Women settle for crumbs at the liberals table as Democrats continue war against women.

BettyJean Downing

VAWA watered down as part of the war against women, Democrats set the table and Republicans drink the kool-ade!
100 Years Ago, women took to the streets and demanded the right to vote. What will you fight for this year? We the women of the free world are the majority, and yet not only are we not covered under the Constitution of the United States, but we ostensibly need a Violence Against Women Act to protect us. Yet with the new act, we are forced to share what little funds we have with Gay men and non-citizens, as well as with any other peoples our government can find to share the already paltry sum amongst!

Still hanging after all these years? Free us now! ERA to free women - we are the niggers of the world!

Still hanging after all these years? Free us now! ERA to free women – we are the niggers of the world!

How disgusting that we, the women of the greatest country on earth, need an act specifically created to address the violence directed against us in the first place. But now, to have to share it with others totally negates the reason we fought for specific protection in the first place.
Is there nothing our government holds sacred for the female majority of the population? Are there not hate crimes in effect for gays? Are there no other recourse acts to be drafted for others in need that we women, who die at the rate of 4 a day, need to share our pitiful sum, stretch our already overtaxed resources to the breaking point, when not even a dent has been made all these years in lowering the staggering numbers of women who suffer and even die from gender related violence?
What was wrong with the Violence Against Women Act before the Democrats decided to alter it and force the Republicans to sign on or risk being held responsible for denying women protection? Once again, women are being used as pawns. And once again, we settle for crumbs at the Liberal table!
Where oh where were the women while this travesty against women was going on? How many of our own daughters must be slain, battered, and raped before we realize that we have once again laid down for the man and his political machine rather than for our own benefit?
CRY for the women who are dying so that the Liberal can continue to allow havoc to be wreaked upon women and blame it on a war coming from someplace else, when it actually comes straight from the liberal table set by the Democrats and their molls!
Shame on the conservative men and women who refused to step up and fight for all women—who refuse to expose this travesty for what it is. Shame on all those who repeatedly sell out women in the name of government!
Give us an Equal Rights Amendment. Free Us Now!

“It’s about EQUALITY “

BettyJean Downing Kling

I get weary trying towomen-logoOrtiz figure out a new and different way to say – “It’s about EQUALITY”, How many different ways can one present such a simple concept? If you are a liberal you claim to understand this principle,  yet you are intolerant of a multitude of persons and ideals of half of your countrypersons.  If you are a conservative, likewise you claim to know God and follow his precept that All Men (and women) are created equal, yet you treat the majority of our citizens as beneath you at best.

What a conundrum the two party system has inflicted upon our nation, successfully offering a supposedly free nation two options and only two, which are diametrically opposed yet the same in terms of standing as an antithesis to the precepts the Constitution was written to promote. Such is the frailty of mankind. Womankind, on the other hand, seems helpless to grab the brass ring.

I must admit, when I witness the vote results, I often ponder why we allow everyone to vote, and I can easily understand why the founders elected to restrict the vote to those with enough sense to understand what they were actually voting for. Initially, the founders were interested in creating a country greater than the sum of its parts, a country free from oppression, freedom to worship so that no one would be burdened by the religious dogma of another. And yet here we are with part of the country hopelessly liberal and another part that tries to bully everyone into practicing their religious, personal, and moral beliefs. Our Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion—that means either for or against. Congress and the legal process is to be silent regarding religion! Only then are we guaranteed freedom from government sanctioned religious or anti-religious oppression.

Neither side will change the other so why are we fighting losing battles? We do it for the sport of the political parties and for no other reason. In these battles only the politicians get fat! In terms of good for the country, we need to go back to the basics. The founders understood that mankind, if left to their own devices, is selfish and would vote for themselves rather than the good of the country. I will not bore you with a lengthy list of quotes to that effect nor will I remind you of the promises politicians make just to win elections.

