior; assault, battery, harassment, stalking, manslaughter, murder, to name a few.
I don’t know about anyone else, but the incidents of sexism, misogyny, degradation and general abuse of women seem to be increasing at an alarming rate. Every where I go, whatever I am doing, it seems to be in my face in particularly graphic ways. Am I imagining this or have others thought this too?
I am afraid for us women and for our society. I feel more angry and powerless each day. I am hoping this is just the push-back of the patriarchy, which means we are threatening it and that if we just keep up the pressure we will prevail. I just hope the price isn’t going to be such extreme levels of violent and abuse that it puts us morbid danger.
Sorry to sound so alarmist, but it’s where I’m at these days.
“How are men punished when two men get into a fight.”
Men are not always punished for fighting with men and they seem to accept a certain level of physical violence as normal. One time as room Mother I was unable to get enough drivers for a theater field trip. So I drove two car pools. I took a minivan of 8 year old boys first because I figured I could dump them in the parking lot for 10 mins and no one in their right mind would kidnap them before I could get back. One boy who was taller and out weighed the others yelled “shotgun” and started walking as fast as he could toward my car. The littlest boy who was fast ran around everyone and got in the shotgun seat. The big boy calmly walked over grabbed the little guy by the shirt threw him in the street and took the shotgun seat while explaining “I called it” and then all the boys got in the car, no discussion no hard feelings. Then I took my load of girls. They stood in the street for several mins discussing who would sit where and how they felt about that (mad and sad!). Finally I numbered the seats and the girls and said “get in, you will be riding in the same seat on the way home, get over it”. So the boys were more violent and tolerant of violence however they were also able to organize themselves and accomplish the task of riding to their event quicker (like before the play was over). Males and females can be very different.
Oh, I have given much thought to this topic in particular. In my opinion, we operate an entirely parallel justice system for women and kids based on the idea that men are still allowed at least some leeway when perpetrating violence against the humans they “own,” i.e. wife/girlfriend and kids. I disagree with the founder who said domestic violence was a unisex issue; it is not. While women do on occasion get caught up in the domestic violence dragnet, it is very rare, and almost universally a response to violence (in other words, is defensive), as opposed to an initiation of it (offensive). That’s like saying rape is a unisex issue because males can get raped. We all know that the vast majority of rape victims are women, and that’s what makes it a women’s issue. The same is true for domestic violence and violence against women in general.
What I want to see is a unified, solid justice system. I want a justice system that gives a person 5 years for 2nd degree assault regardless of victim relations. Families should be able to rely on each other for protection and safety, and the fact that so much violence happens between family members makes the crime that much more heinous, not more understandable. Throw that book and anyone who throws a punch.
All that said, I agree with TNA approach of seeking protection for all women under hate crimes legislation, because so-called domestic violence is very much an expression of misogyny. Misogyny qualifies as much as racism as a status deserving special protection, which is what hate crimes laws do. Going after the dominant issue will allow us to attempt to correct the issue in a unified manner, as well as provide groups with more targeted agendas (such as family violence) better tools to work with.
It seems to me that the problem lies in the non-specificity of the term “domestic violence.”
The same two words are used to describe a person who drinks too much, comes home, and belts someone in the mouth. And also to describe a highly ritualized, and systematically planned, “honor killing.”
I agree with Dr. Socks’ earlier post. We need to meet, and understand each form of “domestic abuse” on it’s own terms.
Further, I am not even sure if the ritualized killing of women and children can fit under the umbrella of “domestic.” It seems we may be better served by placing ritual killings in a separate category… One that includes criminals like Dahmer, Manson and Hassan.
Persons who commit ritual violence are acting upon unseen influences and impulses that need to be addressed. If we start to look upon the likes of Hassan, with the same lens through which we see Dahmer…. we’ll glean quite a bit of wisdom, I suspect.
RealChange, I agree with you. It is too much…the emotional weight is so heavy.
