Saturday: Misogyny, Pissongyny

I don’t think this picture of Jon Favreau can get enough attention.  Jon Favreau is(was) Barack Obama’s Chief Speechwriter.  Actually, I think he’s been *promoted* now that the White House is secure.  Let’s look at the picture in more detail:

Who's that girl?

The first thing that comes to mind is that these are the same guys who were all over DailyKos like flies on, well, rice.  Last year at this time, while the recommended list was undergoing a hostage crisis with all those damn Obama conversion diaries, the place was awash in new users who were overwhelmingly male, aggressive, disrespectful, bullying and misogynistic.  They were the, ahem, Obamaphiles.  I was trollstormed off DailyKos by these creeps who screamed “RACIST!!!” at me because I dared to compare their behavior to that seen during a medieval Jihad.  Last year, if you didn’t convert to Obama-love, you were instantly persona non grata and the more aggressive of these hooilgans would haunt your posts, throwing flags until you started to lose your trusted user status.

In my mind, the picture above is exactly what these mindless idiots looked like: frat boys at a party.

But the person I find most interesting in the photo above is the Sig Pi Little Sister in the left side of the picture over the shoulder of Favreau.  High school and College never dies for some people.  I suspect that’s especially true for Greeks.  There is a bond made for life, forged by stupid tasks performed in the middle of the night.  Connections and networks are formed by ritualized drinking and community serivice projects and secrets never to be revealed (gag me, I never could stand them).  And then there was the female auxiliary, who may grow up to be one of the Teaparty Ten in the Senate, if they’re able to mask their ambition with a proper degree of deference.

Who is this woman hanging out with these swine?  And what does she possibly see in an Obama administration if it is being run by creeps like this?  How long will it be before they move from groping and humping a cardboard cutout to treating her like she’s just a stupid c&*t and a low level gofer?  And did her beer buzzed induced transcendence get the better of her?  Did she end up in bed with one of them?  He’s full of Obama empowered mojo and she’s basking in the reflected radiance of the Lightbringer ‘cos he’s going to change it all!

Obama’s going to change it, alright.  We can look forward to more disrespect, expected deference and discrimiation.  But the woman in the photo is completely oblivious to it even though it is right in front of her and she’s staring at it.  I’m sorry, but I feel the urge to smack this person.  I want to shake her and say, “Boys will be boys behavior is what we have been striving *against* for almost 50 years.  What the f^(% are you doing hanging out with these jerks?”

Why didn’t she stop and ask herself what it means that Barack Obama would hire Jon Favreau to write his speeches?  As I was reading some of the comments on the WaPo page related to this article, I saw one that extoled Obama for being able to deliver a speech that when read was not very inspirational.  I have yet to be inspired by Obama but maybe that’s because I actually listen to the words.  His speeches are full of theme words that are not much different from Bush’s.  Where Bush used patriotism and American exceptionalism in his speeches with over the top references to “freedom”, “democracy”, “liberation” and “god”, Obama makes an equally ridiculous number of references to “change”, “hope”, “inspiration”.  But just like any words, if you say them too often, they start to lose their meanings.  So, Jon Favreau is no magician.  He’s just using Bush’s speeches and substituting the buzz words.

But the woman in the picture believes in it.  Jon Favreau probably doesn’t.  He knows what he’s doing.  Ten years ago, he might well have been recruited by Rove.  But there’s no future in the Republican party right now so he went with Obama.  Why not Hillary?  The picture speaks for itself, which makes Hillary’s advisor, Phillipe Reines retort so refreshing:

“Senator Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon’s obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application,” he said in an e-mail.

Yes, actually, I think this would be the best solution regarding Mr. Favreau’s employment status.  There are a number of benefits for all parties concerned.  Obama can shift from campaign mode to presidential mode in his speeches.  Jon Favreau can find out what it’s like to work for a woman, likely not NEARLY as emasculating as he thinks.  And he can also improve his speechwriting skills, which Hillary will no doubt expect to be original and not cribbed from Bush’s Handbook of Nifty Speech Templates.  Plus, it keeps one more person off of the unemployment lines.

As for the woman in the photo?  Well, if the party above didn’t wake her up and she wasn’t offended by this:

or this:

or THIS, which sounds like it has Jon Favreau’s fingerprints all over it:

then I guess we have to conclude that for her, the orgasm really was enough.  But if you still have to put out to get any kind of recognition, then forget the Change!  That’s the LAST thing you’re going to get.