Let’s consider for a moment America, the land of the free, two hundred years ago verses 2013. Briefly, the freedom desired was from the oppressive reign of a King, freedom of religion, and freedom from the oppression of an almost caste system that prevented upward societal mobility. Learned men fought and died to form a more perfect union offering opportunity to all. But where blacks, women, and Indians etc., were concerned, the Constitution did not apply at that time. But, the American Constitution, presented by brilliant men, formed a Republic that gave citizens an opportunity to evolve and perfect over time. The framers of our Constitution warned of greed and included checks and balances to protect American rights and freedoms. They warned that freedom would be hard to keep because mankind is (in my words) selfish!

America was the first successful Revolution to remain free to date, and just as freedom was difficult to gain and keep, many Americans have continued to fight for equality, and we are making slow gains. What part of equality do we still not understand that we understood when we passed the 13th amendment?

To say that black men were entitled to the same status as white men but to totally ignore all women—the majority of the population—was ludicrous at best. Then to wait 50 more years to give women the vote and still not spell out they are citizens in that Constitution is criminal, and to deny women equality under that Constitution, even as it has been amended to include all others besides the majority, is unfathomable.

Our discrimination laws do not include sex! In other words, there are serious legal consequences for discriminating against anyone, unless she is a white woman. Fortunately, if she is black, gay, Latino, Islamic, or some minority she may—and I say MAY have some recourse, if she is lucky enough to catch the eye of the ACLU—If not, she, like the rest of the majority of our nation, is out of luck. Why? We women—52% of the population—have no Constitutional rights! Our government forced Iraq to set up equal rights for women in the Constitution but does not grant its own women the same. Our government forced Japan to do the same, in 1945, but has refused American women since we asked for ERA in the 1970’s.

If you think the ACLU is on your side—think again! If you think either political party is on your side, think again. If you think a woman’s group from either side is on your side, think again! Where are they when women need them to save lives? Where is either side when women need them? Who is standing up against violence against women in a meaningful way? Is that the banner they carry? Was it front and center on anyone’s platform lately? Which party is promoting ERA on their platform? Which party is promoting stronger laws to protect all women or educate them about all of their rights in matters of life and death? Who is educating mothers on our rights to our children in our courts? Who is helping us when we are destitute and facing divorce against a powerful abuser who wants to take our children and a corrupt court system that turns a blind eye?  I say we need more than birth control pills and abortions—we need equality. We need for abusers to know they will be prosecuted. We need stronger laws and fair pay, not just the right to sue if we find out we were not paid fairly. Power still lies in the hands of some male lobbies in our family courts. Our women and children are still the most vulnerable and the least protected in this the 21st Century.

The ones who stand up and fight for rights are the ones who are heard:

An example of what is in Congress right now:

Gang of Eight Framework for Immigration Reform

“The framework is designed to satisfy the demands of illegal aliens and their advocates, and business interests that want more cheap labor. It includes nothing that would benefit law-abiding American workers and taxpayers. American taxpayers will be saddled with staggering costs in the future as millions of poorly skilled illegal aliens become eligible for government services and programs.   PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1z3ym)

In the news right now:

 “The pulse of equality is strong in America, and today it beats a bit faster with news that the Boy Scouts may finally put an end to its long history of discrimination,” said Chad Griffin of the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group.

While there is still a long way to go for many others, we women have stepped up over the centuries to work toward equality and civil rights for others. Isn’t it time that we step up and ask that we as a group be counted, and ask that others support us?

We are the majority, and yet we as “women” we are the only group that is not covered under the Constitution nor protected from hate crimes, or protected from discriminatory language. That means we just don’t count in America! Whose fault is that? It is our own fault. As the majority we have successfully fought for, and won, many battles for minority groups—now it is our turn to stand up and ask for our equal rights too! Women, we must stand up and demand that we will no longer tolerate inequality on any level.

We need 3 more states to ratify the ERA—get involved. It is about EQUALITY! We have been complacent long enough. ERA now!