Also, that was Murphy at PUMApac who started the lynching meme.
I was working in the Philippines about a decade ago when women’s groups were advocating and passing into law some protections for women. “Violence Against Women” was the term used (VAW) and made total sense for its complete and coherent description of the problem. I still wear my “VAW” Tshirts in Tagalog and they get converstions going.
Rape and murder, imo, do not count as domestic violence or spousal abuse. They count as rape and murder.
I think of domestic violence/spousal abuse as punching, breaking bones, threats, deragotory statements intended to inflict psychological harm… It is like bullying on a more intense level.
The mistreatment of women in Middle Eastern cultures is at an entirely different level than the mistreatment of women in the United States and should probably be classified differently.
I think one of the issues The New Agenda needs to target are shows that exploit women in the media or portray women in degrading manner.
My dad was watching one show – either Cops or Gordon Ramsey – and we kept seeing commericals for this reality program, The commericals went “Battle of the Bods: You don’t have to be a man to think like one!” From the commercials, I gathered the whole point was for a woman to judge how sensually-appealing four or five other women are (breasts, thighs, etc) and to see how her judgment matched the five male judges.
I believe that something went horribly askew in the empowerment of women’s sexuality. Somehow, it went from women being self-confident and freely choosing her sex partners to women pandering to men for slavish sex and to women exploiting other women.
I got to thinking about what has changed in the media to cause the spike in domestive violence for 2005 to 2007. Justin Timberlake ripped apart Janet Jackson’s shirt in the Halftime show, either 2004 or 2005, but that is right at the starting point. Prior to this was Britney Spears singing “I am a slave to you” and stripteasing her childhood away to influence pre-teens and younger. Furthermore, there is the rise of “torture porn” or contemporary “horror” which feature heavy violence and sex, and are released in mainstream theaters.
I have noticed in commercials and previews that violence is rewarded with sex. A preview for Wanted featured a lot of bullets and Angelina Jolie’s naked backside. Jolie’s character became the super-sexy-sex partner of the protagonist.
There is also the movie “Hitman” and “Shoot’em up”, although I do not know how much sex is in those.
For the Vin Deisel movie XXX, previews introduced the main character as a career criminal who is recruited by the government. In a preview scene, a woman is seducing him for sex, and he says, “Oh, the things I do for my country…”
My lifelong dream has been to be a creative writer. I love reading and writing. The type of stories a culture produces says something about that culture’s attitudes, beliefs, values, etc. And it can be found in fiction. I have read a couple Tarzan books that portrayed Africans as Tarzan’s loyal, faithful dogs; a subhuman viewpoint toward Africans was the dominant white attitude of the time period. In a H.P Lovecraft novella, there was a witch who wanted to possess a man’s brain because men’s brains were superior to women’s brains. Belief in men’s superiority was the dominant attitude of the time period.
I believe that in order to eliminate the root cause of sexism and misogyny that shapes the minds of future generations, we have to target the mainstream media and eliminate misogynistic and exploitative portrayals of women. On the flipside, we also have to reward and praise television shows, etc., that portray women positively and empowered.
Two points to remember:
1) Ritual murders are among the MOST premeditated and scripted.
2) If the perpetrator has other women in his life (daughters, sisters, a mother) they are also at risk.
The man who beheaded Aasiya Hassan is a danger to society. He should never be a free man again.
I think that “domestic violence” or “family violence” or “intimate partner violence” is fine. It just needs to be used in every situation where it’s appropriate. The “Santa killer”? Domestic murder. Yes, even though he killed men and strangers. It’s on the same continuum as a man who “just” comes home and slaps his wife around a little when he’s drunk. I say we keep “domestic violence” and ditch the language about how a killer “snaps” because he’s “distraught.”