One more thing: If Barack Obama’s campaign ended up with a surplus, why am I *still* getting email from Bill and Dorothea Rodham asking me to help pay off Hillary’s debts?  This is inexcusable.  Hillary Clinton worked her ass off for Barack Obama during the general.  Pay off her damn debts, you fricking Simon Le Gree!

One more, more thing: It looks like Paterson and Caroline Kennedy spoke on Wednesday about replacing Clinton.  I just have to say that if I were Clinton, I wouldn’t resign my seat until I got a confirmation from the Governor that the person I wanted to replace me had been offered the job and had accepted- in public, in print, signed in blood.  It had better not be Caroline.  Don’t test us, Governor Paterson.

Oh, WOW! Murphy burns the house down.

This post, The Personal is NOT Political, will sear a hole in your monitor.  Here’s a sample but I encourage you to read the whole thing:

And how enormously stupid are we to have bought the lie that only “I” am a woman. That only “I” have the authentic experience and the true understanding of what it actually means to be a woman. Because I was raped; because I was passed over for a job promotion; because I’m a lesbian; because my father abandoned the family; because I couldn’t go to college; because I’m a single mother; because I’m black, or asian, or from the third world; because I’m a success in a man’s world; because I had a sex change operation; because I am a mother; because I had an abortion. Only “I” define womanhood and feminism and right thinking. Well, me and all my friends in my pretty little corner.

Why is the statement “The personal is political” a lie? Because of what the word personal means. It means our bodies and our beds. Pregnancy, breasts, motherhood, weight, ugliness, sex, sex, sex, and more sex, rape, abortion, birth control, marriage, weddings, wives, ex-wives, dumped wives, pornography. It puts the bit of womanhood between our teeth and sets us on an endless loop around the bedroom bridle path where the yellow wallpaper is just as mesmerizing but the presence of a few sister horses beside us makes us feel less lonely. The personal is political is a lie because it limits the scope of politics to a world comprised of stirrups and orgasms.

No thanks. Not until we spit the bit out of our mouths and take up our rightful identities as PERSONS will we see a woman in the White House. Not until we leave our god-forsaken beds back in our bedrooms where they belong and put our never-ending FEELINGS in a big black box with the inscription “ONLY OPEN IN TIME OF GREAT NEED” marked in deep gold lettering on the lid and store that private box on a shelf in our private closets of personal experience will we be anything more than the pathetic bunch of losers that men want us to believe we are.

The world’s greatest SWINDLE sent us to our bedrooms to look at ourselves naked in the mirror FOREVER and tricked us into thinking that our only importance to the world is what we think and how we feel about the image looking back at us.

Get with the program, ladies.  If you want to have power in this world, if you don’t want the Jon Favreaus of this world acting like an adolescent male hooligan while he pens Barack Obama’s speeches,

Jon Favreau (left), Obama's speechwriter, keepin' it classy

you are going to have to do like Lady MacBeth and unsex yourself, conjure the evil spirits and fill yourself with dire cruelty.  You need to harden your heart and practice cold blooded pragmatism.  You need to let the jabs and criticism roll off of you and learn how to run interference for each other instead of collaborating with the enemy.  And they ARE the enemy.  Not men per se, because there are a lot of women in on this, but the political system that has been created by men and custom.

This holiday season, go to that gender segregated party in your suburb, walk into the kitchen where the guys are all clustered around the keg of Sam Adams and express an opinion.  Hang out with the ladies in the family room who are talking about their menstrual cycles and their labor stories and say something completely unrelated, like, “Do you ever expect to see a woman president in your lifetime?”

Shake it up, baby.  It’s time.

Roe-Hopenol

Whither Roe?

For many months, we PUMAs heard that the main reason people were voting for Obama was the Supreme Court. NOW and NARAL endorsed him without qualifications, so Obama must be pro-choice, right? Hey, ladies, what’s yer problem? Barack Obama will preserve Roe v. Wade forever, won’t be too mean when you’re periodically down, and will even give you a kiss, sweetie!

Well, now that a majority of women believed this Supreme Court Roe-Hopenol and voted for Obama, let’s see how realistic that whole relentless campaign was, shall we?

For example, who among the four “liberal” justices is planning to retire? Justice Stevens seems to be the most likely, since he is already 88 years old.

Or, maybe not.