The real war on women: Dirty Words on Clean Skin

BettyJean Downing Kling

Up to now we’ve essentially heard from male authors writing from a male perspective. Dirty Words on Clean Skin, with courage and conviction, recounts the experiences that launched the REAL “War on Women.” Finally, after four years of silence, I am heartened that this woman author is coming forward to expose the truth as we actually endured it. This book is written by one who speaks for millions. Hat’s off to Anita Finlay and thank you for misbehaving! Afterall – Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History~ Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

A shocking exposé about the real war on women…who’s buying, who’s selling and why they get away with it. This eye opening journey chronicles both Hillary Clinton’s sexism-plagued historic run and the rampant denigration of women that rages on today with impunity. Dirty Words on Clean Skin transcends party politics. It is less about the treatment of one woman than the ramifications of denying equal respect to all women. This first person narrative will resonate with many who feel a burning frustration with mainstream media and the state of our political dialogue today. In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama waged an epic battle for the presidential nomination that captured the imagination and hopes of millions, but the joy of watching a qualified woman vie for the presidency was marred by newsmen and pundits calling Hillary Clinton a hellish housewife, Nurse Ratched, she-devil and bitch. DIRTY WORDS ON CLEAN SKIN examines the tactics that do damage to the credibility of powerful women and the cost to those watching from the ground. Anita Finlay’s shocking political odyssey travels beyond Hillary Clinton’s historic candidacy to investigate the media’s troubling influence over our electoral process and the behavior of a society not as evolved as advertised. Whether the subject is Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin or Elizabeth Warren, no woman is immune. The facts speak for themselves and drive this carefully researched, explosive and conversational exposé. For sixteen years, polls have named Hillary Clinton America’s most admired woman, yet when it counted, the media depicted her as a vile harpy standing in the way of history. Today, articles from The New York Times to the Huffington Post are encouraging her to once again stand for the Presidency, yet any prescription offered to a woman attempting to break the “highest, hardest glass ceiling” will be worthless without an honest discussion of the culprits and their methods. That discussion has yet to take place. Anita Finlay

Customer Reviews

Dirty Words On Clean Skin: Sexism and Sabotage, a Hillary Supporter’s Rude Awakening

Ms. Finlay’s book resonated with me on so many levels, especially the awakening to the rampant sexism and misogyny in the 2008 campaign. Once those two were out in the open, it was as if a sleeping giant had been awakened. Sadly, sexism and misogyny are still very much in the fore, especially in the political realm. Thank heavens Ms. Finlay chronicled this period in our history lest it be lost. This book is a must-read. The Rev. Amy J. Samonds

Dirty Words On Clean Skin brilliantly uncovers the dark side of our “beloved” patriarchal democratic system. Pro America through strength and conviction, Anita Finlay sheds light on our country’s internal war with feminism and its long hold on our “glass ceiling.” Despite the destructive mass media bias, Anita’s research, effort and awareness has given us a tool to discern the truth about our current political process. Dirty Words On Clean Skin reaches into the heart of America and reveals the upheavals and crisis women face in our current backward thinking political process. Anita’s responsive, investigative action into the injustices of our country’s media bias has awakened us that constructive change is needed and within our grasp. Shelby Heard

Thank you Anita Finlay for writing this book!!!! Our media has underreported (and that’s putting it kindly) the fact that 3.4 million diehard lifelong Democrats left the Democratic Party in 2008 over the disgusting sexism emanating from the “party for women.” It was such a shocking and unbelievable time and it was swept under the rug. Finlay’s book names chapter and verse of this awful saga in real time. Many of us are still as furious as Finlay as to what transpired, and the REAL magic of the Obama campaign was how it broke the bond between so many people and the party that they loved and considered to be “family.” It will be a good read for skeptics who still don’t understand what happened, and it will be a sad but important reminder to those who experienced the events the way Finlay did. Wherever a person stands on the historic election of 2008, this book gives a more complete picture of what occurred. A must read for all historians, history buffs, Obama supporters, and really anyone who follows politics. Well done Anita Finlay!!!! Cynthia Ruccia

Title IX, Title X, ERA, Equal Pay, PP & Abortion, came from the Republican administration!

BettyJean Downing

To hear the Democrats tell the story – you would never know that Title IX, Title X, pledges to support the ERA, Equal Pay, Planned Parenthood funding and  Abortion were all started and/or passed under Republican administrations! That’s right they were 70’s advances signed into law that the dems takecredit for today!