Karen, you are right regarding media images of women. But remember that what is on cable TV is not what the free market demands so don’t get too down. There is a small group of 5 companies that own all cable channels, cable delivery systems and production companies and they are the only ones that can bring product to market because they act as gatekeepers. What is needed is for women to have consumer rights to refuse the channels that the cable company forces into your home and then extorts money for. You are forced to subsidize the content you describe with your basic cable payment. Women should be encouraged to download only the TV content they want to save money and support health images. I would encourage women to download content for free since women have been screwed by the MSM for so long it seems fair. And women’s groups should work on cable consumer rights if they want to change media images of women. Because no one would sign up for the crap you describe given the choice. And since the MSM says they merely reflect society (BS) then they have nothing to fear from consumer rights because of course all women would rush to sign up for their misogynist load of garbage.
I wouldn’t know how to find good visual material to download for free. My solution has been to drop television altogether, about 12 years ago. I don’t even rent DVDs because I don’t want to enter those porn emporiums and they don’t have anything I’d watch anyway. I get unlimited free DVD borrowing from my library. Tonight I’m watching Jhumpa Lahiriri’s Namesake. Tomorrow, a documentary called The Corporation. (Can you tell I’m avoiding a deadline?).
I also “watch online”, free, from the PBS and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) websites. Not nearly enough choice, but what is there is excellent content. I stream music from any radio station in the world, and frequently listen to Concerts on Demand on CBC. That way, I don’t have to listen to addle brained DJs either. I know my choices would be harder to do in families with kids.
These options are not guaranteed to be sexism free, but damn close.
Don’t know if you can stream this from the U.S.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/
Free downloads?
1. The term “domestic violence” encompasses violence among those who live in the home. It incorporates “spousal abuse” as well as “child abuse” and “elder abuse.”
2. If TNA wants to specifically target violence against women that is perpetrated because of the victim’s gender, a more specific term could be developed, but then we face the same challenge as with a prior “branding” issue regarding how to get the word out.
3. I don’t know if classifiying different forms of violence against women would be a helpful first start. Some posts have already noted these variations: women abused by intimates, women raped by intimates, women raped by strangers, women abused and/or killed because of religious or cultural traditions, elderly women who are physically exploited, etc.
4. I find the term “vanity” a poor one. It has a frivolous, pop culture feel to it, for me (ie, Vanity Fair magazine). Also, it’s ambiguous: Are we saying the perpetrator is vain or the victim was vain (and somehow, therefore, deserving of what she got)? Also, the assumption that men who abuse women are “vain” feels limiting and the word, for me, minimizes the violence. And, what of those men who are, indeed, mentally ill? Their violence is not the result of vanity. What of men who abuse because they were abused and/or witnessed abuse growing up? Just as parents who abuse their children were often abused themselves, so too is it the case that many men who abuse women grew up in such environments. This is not to defend them, but to point out that I think reasons and motives are more complex than a blanket statement of “vanity.”
This not meant to be a criticism, rather an editorialized observation.
Recently an elected official slashed his girlfriends face with a broken bottle. No publicity, the man has since been rewarded with a plum assignment. Meanwhile the Attorney General generates national publicity by declaring Americans to be cowards because they won’t talk about Race, no evidence provided.
Recently a man plans and then murders his wife by cutting her head off, because she filed for divorce. Meanwhile Al Sharp ton captures the headlines because he intentionally misinterpreted a cartoon and is bellowing Racism.
Watching from a distance, I think I see a group of amateurs on the sidelines discussing their strategy while the professional team is running up the score.
Right now, in the U.S., a man murdering a woman because she filed for divorce is not deemed sexist. Meanwhile, a citizen objecting to this stimulus package is deemed to be a racist. It seems to me, in order to compete effectively, TNA will need to develop a publicity arm that is focused and comfortable employing propaganda.
I agree with John Horning that we need someone or some branch of TNA that can publicize our goals and our mission. The media is an excellent forum to inform or dis-inform the public, as we have seen in 2008… We need to draw public attention to the sexism and generate enough public outrage to support our cause.