GAINESVILLE, Fla., Nov. 18 (UPI) — U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, at 88, isn’t showing any signs he’s considering retiring from the bench, observers say.

Stevens, who leads the high court’s aging liberal wing, remains vigorous, still plays tennis, swims in the ocean and says he doesn’t consider the Supreme Court’s workload to be overly taxing, The Washington Post (NYSE:WPO) reported Tuesday.

A prime motivation for some voters in backing the campaign of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama was to ensure a Democratic president would be in a position to replace Stevens and fellow Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, and David Souter, 69, with other liberals. But none of them, especially Stevens, has indicated any plans to retire soon, the newspaper said.

Huh. Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter are not planning to retire anytime soon. Ooooops!

Well, what about Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is not a liberal, but who is often a key swing vote for the liberal wing of the Court? Kennedy is 72, but despite repeated searches on Teh Google, I cannot find any stories that quote him about his intentions to retire before 2012. The most I’ve seen is a lot of wishful thinking from Obama supporters based on his age and health. Oooooops!

Okay, but what about Stevens standing before The Ultimate Judge in the next four years? It’s entirely possible that the 88-year-old (Gawd forbid) could pass away anytime. (Of course, so could any of the Justices, so I’m a bit dubious regarding the wisdom of basing one’s electoral strategy on when the Grim Reaper will strike). Assuming this sad event does in fact occur, who, oh who, will Barack Obama place in his stead?

If you read through the list linked in this Salon article (Salon being an extremely Obama-friendly press outlet), you will see a diverse mixture of men, women, moderates, liberals and nods to various ethnicities. Sounds great at first.

But do you notice anything about the summaries next to the candidates’ names? Not one of them mentions Roe v. Wade.

Oooooops!

Are we now supposed to pretend that Obama has no responsibility to live up to the expectations of his female voters? Are we women, and the men who support us, supposed to forget that his campaign scared us for months about McCain and Palin and their extreme anti-choice views leading to the overturn of Roe v. Wade? Now, we don’t even merit a mention, as if Obama does not even have to consider Roe v. Wade in his possible judicial appointments?

2008: January to November 4th

I know it’s way too early to be thinking about New Year’s so I’m not going to look to 2009 yet.  I will, however, take a relatively brief look back on the emotions of the year.  That’s what I have to do in order to move past it. Forgiveness is not a personal tenet of my faith.  Forgetfulness only applies to innocuous things like class assignments. I never forget a slight and when the time comes, I will always return it.  So, backwards for a minute.

January 2008: Hillary…Bill’s wife! When did she run for things? She doesn’t look like a monster. Kind of pretty actually. And smart. Where has she been hiding that brain? I must have been looking at Bill or something because I would not have missed that brain if I’d been paying attention.

February: Hillary…way more qualified than the rest of them.  Barack Obama…that’s an interesting name.  What hole did he crawl out of and can he go back?  Shut up, John Edwards with your stupid haircut. What is wrong with CNN? You have been my number one source of new coverage. What are you doing, man? Hillary didn’t say that! Or that. Leave Bill alone. What the hell?! (Stood in the rain for 2 hours to see the Big Dawg. Then had to wait standing for 2 hours more. Never regretted it.)

March:  Go, Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio. So goes Ohio, so goes the nation! …Right?

For everyone here in Ohio and across America who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you.

April: Why won’t that stupid bitch quit?  Because she isn’t stupid. Oh my god, what the hell? What parallel reality is this? He is not the nominee.  Am I sleepwalking?  Democrats, say something! Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racists. Who keeps bringing up Monica? And, no, random Obot at a college campus, Chelsea doesn’t have to answer your questions. Oh, and Pennsylvania, you make my life. *high-five* That is a what a landslide looks like! Tell ’em, Ed.

The “Strict” 30% Solution?

Discussing

There was a very interesting discussion on The Confluence last night about the 30% Solution. Some concerns were being raised about always voting for a woman, no matter what. People were calling such an approach the “strict” 30% Solution. As the coiner of this term, I had never heard this variant, and I’d like to address it in this post.

First of all, the 30% Solution is not just about voting. It is important to vote for women in order to achieve it, but in countries where the critical mass has been reached and surpassed, voting was not the only method of putting more women into national office. Some used quota systems, some revised their election procedures – some enshrined the percentage into their Constitution. In other words, the change occurred both at a grassroots level and at a governmental level. Thus, the entire responsibility for the success of this effort does not rest solely on your vote.