When leftist women gather to talk to women about women’s rights – they rarely talk to all women about all women and clearly they are not about uniting women for the benefit of all women. Instead they take over women’s groups and radicalize them around issues that turn away the majority of women and turn women against each other using rhetoric that convinces women that we are enemies. These so called feminists insist women should have a choice- but it damned well better be the choice they have listed on their agenda- – you had better be Pro-abortion- pro gay rights- and a Democrat! What could be more anti feminist than that?

They have no intention of being ‘national women’s organizations’ speaking for all women. They rely instead on the divisive issues that tore the woman’s movement to shreds. The “lib” movement that both parties supported and would have secured equal rights for women in the 70’s , even included a woman’s right to choose abortion- was usurped and turned into a bra burning, man haters club that created a civil war between the sexes instead of equalizing the sexes. What could be more anti feminist than that?

Do a little homework and see what the radicals did to the ERA movement and how they keep the majority from coming together for all women by obfuscating the truth and playing games with semantics rather than finding common ground. See how they work for their own good at the cost of the good of all women. What could be more anti feminist than that?

See how they infiltrated the movement pitting woman against woman, against man and even against children. If you are invited to a women’s group – they will mask it with talk of ERA but all you will see and hear about is abortion, birth control pills and same sex marriage. Is that all women are about? What could be more anti feminist than that?

Can’t we have a group where women are seen as complete entities beyond their reproduction? They ask “if we can’t control our bodies- what can we control?” I respond- control your bodies, you have been since the 70’s- now shut the hell up and let the rest of us have speak our minds too without being ridiculed by the likes of you. You do not speak for 40% of America’s women and I sure in the hell want my rights- my choices, my voice which does not include being called a slut or a voting vagina!!

These radicals have us all painted as man hating, sexual wacko’s who care about nothing but same sex marriage and abortions! What could be more anti feminist than that? The very word feminist which should suggest appreciates or respects females instead connotes radical man haters. Thank you very much, now there is no word for those of us who simply want equality and reverence!

In case you think I am stretching the truth about the radical wacko’s hijacking the movement and tearing it apart-  read this major feminist’s work and see why so many women left the movement.

Shulamith Firestone “The Dialectic of Sex”

Published in 1970, her “The Dialectic of Sex” was a key feminist work that presaged today’s issues surrounding birth and science. The book influenced her feminist contemporaries as well as those who followed behind her.

“No one can understand how feminism has evolved without reading this radical, inflammatory, second-wave landmark,” said Naomi Wolf.

According to Amazon.com, “The book synthesizes the work of Freud, Marx, de Beauvoir and Engels to create a cogent argument for feminist revolution. Identifying women as a caste, she declares that they must seize the means of reproduction – for as long as women (and only women) are required to bear and rear children, they will be singled out as inferior.”

According to Wikipedia, “She advocated the use of cybernetics to carry out human reproduction in laboratories as well as the proliferation of contraception, abortion and state support for child-rearing; enabling [women] to escape their biologically determined positions in society. Firestone described pregnancy as ‘barbaric’… . Among the reproductive technologies she predicted were sex selection and in vitro fertilization.”   Firestone wrote in “The Dialectic of Sex”: “…[J]ust as to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so…the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction… . The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: … [T]he dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general… . The division of labour would be ended by the elimination of labour altogether (through cybernetics). The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.”

I personally don’t give a fig who you sleep with or what you do with your body- but I care how you present the rest of us. SHUT UP and stop dancing around in front of the white house dressed up as a vagina! You are pitiful. Men have been running this country for hundreds of years and have yet considered it necessary to dress up as DICKS!

Lowering ourselves with “I am more than a VAGINA” shirts does not show intelligence, begging for birth control pills is also not intelligent. Alice Paul was Intelligent- as was Susan B. Anthony and many other suffragists who these Janey come lately’s have a lot to learn from. A little more class and a lot less crass would go a long way to earning the respect needed to be taken seriously and to win elections!