The media is an excellent forum to inform or dis-inform the public, as we have seen in 2008…
##
I really resent your comment John. I think it’s made from the vantage of privilige, male privilege.
“The media is an excellent forum to inform or dis-inform the public, as we have seen in 2008…”
The media is owned by men. They will decide what and when and how a “woman’s issue” is dealt with. And if not earlier, your past election should have made that perfectly clear.
The media is the patriarchy, and the patriarchy is the rule of order for the benefit of the male, and is never going to pay attention to women’s issues. They’re busy with the real thing, as they determine it.
That’s why we’re on the blogs.
Sorry for the repeat quote line. I know John didn’t make that remark, My comment to John is re his remark, in his post, calling us amateurs.
I think we need a permanent link to feminism 101 here somewhere, if someone who apparently thinks he’s an ally can post something like that.
I agree with you, Sis. I also believe that in order to take down the patriarchy, we have to get into media and take down its patriarchal dominance. We need to get into everything.
Um… I don’t see my comment, so I am posting this again. Sorry if it ends up posted twice…
I don’t know if I phrased myself well or explained my point with enough depth. I am now at a campus computer. I want to add:
I believe we need to get into the media _because_ it is patriarchy. If we ignore the media and stick only to blogs, we will leave a powerful tool of the patriarchy in existence. If we ignore the media, it will continue to knock women down as it did in 2008. Once we get into the media and establish our cause through the media, we will take away a part of its patriarchal influence. By entering the media, we would transform it from patriarchal to feminist.
Sis, you said “The media is owned by men. They will decide what and when and how a “woman’s issue” is dealt with. And if not earlier, your past election should have made that perfectly clear.” and I think that is exactly the reason why we should involve ourselves in there to take it down.
We need to make the tragic beheading a public issue, get on talk shows, voice our complaints. We need to take legal action as well. I reccommend the Greta show.
Vanitas. Puffed up sense of pride and honor? This is an interesting way to look at the womenhatredviolence.
I found John’s post interesting and supportive. I took his use of the word “amateurs” as part of a larger comment meant to drive the point home that while we’re discussing things over here, those in power (gov’t, media, etc) are continuing to set the agenda and decide what’s important and what’s not, what’s worthy of attention and what’s not.
Meanwhile, adding to my own post from yesterday….
What to make of men who are violent, period? Men who get into brawls with other men? Men who shoot other men? Many of these same men may also beat up women (girlfriends, wives, lovers, etc). How does one tease apart such a man who may beat a women, if this same man also appears to have no qualms about beating men as well? It’s like the convergence of several variables: a generally violent culture that fuels, perpetuates and even glorifies violence through a variety of means; a cultural perspective that in many ways paints women as non-humans; cultural “norms”; mental illness; family histories; lack of public education; lack of interventions with children at an early age who grow up in violent homes; substance abuse and addiction….
John: I appreciate your comment, and I more or less agree with you.
Karen: In fact, I was thinking of Ecclesiastes when I said that – of how vanity is the need to preserve a false sense of oneself (“clinging”, a Buddhist might say), and crimes of vanity differ from crimes of survival, for instance.
Oh the wonderful Greta. What would we do without her? How independent is she? Not very. If she does too much of one subject–and trust me, very little of what the media categorizes as “women’s issues” is too much for those making the decision–she will get rapped.
There’s a reason feminists have gone to the blogs. I’m just making a point. It’s not for lack of trying, and continuing to try, but reality must be part of the game plan. Certainly not meant to dissuade anyone, but you know–that wheel invention thing?
Well, Sis, I think you’re right, too. Do you recall a comment on Violet’s blog recently — I looked but couldn’t find it — about how an activist organization really needs a loosely affiliated team of bloggers who will take on issues in a manner that the organization is not free to do if it hopes to preserve its relationships? That commenter was talking about how NOW had missed the boat, but I really took note of it with regards to TNA.