In fact, one of my ideas for reaching critical mass earlier is to use our many, many PUMA voices to reach out to the RNC and the DNC, and demand that in 2010, the next slate of new candidates for national office will include at least 30% women.

As many may be aware, John McCain promised gender equity in his Cabinet and a significant increase in the number of women in power by the end of his first term. This makes me think that the Republican Party may be open to my idea, in order to appeal to what could become the largest voting bloc in America – women and men who support them! And if the Republican Party does it, the Democratic Party might feel inspired to do the same.

I am hoping to start some discussion on this idea by posting it here. What do you think?

The NYTimes misses the point- again.

The latest noise on the Hillary for SOS from the New York Times includes the kissy-kissy stuff about how Hillary submitted to her defeat gracefully and said, “Please sir, may I have some more?”

Mr. Obama, who was in the first steps of what would become a strategic courtship, called afterward to thank her. By then, close aides to Mrs. Clinton said, she had come to respect the campaign Mr. Obama had run against her. At the least, she knew he understood like no one else the brutal strains of their epic primary battle.

By this past Thursday, when Mr. Obama reassured Mrs. Clinton that she would have direct access to him and could select her own staff as secretary of state, the wooing was complete.

“She feels like she’s been treated very well in the way she’s been asked,” said a close associate of Mrs. Clinton, who like others interviewed asked for anonymity because the nomination will not be formally announced until after Thanksgiving.

I don’t know whether this is true or just more propaganda.  It’s like the Obama campaign are trying really hard to say, “See?  We were nice to her and she bought into our plans and it’s all hunky-dory and you damn wimmin can shut up about it now.  Get off our f*%^ing case.”

No so fast,  You @$$holes didn’t give Hillary the finger.  She’s a politician.  She knew what she was getting into.  She deserves an apology from the superdelegates who abandoned her.  But if you think we, the voters, are going to let you get away with what you did because Hillary and Obama have kissed and made up and she acknowledges him as her better, you are completely wrong in every way.  We will remember now and for the rest of our lives how Barry nullified the primaries and used all of the Republican dirty tricks to deprive voters in his own party of their self-determination.  And now that he has pretty much accepted that the perks that the Bushies gave the executive branch are good enough for him too, we will be on our representatives backs to repeal them quicker than spit.

It is not over.  It will never be over.  We will be out here watching and planning and looking for every opportunity to call you and your army of sycophantic droogs on every bit of nasty consensus reality you plan to create.  We are going to be knocking holes in it every chance we get.

And the first hole is that we are going to go along with this amicable detente because Hillary now admires Obama.  She’s only in this position because the superdelegates screwed us over.  And if Barry screws up, we will hold him and them responsible.  Hillary will do what a brilliant person with thousands of hours of practice does best- succeed.  The rest of you have yet to prove yourselves capable of anything other than the brutal tactics of a corrupt campaign operation.

You may have a working relationship with Clinton but with the voters you screwed over in the primaries you haven’t gotten even one inch closer to detente.

Friday: Cocco Puffs

Marie Cocco wrote a face slapping Hai Karate piece yesterday on the status of women.  The Glass Ceiling Still Holds is not for the feint of heart:

It is time to stop kidding ourselves. This wasn’t a breakthrough year for American women in politics. It was a brutal one.

The glass ceiling remains firmly in place — not cracked, as Hillary Clinton insisted as she tried to claim rhetorical victory after her defeat in the Democratic nominating contest. It wasn’t even scratched with the candidacy of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee — unless you consider becoming an object of national ridicule to be a symbol of advancement. As divergent as these two women are ideologically and temperamentally, as different as are their resumes, they both banged their heads — hard — against the ceiling. Both were bruised. So was the goal of advancing women in political leadership.

…

But, we are invariably told, surely there are enough women moving through the “pipeline” of lower offices so that someday, some woman from somewhere will win the presidency or the vice presidency. Well, here is how things stand: Eight women will serve as governors in 2009, the same as this year. The proportion of women serving in statewide elective office actually has dropped since it reached a high of about 28 percent in 2000; it is now about 24 percent, according to the center.