For your information, these brilliant women dressed up as fallopian tubes, shouting obscenities on the West Lawn, cursing men and Republicans while insisting there is a right wing war on women conveniently forget to mention where all the women’s rights and advances of the 70’s originally came from.

They forget to tell you – women from both sides of the aisle were once united. AND they forget to explain it was not the Democrats that passed these advances they brag about attaining in the 70’s. Instead they lead you to believe ( see pic left alluding to 73 as if Republicans were not the ones who passed these laws for women!) Instead they would have you believe- The republicans have always hated women and kept them “in their place” while the Democrats have always been the party of women. Yeah that was real obvious when they skewered Hillary in 2008 but that is another story.

Before you believe the drivel from any party about the other party – do your research- and stop believing what the media tells you. Either be informed or stop voting. Ignorance is not bliss and the rest of us are paying for voter ignorance! For those of you who give a damned – read on!

The Republican Administration gave women Title IX, Title X, the ERA proposal, Equal Pay, Planned Parenthood funding and Abortion. That’s right — it was passed by a Republican administration!

“Why are we still talking about birth control and abortion in 2012?”

Former Senate candidate, Mrs. Lenore Romney, whose son has accepted the Republican Party’s presidential nomination Thursday night, was part of an effort to get a plank in the platform calling for legal abortion., as was Mrs. Eisenhower.

It was the Republicans’ “four more years” gathering for President Richard M. Nixon, Watergate was a break-in not linked yet to full-on corruption… It’s right there in the papers!… What’s also right there is a snapshot of women’s roles and rights under revision in society — we called it “women’s lib” back then — and the Republican Party’s response to the change underway.

“The Administration will . . . continue its strong efforts to open equal opportunities for women, recognizing clearly that women are often denied such opportunities today,” it begins, and then pledges to support passage of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, fight against sex discrimination and for equal pay, and appoint women to positions of greater power, including to the Supreme Court.

For the GOP in 1972, these were not just promises: The ferment and bra-burning of the 1960s were consolidated into real change in the ’70s. The executive and legislative branches already had written historical gains for women into policy and law, and the Supreme Court the next year would make equal job access and the right to abortion the law of the land.

By the time of the convention, the Nixon administration had passed and implemented Title IX, which expanded educational and athletic opportunities for millions of girls and women, and Title X, which made federal funding available for family planning for the first time. That funding, which House Republicans keep trying to strip away from Planned Parenthood, passed the Senate unanimously and the House with broad bipartisan support in 1970.

The Nixon White House required government contractors to use affirmative action to hire women; more women were in management in federal Washington than ever before.

Read the story from one who was there: A look back at 1972 GOP convention, and emergence of ‘women’s lib’

By Ann Gerhart: Forty years ago, I went to my first political convention as part of the official delegation from Pennsylvania.

Exposure to Sexual Content in Popular Movies Predicts Sexual Behavior in Adolescence

Science News

ScienceDaily (July 17, 2012) — Intuitively it simply makes sense: exposure to sexual content in movies at an early age probably influences adolescents’ sexual behavior. And yet, even though a great deal of research has shown that adolescents who watch more risky behaviors in popular movies, like drinking or smoking, are more likely to drink and smoke themselves, surprisingly little research has examined whether movies influence adolescents’ sexual behaviors.

Until now.

Over six years, psychological scientists examined whether or not seeing sex on the big screen translates into sex in the real world for adolescents. Their findings, which are to be published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, revealed not only that it did but also explained some of the reasons why.

READ MORE: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717162743.htm

Let’s hope they start to study media effects next!

HP to http://sexistads.tumblr.com/

1. Does the image show only part(s) of a sexualized person’s body?

BMW

2. Does the image present a sexualized person as a stand-in for an object?

Four Loko

3. Does the image show sexualized persons as interchangeable?

Mercedes Benz

4. Does the image affirm the idea of violating the bodily integrity of a sexualized person who can’t consent?

Duncan Quinn

5. Does the image suggest that sexual availability is the defining characteristic of the person?

American Apparel

6. Does the image show a sexualized person as a commodity that can be bought and sold?

Red Tape Shoes

 

 

American Woman Who Shattered Space Ceiling

By DENISE GRADY

Sally Ride communicating with ground controllers during the six-day space mission of the Challenger in 1983- Getty Images

Sally Ride, | 1951-2012: the first American woman to fly in space, died on Monday at her home in San Diego. She was 61. The cause was pancreatic cancer, her company, Sally Ride Science, announced on its Web site.