And John’s right in the sense that we are here discussing the minutia of language when the big dogs are spinning the dominant discourse like a ferris wheel.
Karen K. and I, linguistics expert and wannabe social psychologist, respectively, could hang out and talk about what words mean all day, but our proclivities might be better applied to propaganda.
We’re only a six month old organization, and we’re growing in some interesting directions. I’ve very interested in hearing what people think of that, and how they think we should proceed.
I suggested Greta because she has her own show and because Fox News was perhaps the only channel NOT glowing in Obama worship; those two factors by themselves make her show the best option, imo.
I had to laugh when I read John’s comment on Sharpton:
“Meanwhile Al Sharp ton captures the headlines because he intentionally misinterpreted a cartoon and is bellowing Racism.”
Sharpton is the person who supported and publicized the young woman who wrapped herself in a garbage bag and accused a law enforcement official of rape, etc. And John is correct. The media is rarely supportive of women, but love people such as Sharpton.
And Anna’s comment addresses the difficulty of defining abuse of women:
“What to make of men who are violent, period? Men who get into brawls with other men? Men who shoot other men? Many of these same men may also beat up women (girlfriends, wives, lovers, etc). How does one tease apart such a man who may beat a women, if this same man also appears to have no qualms about beating men as well? It’s like the convergence of several variables: a generally violent culture that fuels, perpetuates and even glorifies violence through a variety of means; a cultural perspective that in many ways paints women as non-humans; cultural “norms”; mental illness; family histories; lack of public education; lack of interventions with children at an early age who grow up in violent homes; substance abuse and addiction….”
The issue has been examined by so many different groups: psychologists, educators, social workers, geneticists, etc. Does that lend confusion to this discussion?
This entire discussion is so great! One issue after another is brought into the mix.
Organizing the ideas into a few major issues and defining them, then deciding the best way to handle the publicizing of the issues might be done in a way to tackle one or two issues while planning how to tackle the remaining issues later. Can the media be trusted ever to handle such issues fairly?
Are we willing to Sharptonize the publicity of women’s issues in order to utilitze/court the media? Wouldn’t Sharptonizing women’s issues denigrate what women believe about changing society?
“Are we willing to Sharptonize the publicity of women’s issues in order to utilitze/court the media? Wouldn’t Sharptonizing women’s issues denigrate what women believe about changing society?”
You seem concerned that if we take our issues to the media and publicize them, we will become as petty as Sharpton. The difference between Sharpton and us is that we have genuine issues; Sharpton creates issues just for the attention. We can take our issues to the media _without_ becoming petty as long as we focus on what the issues actually are.
The problem with Sharpton or “sharptonizing” is that he created serious issues and charges out of nothing. I find the cartoon to be the most credible complaint of racism from Sharpton I have ever seen. Unfortunately, we have become so desensitized to false claims that we dismiss the real thing as just another false claim.
As long as we stick to what is genuine, we can avoid “sharptonizing” and successfully address the inequality of women and our mission to empower women.
Karen,
I should have been clearer re: Sharpton.
I understood John H.’s posting to mean the media covers Sharpton’s phony, inflated issues, while real crimes of violence are barely acknowledged–eg “Recently an elected official slashed his girlfriends face with a broken bottle. No publicity, the man has since been rewarded with a plum assignment. ”
Sharpton’s accusations of racism are so off-the-wall, they are funny or, in the case of the law enforcement official, terribly tragic.
Are we, as John wrote, “a group of amateurs on the sidelines discussing strategy while the professional team is running up the score”?
Is Sharpton one of the professional team? Is media face time the measure of being one of the professional team?
What I wanted to say in my earlier post was -Do we want to be part of the professional team Sharpton belongs to or can we run up the score with different, better, and honest methods?