Yes, ladies, we have actually *lost* ground.  There will likely never be another Hillary Clinton in our lifetime.   That’s because in order to get to Hillary’s stature, a woman will have to be in the public sphere for a long time so that the electorate can achieve a kind of comfort level with her.  There aren’t any women coming up that are going to have those opportunities.  Most Americans don’t even know who Nancy Pelosi is and those who do would like her to grow a spine.  Katherin Sebelius?  She’s as washed out and flavorless as a politician can be.  Besides, these women are not on TV everyday, doing things, whether you like those things or not.  The thing Clinton had going for her was seen as a liability by her party- her ability to polarize people.  She was a well known commodity. The public watched her grow from a first lady to a senator. You either loved her or hated her. But during the campaign season, even the people who thought they hated the Clintons came to have a grudging respect for her.

There is a section of Cocco’s piece that I take issue with:

Those who watched the media’s sexist hazing of both Clinton and Palin often rationalize this treatment as the result of these two candidates’ particular personalities and the legitimacy — or presumed illegitimacy — of their campaigns. But Barbara Lee, whose Boston-based family foundation has conducted extensive research of gubernatorial races involving women, routinely identifies the same undercurrents in state campaigns. Voters demand more experience of a woman candidate, and judge her competence separately from whether she is sufficiently “likable.” Male candidates typically must clear only the competence bar to be judged — as Obama indelicately put it during a primary debate — “likable enough.”

“We heard that over and over again — that no woman is ever right,” Lee says of her focus groups. “They like the concept of it but when it comes to a real, live, breathing candidate, they don’t.”

The problem was not voters.  The problem was that the media didn’t like her, her own party didn’t like her.  And what do these two entities consist of anyway?  From what I can tell, they are overwhelmingly white, late middle aged men.  Is it any wonder that they were not Hillary fans?  Maybe this in part explains the strange phenomenon of Hillary winning primaries after the media had pronounced her dead.  The institutions that arrayed against her were anachronisms.  Their pronouncements didn’t resonate with the millions of men and women who are in the rest of the workforce and who grew up, got educated and clawed or are clawing their way up the corporate ladder.  In the REAL world, women still have it tough but they have cracked a lot more glass ceilings than they have in the boardroom of GE or the Democratic party inner circle.

The party could have won easily with Hillary.  She inspired confidence, capability, intelligence and intestinal fortitude.  This was her year.  It was OUR year and it was brutally suppressed by a bunch of fricking neanderthals who refused to evolve.

They’ve got to go.

Tuesday: The Trouble with Women

It sure seems like Obama is serious about putting Hillary Clinton in as Secretary of State.  It would be a sure signal that there won’t be any significant changes on health care or equal pay.  {{Sigh}}

We’re pretty confident that Hillary would bring her same standard of excellence to whatever job she chooses.  But the Obama administration attitude towards working with women leaves a lot to be desired.  The NYTimes reports that Obama’s hesitancy in offering the position to Clinton hinges on Bill cutting his ties to foreign business associates.  I suspect Bill would have had to take care of this if Hillary had been elected as well so this burgeoning scandal sounds like a non-starter, just like all of the other scandals.  When will the media get a clue and find a different scapegoat?  After 15 years, the crying wolf routine is getting really old, especially when there’s no payoff.  It’s like one of those annoying traffic jams where you wait forever to see the car wreck and when you finally get to it, it’s just a guy with a flat. It’s just incredibly unsatisfying and I wish they’d stop already.

ANYWAY, Obama really does have a problem with women, as does some elements in his support base.  So, maybe it’s time for a Presidential Commission on Women. From Pat Bakalian, of the Campaign for Gender Equity comes this:

In July 2008, because of the experiences of the 08 campaign and a belief that we needed to keep the issues that effect women in the national dialogue, myself and a few others formed the Campaign for Gender Equality (we are new but growing) and set out to identify a longer term strategy to deal with issues of gender inequality. We decided that the next President should establish a Presidential Commission on Women to serve as the vehicle to address the gender issues that we all know are still with us. This is also a great vehicle to bring people together and to organize around.

We recognized that this would require a nation-wide effort. I have a background in grassroots organizing and coalition building and believe strongly that working collaboratively with other women’s organizations would increase our collective power therefore we decided to go to WomenCount to talk about working together on this campaign.  Since then the Campaign for Gender Equality and WomenCount have been working  to develop and implement the petition drive asking that President-elect Obama establish a Presidential Commission on Women within his first 100 days. We are grateful to WomenCount whose experience and expertise made the nationwide launch of this campaign possible.
Getting the word out is what is important now. We have contacted over 700 organizations and hundreds of individuals and are getting a great response. As a part of this grassroots outreach effort thank you for signing the petition and forwarding the attached information and/or the email below on to your network. Please delete my note to you and add your own personal note of support.