Dr. Ride, a physicist who was accepted into the space program in 1978 after she answered a newspaper ad for astronauts, flew on the shuttle Challenger on June 18, 1983, and on a second mission in 1984. At 32, she was also the youngest American in space.

She later became the only person to sit on both panels investigating the catastrophic shuttle accidents that killed all astronauts on board — the Challenger explosion in 1986 and the Columbia crash in 2003.

Dr. Ride was finishing studies at Stanford University — she had degrees in physics and astrophysics (and also English) — and looking for a job when she saw NASA’s advertisement. She looked at the qualifications and said, “I’m one of those people,” she told The New York Times in 1982.

She applied, and made the cut.

“The women’s movement had already paved the way, I think, for my coming,” she said.

By the time she began studying laser physics at Stanford, women had already broken through into the physics department, once a boys’ club. And when she applied to the space program, NASA had already made a commitment to admit women.

But there were still rough spots. Speaking to reporters before the first shuttle flight, Dr. Ride — chosen in part because she was known for keeping her cool under stress — politely endured a barrage of questions focused on her sex: Would spaceflight affect her reproductive organs? Did she plan to have children? Would she wear a bra or makeup in space? Did she cry on the job? How would she deal with menstruation in space?

The CBS News reporter Diane Sawyer asked her to demonstrate a newly installed privacy curtain around the shuttle’s toilet. On “The Tonight Show,” Johnny Carson joked that the shuttle flight would be delayed because Dr. Ride had to find a purse to match her shoes.

At a NASA news conference, Dr. Ride said: “It’s too bad this is such a big deal. It’s too bad our society isn’t further along.”

The Soviets had already sent two women into space. When one came aboard a space station, a male cosmonaut welcomed her by saying the kitchen and an apron were all ready for her.

In her early days at NASA, Dr. Ride trained in parachute jumping, water survival, weightlessness and the huge G-forces of a rocket launch. She learned to fly a jet plane. She also switched from physics to engineering and helped in the development of a robotic arm for the space shuttle. The Challenger commander, Robert L. Crippen, chose her for the 1983 mission in part because of her expertise with the device. She was part of a crew of five that spent about six days in space, during which she used the arm to deploy and retrieve a satellite.

At Cape Canaveral, many in the crowd of 250,000 that watched the launching wore T-shirts that said, “Ride, Sally Ride” — from the lyrics of the
song “Mustang Sally.”

The next day, Gloria Steinem, editor of Ms. magazine at the time, said, “Millions of little girls are going to sit by their television sets and see they can be astronauts, heroes, explorers and scientists.”

When the shuttle landed, Dr. Ride told reporters, “I’m sure it was the most fun that I’ll ever have in my life.”

Her next mission, in 1984, lasted about eight days. She was on the roster for another shuttle flight before the Challenger blew up on Jan. 28, 1986, 73 seconds after taking off from Cape Canaveral. But the program was immediately suspended, and she retired the next year.

As a member of the panel appointed by President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident, Ms. Ride gained a reputation for asking tough questions. The panel learned from testimony and other evidence that there had been signs of trouble on earlier Challenger flights, but that they had been dismissed as not critical. Dr. Ride told a colleague it was difficult not to be angered by the findings.

One witness was Roger Boisjoly, an engineer who had worked for the company that made the shuttle’s rocket boosters and who had been shunned by colleagues for revealing that he had warned his bosses and NASA that the boosters’ seals, called O-rings, could fail in cold weather. The Challenger had taken off on a cold morning.