I am not disagreeing with John’s observations, but rather asking can we change the way the game is played and the score is figured. We are certainly handicapped if we wish to play by the existing professional teams’ rules.
In addition-if a person is hardwired for adddiction or need for food beyond a full stomach, is it possible some men are hardwired for violence against women? If it is the case, (to extend John’s metaphor) perhaps that is a ball we can run with without falling back on phony positions and propoganda.
Hardwiring is an idea I have been thinking about for some time–I am not looking to make converts, only open another possibility .
Karen, thank you for being interested enough to comment on my comments.
“Is Sharpton one of the professional team? Is media face time the measure of being one of the professional team?”
Yes, I think he is one of the professional team, but I don’t think media face time is the measure. What Sharpton capitalizes on is opportunity. He grabs every single opportunity to point out racism. He doesn’t feel compelled to justify his position, or defend it or explain it—he just does it. Women are the amateurs—we fret about the strategy, we wonder if we’re taking the “high road,” we try to hard to analyze our position, looking at it from every possible angle to build consensus—and then it’s too little and too late…
We have a monumental opportunity here (with the financial crisis) to point out how under-represented women are. We need to make a BIG deal out of this and we need to do it NOW.
With all due respect to John and those who agree and disagree with his comments, I would like to express my views on his “that’s how guys would do it” angle.
To me, being a feminist does not mean doing things the way a man would do it. It means bringing what I have to offer as a woman to the table and have it treated with equal consideration and respect. We need to bring balance to a world that has been male dominated for too long … not female domination — balance.
At this time, positions in government, from your hometown to the White House, seems to be the best way to achieve this goal. Whatever it takes to further this goal should be common to us all. The issue that fuels my passion might not be the issue that fuel’s another woman’s passion, but all these issues are critical fuel to this fire we are building.
What makes me feel diminished as a woman might not be the same thing that makes another woman feel diminished, but whenever we are held back from anything, because of our gender, the world suffers.
I have taken quite a few psychology courses, and I study psychology books for fun. I am currently reading The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo.
Psychology is incredibly complex. It is a combination of biology, personal upbringing, and sociology. For example, you have a person who is naturally predisposed toward aggression (biology). Society encourages violence, so he is more eager to get into fights and to look for fights at school. He develops poor anger management (sociology). However, he has a completely loving and nurturing family who teaches him to channel this aggression in a positive manner (football/military//boxing/etc).
“We need to bring balance to a world that has been male dominated for too long … not female domination — balance.”
My ideal for the percentage of female politicians in all aspects of government is one that will fluctuate between 45% and 55%
Carolyn O’Brien on February 20th, 2009 7:21 pm said
“To me, being a feminist does not mean doing things the way a man would do it. It means bringing what I have to offer as a woman to the table and have it treated with equal consideration and respect. We need to bring balance to a world that has been male dominated for too long … not female domination — balance.
At this time, positions in government, from your hometown to the White House, seems to be the best way to achieve this goal. Whatever it takes to further this goal should be common to us all. The issue that fuels my passion might not be the issue that fuel’s another woman’s passion, but all these issues are critical fuel to this fire we are building.”
Very well said! I agree completely!
Thanks for reading and responding!
And, yes, Karen, those percentages seem about right to me too. In fact, it is unthinkable it should be anything less. After all, no matter what your race, religion, socio-economic level or sexual orientation there is basically only two types of American citizens. Female and male. How can anything change or be considered fair until we have equal representation?
This is no doubt an odd way of looking at things and perhaps meaningless, but if women earn at 80% of the rate that men do and account for 50% of the earners then they are shouldering 40% of the tax burden. Until women have a minimum of 40% representation perhaps they have the right to object on the basis of taxation without representation.
By the way, a range of 45 to 55% seems sensible to me also.
Oh, John. I do like the way you think.
We do have the freedom to elect women, however, so I’m not sure elected positions would qualify. But appointed positions? Particularly judges. Hmmmm
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...