The Independent Women's Forum
I wrote this over the summer but never posted it here cause I'd forgotten. So if you've read it before skip over, no worries - I just wanted to post it here to have record of it for myself since I deleted an account on one place and I doubt my other blog is going to be lasting.
Just my political feminist side busting out :)
I am so appalled by the Independent Women's Forum that I can't even think clearly. Before this weekend I would have said that any organization by that name sounds like a good deal for women... WRONG. Thing is I was pretty oblivious until this weekend and now I can't stop reading about it..and the more I read the more angry I get.
First off, even the name of the organization is screwy. It is not by any means an independent organization because it is largely funded by the Religious Right and all that is conservative and horribly wrong with our government. It is also not a forum because they are only endorsing the viewpoints from the conservative party. Between 1994 (2 years after their formation) and today they have received well over $2.5 million in grants from right-wing companies - and so far as what I can tell, ONLY from right-wing companies.
The IWF was formed during the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1992. Brief run-down, in 1991 former President Georgie H. W. Bush decided to appoint Mr. Thomas to take over Thurgood Marshall's place (both African-American) in the Supreme Court - this move was widely criticized by many different organizations (NAACP, NOW, UL) because Thomas was well known for his criticism of affirmative action as well as his anti-abortion stance. Thing is this was considered a huge move in a conservative direction for the court as well, which is why so many liberal pro-choice and organizations that stressed equality between the sexes as well as race were so fuelled against his appointment.
Anyways - as he was in the process of being appointed this woman, Anita Hill, a former colleague of Thomas' at the University of Oklahoma accused him of sexually harassing her (big surprise right?)... well... it didn't pan out, nothing happened and he was appointed. There's SO much more to this story but this really isn't the point anyways - the point is the organization that stemmed from this ordeal, the IWF.
They initially started out as the Women for Judge Thomas and segued into the IWF when more women joined and the whole Thomas fiesta was over. Their mission statement is "to affirm women's participation in and contributions to a free, self-governing society" - Which, okay doesn't sound so bad right?
Except that according to their web-site the IWF outwardly opposes all forms of radical feminism - and if you read between the lines you notice that they are also against virtually all feminists and their organizations. They claim they were formed to "combat the women-as-victim, pro-big government ideology of radical feminism". They also deny the existence of wage discrimination and say that the reports on rape, domestic violence and gender bias in schools are "either flat-out wrong or widely exaggerated".
Now I'm not a radical feminist or even a hardcore feminist by any means but it's no fucking joke that gender gaps DO still exist. It's a FACT. Women on a whole make less money than men, we are NOT treated equal by any means. Take for instance the class-action lawsuit a few years back concerning Walmart. There were numerous women who had been working for this corporation for years who when they'd learned about possible openings and advancements in the company were denied the positions -which were offered to men - which THEY trained. Many of the women were getting paid significantly less than their male employee counterparts who had been hired months after them.
Walmart is one isolated event - this happens everywhere all the time.
Concerning domestic violence - well, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has gotten major shit from groups like the IWF. The VAWA works to help battered women - they offer refuge and a place to get their feet back on the ground. They offer therapy and empathy and most of all the prospect of future security. Domestic Violence is real, it happens everyday and there's no denying the physical and mental evidence that is apparent on so many women in today's society. (I'm not discounting that DV doesn't happen the other way around but in this case I'm just touching on women).
In 2000, the former President of IWF, Anita Blair said that "VAWA is not helpful and, in fact, often harms individual and families caught up in violent relationships." What the fuck? I wish I could smack this woman - the problem is because the IWF is backed by the Religious Right they support Bush's whole idealistic 'Just Get Married' spiel - the idea that marriage will solve problems (as well as an incentive for a larger welfare check) - so granted, some these women are already married - I'm sorry but counseling in this case when someone is getting physically abused is not the answer. If a women decides that she is willing to be 'supportive' of her husband's anger issues and for the sake of the children considers therapy sessions, well... more power to her, but I think that's fucked up. Anyone who raises a hand to anyone else in malicious intent should not fucking have any right to defend themselves afterwards. Unless obviously it was in defense, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
I don't understand how ANYONE can undermine the damage that DV causes - and pawn it off by saying that these women who are attacked "over-exaggerate". And that's not even the most fucked up part. In 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft made two appointments to the Depart of Justice's National Advisory Committee of Violence Against Women. Who did he appoint? Nancy Ptotenhauer and Margot Hill - both of which are involved in the IWF. Ptotenhauer is the fucking president and Hill sits on the advisory board. These two women also opposed the same legislation when it was passed in 1994.
So the fact that these two women who Ashcroft appointed are ALREADY opposed to this act - as well as one of them leading the crusade (and yes I can call it that) against women and domestic violence in general... well.. what the fuck America?
Just reading this makes me so angry for so many reason's. These women should be ashamed of themselves for claiming women who are abused are liars and attention seeking. And regardless of the fact that the IWF vehemently opposes strict enforcement and even the need for a VAWA these two women are still sitting on the board of the National Advisory Committee - concerning women's safety and protection.