After his testimony, Dr. Ride, who was known to be reserved and reticent, publicly hugged him. She was the only panelist to offer him support. Mr. Boisjoly, who died in January, said her gesture had helped sustain him during a troubled time.

In 2003, after sitting on a shuttle-disaster panel for the second time, Dr. Ride said in an interview with The Times that part of the problem at NASA was that people had forgotten some of the lessons learned from the Challenger accident. The panel had months earlier expressed its conviction that the disintegration of the shuttle Columbia over Texas was triggered when a chunk of foam insulation fell off the external fuel tank and gashed the leading edge of the wing.

But she also said: “I flew the shuttle twice. It got me home twice. I like the shuttle.”

In 1987, Dr. Ride led a study team that wrote a report advising NASA on the future direction of the space program. The team recommended an outpost on the Moon, though not a “race to Mars.” But Mars should still be the “ultimate objective,” the group said. In the report, Dr. Ride wrote that a lunar outpost would combine “adventure, science, technology and perhaps the seeds of enterprise.” She also noted darkly that the United States had “lost leadership” to the Soviet Union in a number of aspects of space exploration.

The same year, Dr. Ride retired from NASA and became a science fellow at the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford. In 1989, she became a professor of physics and director of the California Space Institute at the University of California, San Diego.

She also developed a passion for trying to interest young people, especially girls, in science, math and technology. She wrote six science books for children, including one that explained how to make a sandwich in space. (She advised eating it fast, before it floated away.)

In 2001 she started a company, Sally Ride Science, to “make science and engineering cool again,” as she put it, by providing science-oriented school programs, materials and teacher training.

Dr. Ride was known for guarding her privacy. She rejected most offers for product endorsements, memoirs and movies, and her reticence lasted to the end. At her request, NASA kept her illness secret.

In 1983, writing in The Washington Post, Susan Okie, a journalist and longtime friend, described Dr. Ride as elusive and enigmatic, protective of her emotions.

“During college and graduate school,” Dr. Okie wrote, “I had to interrogate her to find out what was happening in her personal life.”

Dr. Okie quoted Dr. Ride’s younger sister, the Rev. Karen Scott, a Presbyterian minister, as saying, “ ‘Closeness’ is not a word that is often used to describe relationships in our family.” Dr. Ride always needed to be in control, her mother told Dr. Okie.

In a statement on Monday afternoon, President Obama said Dr. Ride had been “a national hero and a powerful role model.”

“She inspired generations of young girls to reach for the stars and later fought tirelessly to help them get there by advocating for a greater focus on science and math in our schools,” he said. “Sally’s life showed us that there are no limits to what we can achieve.”

Sally Kristen Ride was born on May 26, 1951, in Encino, part of Los Angeles. Her father was a political science professor at Santa Monica College, and her mother worked as a volunteer counselor at women’s correctional facility. Both parents were elders in the Presbyterian Church.

From an early age, Dr. Ride gravitated toward math and science. She was strong-willed and athletic, and became so obsessed with playing football in the street that her parents pushed her into tennis lessons because it was a safer sport. She was soon playing in tournaments.

Dr. Ride attended Westlake School for Girls, a prep school in Los Angeles. Dr. Okie was her schoolmate, and wrote that she and Dr. Ride, both on scholarship, felt out of place among the actors’ daughters and “Bel Air belles” at the school. Dr. Ride did not have to work hard for good grades, called herself an underachiever and refused to feign interest if she was bored in class. But it was at Westlake that Dr. Ride found a mentor and friend in Elizabeth Mommaerts, a science teacher whom she described as “logic personified.” A great enthusiast for research, Dr. Mommaerts invited her favorite students, Dr. Ride among them, to her home to sample French food and wine and to hear stories about her life in Europe.

(Later, in graduate school, Dr. Ride was devastated to learn that Dr. Mommaerts had committed suicide. When she was chosen to be an astronaut, the one person she wanted most to call was Dr. Mommaerts, she told Dr. Okie. “And I can’t,” she said.)