If you have any questions or just want to talk please email or call me at 831-566-0448. It would be very helpful if you would let me know how many emails you sent out.

All my best,
Pat

Pat Bakalian
Campaign for Gender Equality
http://www.campaignforgenderequality.org
831-566-0448

Women Count has more on the background of the Presidential Commission on Women:

In 1961, as the nation grappled with the issue of women in the workplace, President John Kennedy convened the first Presidential Commission on the Status of Women and appointed Eleanor Roosevelt as its chair. Kennedy recognized the moment was right.

That was 47 years ago, and it’s time to do it again. As in 1961, women are at the forefront of our political discourse – and we are committed to keeping them there.

47 Years!?!  I don’t know if we can exclude Bill Clinton from the shame of th 47 years without a Presidential Commission, but them, Hillary was a walking, talking role model for us (unlike SOME First Ladies who prefer we give up our jobs to don our aprons and become Mom-in-Chief)

Yes, it is time.  Waaaay past time.  I doubt that Barack Obama has an enlighted Human Resources director like the one above.  More likely is he has a bunch of Samantha Powers types who call Hillary types “monsters”.  Hmmm, maybe Hillary had some conditions of her own for taking the position of Secretary of State and raising Powers’ consciousness is at the top of her list.

It could happen.

Thank You, Sisters; and Wake Up, Sisters!

I have been wanting to write this post for a while. Since we are taking a breath to regroup and determine our goals for the PUMA movement going forward, I think it’s finally time to say:

Hillary Clinton

Thank you.

Thank you to all the women who braved the buzzsaw of sexism in order to run for President and Vice President. Since 1884, you have been trying to break that highest, hardest glass ceiling, and this year, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin came the closest anyone has come in 24 years. Because of their work, and all the sisters who have come before, American women are one step closer to having a sister in the White House for the very first time. Your courage and strength is mindboggling, and if we keep working to push women forward in all levels of government, one day we, too, will be saying, “Yes We Did!” on Election Night.

Sarah Palin

But our work is not done. I shudder to read the mindless, uninformed drivel that comes out of the mouths of high-profile women these days. Melissa Etheridge, a gay woman who supported Barack Obama, was devastated when Proposition 8 passed in California. But she soon found comfort in her new Messiah of Unity and Rainbows:

…I tell myself to take a breath, okay take another one… Obama has been elected president. This crazy fearful insanity will end soon. This great state and this great country of ours will finally come to the understanding that there is no “them”. We are one. We are united. What you do to someone else you do to yourself. That “judge not, lest ye yourself be judged” are truthful words and not Christian rhetoric.

Melissa. Honey. Without the overwhelming support of Barack Obama’s oh-so-Christian, non-judgmental voters in California, Proposition 8 would never have passed. Moreover, your beloved Precious is on record saying he does not think you have the right to marry the woman you love, and his voice was used in robocalls on Election Day, saying that very thing, to encourage his supporters to vote for this “crazy fearful insanity.”

So, wake up, sister. The election of Barack Obama has actually made your rosy little scenario LESS LIKELY.

Chew the fat with Ophelia

Amy Siskind of The New Agenda has an invitation for you:

we’ve been “Chewing the Fat with Ophelia” for three weeks now, and we’re prepared to declare the show a success!  Have you been listening in?

Chewing the Fat with Ophelia

Last week, we talked about the misogyny we’d seen during the election, and about the change that we see as necessary if the Feminist movement is to survive. Violet gave a quick tutorial on the Three Feminist Waves and we had some good laughs.

This week we’ve been talking with members and readers on the blog about what The New Agenda will be pursuing during our next phase.

We’ll talk some more about that tomorrow night (Monday), on  Chewing the Fat with Ophelia  – the show, and we’ll also talk about women’s issues that come to the forefront as a result of the recession.

Please join us on Monday, November 11th, from 10-11 p.m. EST to talk about the issues that need our attention.

If you’re a new member (membership is up 25% since the election), you might be tuning in for the first time. Don’t be shy! We’d be delighted to hear from you.

Hmmmm, membership is up by 25%, eh??  I can’t imagine why…

Tune in tonight at 10PM EST to Chewing the Fat with Ophelia on Blogtalkradio.