I want to remedy fucked up situations like this, I want to know how. And I really really want to bitch-slap some people. Damn.
Just my political feminist side busting out :)
I am so appalled by the Independent Women's Forum that I can't even think clearly. Before this weekend I would have said that any organization by that name sounds like a good deal for women... WRONG. Thing is I was pretty oblivious until this weekend and now I can't stop reading about it..and the more I read the more angry I get.
First off, even the name of the organization is screwy. It is not by any means an independent organization because it is largely funded by the Religious Right and all that is conservative and horribly wrong with our government. It is also not a forum because they are only endorsing the viewpoints from the conservative party. Between 1994 (2 years after their formation) and today they have received well over $2.5 million in grants from right-wing companies - and so far as what I can tell, ONLY from right-wing companies.
The IWF was formed during the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1992. Brief run-down, in 1991 former President Georgie H. W. Bush decided to appoint Mr. Thomas to take over Thurgood Marshall's place (both African-American) in the Supreme Court - this move was widely criticized by many different organizations (NAACP, NOW, UL) because Thomas was well known for his criticism of affirmative action as well as his anti-abortion stance. Thing is this was considered a huge move in a conservative direction for the court as well, which is why so many liberal pro-choice and organizations that stressed equality between the sexes as well as race were so fuelled against his appointment.
Anyways - as he was in the process of being appointed this woman, Anita Hill, a former colleague of Thomas' at the University of Oklahoma accused him of sexually harassing her (big surprise right?)... well... it didn't pan out, nothing happened and he was appointed. There's SO much more to this story but this really isn't the point anyways - the point is the organization that stemmed from this ordeal, the IWF.
They initially started out as the Women for Judge Thomas and segued into the IWF when more women joined and the whole Thomas fiesta was over. Their mission statement is "to affirm women's participation in and contributions to a free, self-governing society" - Which, okay doesn't sound so bad right?
Except that according to their web-site the IWF outwardly opposes all forms of radical feminism - and if you read between the lines you notice that they are also against virtually all feminists and their organizations. They claim they were formed to "combat the women-as-victim, pro-big government ideology of radical feminism". They also deny the existence of wage discrimination and say that the reports on rape, domestic violence and gender bias in schools are "either flat-out wrong or widely exaggerated".
Now I'm not a radical feminist or even a hardcore feminist by any means but it's no fucking joke that gender gaps DO still exist. It's a FACT. Women on a whole make less money than men, we are NOT treated equal by any means. Take for instance the class-action lawsuit a few years back concerning Walmart. There were numerous women who had been working for this corporation for years who when they'd learned about possible openings and advancements in the company were denied the positions -which were offered to men - which THEY trained. Many of the women were getting paid significantly less than their male employee counterparts who had been hired months after them.
Walmart is one isolated event - this happens everywhere all the time.
Concerning domestic violence - well, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has gotten major shit from groups like the IWF. The VAWA works to help battered women - they offer refuge and a place to get their feet back on the ground. They offer therapy and empathy and most of all the prospect of future security. Domestic Violence is real, it happens everyday and there's no denying the physical and mental evidence that is apparent on so many women in today's society. (I'm not discounting that DV doesn't happen the other way around but in this case I'm just touching on women).
In 2000, the former President of IWF, Anita Blair said that "VAWA is not helpful and, in fact, often harms individual and families caught up in violent relationships." What the fuck? I wish I could smack this woman - the problem is because the IWF is backed by the Religious Right they support Bush's whole idealistic 'Just Get Married' spiel - the idea that marriage will solve problems (as well as an incentive for a larger welfare check) - so granted, some these women are already married - I'm sorry but counseling in this case when someone is getting physically abused is not the answer. If a women decides that she is willing to be 'supportive' of her husband's anger issues and for the sake of the children considers therapy sessions, well... more power to her, but I think that's fucked up. Anyone who raises a hand to anyone else in malicious intent should not fucking have any right to defend themselves afterwards. Unless obviously it was in defense, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
I don't understand how ANYONE can undermine the damage that DV causes - and pawn it off by saying that these women who are attacked "over-exaggerate". And that's not even the most fucked up part. In 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft made two appointments to the Depart of Justice's National Advisory Committee of Violence Against Women. Who did he appoint? Nancy Ptotenhauer and Margot Hill - both of which are involved in the IWF. Ptotenhauer is the fucking president and Hill sits on the advisory board. These two women also opposed the same legislation when it was passed in 1994.
So the fact that these two women who Ashcroft appointed are ALREADY opposed to this act - as well as one of them leading the crusade (and yes I can call it that) against women and domestic violence in general... well.. what the fuck America?
Just reading this makes me so angry for so many reason's. These women should be ashamed of themselves for claiming women who are abused are liars and attention seeking. And regardless of the fact that the IWF vehemently opposes strict enforcement and even the need for a VAWA these two women are still sitting on the board of the National Advisory Committee - concerning women's safety and protection.
I want to remedy fucked up situations like this, I want to know how. And I really really want to bitch-slap some people. Damn.