After graduating from high school in 1968, Dr. Ride attended Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania but quit after three semesters. She was homesick for California and was considering a career in tennis. She practiced for several hours a day, and also began taking physics courses at the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1970, she enrolled at Stanford as a junior. She played tennis for Stanford, became the team’s No. 1 women’s singles player and was nationally ranked. She taught at summer tennis camps, and at one of them she met Billie Jean King, who urged her to quit college and become a professional tennis player. She did not take that advice.

Years later, when a child asked her what made her decide to be a scientist instead of a tennis player, she laughed and said, “A bad forehand.”

She received bachelor’s degrees in physics and English in 1973 (her specialty was Shakespeare), a master’s degree in physics in 1975 and a Ph.D. in astrophysics in 1978, all from Stanford. Her graduate work involved X-ray astronomy and free-electron lasers.

In 2003, Dr. Ride told The Times that stereotypes still persisted about girls and science and math — for example the idea that girls had less ability or interest in those subjects, or would be unpopular if they excelled in them. She thought peer pressure, especially in middle school, began driving girls away from the sciences, so she continued to set up science programs all over the country meant to appeal to girls — science festivals, science camps, science clubs — to help them find mentors, role models and one another.

“It’s no secret that I’ve been reluctant to use my name for things,” she said. “I haven’t written my memoirs or let the television movie be made about my life. But this is something I’m very willing to put my name behind.”

Dr. Ride married a fellow astronaut, Steven Hawley, in 1982. They decorated their master bedroom with a large photograph of astronauts on the moon. They divorced in 1987. Dr. Ride is survived by her partner of 27 years, Tam O’Shaughnessy; her mother, Joyce; and her sister, Ms. Scott, who is known as Bear. (Dr. O’Shaughnessy is chief operating officer of Dr. Ride’s company.)

Dr. Ride told interviewers that what drove her was not the desire to become famous or to make history as the first woman in space. All she wanted to do was fly, she said, to soar into space, float around weightless inside the shuttle, look out at the heavens and gaze back at Earth. In photographs of her afloat in the spaceship, she was grinning, as if she had at long last reached the place she was meant to be.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 25, 2012

Because of an editing error, an obituary on Tuesday about Sally Ride, the first American woman to fly in space, referred incorrectly to the death of Roger Boisjoly, an engineer who testified about the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger before a panel that included Dr. Ride. Mr. Boisjoly died in January of this year, not in February. The obituary also misstated the name and the location of the Southern California high school Dr. Ride attended. It was Westlake School for Girls in Los Angeles, not Westlake High School in Beverly Hills.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 24, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Coolly Shattered A Space Ceiling

11 Facts about Women Around the World | Do Something

Contributed by: Barbara
1.Women perform 66% of the world’s work, but receive only 11% of the world’s income, and own only 1% of the world’s land.
2.Women make up 66% of the world’s illiterate adults.
3.Women head 83% of single-parent families. The number of families nurtured by women alone doubled from 1970 to 1995 (from 5.6 million to 12.2 million).
4.Women account for 55% of all college students, but even when women have equal years of education it does not translate into economic opportunities or political power.
5.There are six million more women than men in the world.
6.Two-thirds of the world’s children who receive less than four years of education are girls. Girls represent nearly 60% of the children not in school.
7.Parents in countries such as China and India sometimes use sex determination tests to find out if their fetus is a girl. Of 8,000 fetuses aborted at a Bombay clinic, 7,999 were female.
8.Wars today affect civilians most, since they are civil wars, guerrilla actions and ethnic disputes over territory or government.
3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children.
9.Rape is consciously used as a tool of genocide and weapon of war. Tens of thousands of women and girls have been subjected to rape and other sexual violence since the crisis erupted in Darfur in 2003. There is no evidence of anyone being convicted in Darfur for these atrocities.
10.About 75% of the refugees and internally displaced in the world are women who have lost their families and their homes.
11..Gender-based violence kills one in three women across the world and is the biggest cause of injury and death to women worldwide, causing more deaths and disability among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accident, and war.
Sources:
Amnesty International
US Census Bureau
Women’s Learning Partnership
Discrimination Human Rights Women’s Rights
Info Sheet
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,378 other followers