WOMEN: A Coalition of Women Organized Mobilized Empowered Nationwide

BettyJean Downing

Women and children are facing brutality and injustice at the hands of family, friends, intimate partners, agencies and the justice system at alarming numbers, it’s a pandemic. Brave individual and independent groups are struggling to be heard, large bureaucracies need the limited funds to fund the bureaucracy while the folks who really need the funds often find the funds depleted to operational costs.

Independent unfunded volunteer groups are springing up more often than not find themselves jockeying for attention to our desperate plight rather than working together for the desperate plight of all women. Rather than being divided on which issue demands more of our attention women need to understand all injustice toward all women and children must be stopped. The injustice of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, rape, family and divorce court reform, sexism, misogyny, media sexualization and pedophilia, to name a few, affects every woman and child directly or indirectly one way or the other. Women and girls are under attack from every flank, and yet all these groups stand alone rather than uniting nationwide demanding justice for all of womankind in this the great America claiming to be a beacon of women’s rights!

At The Majority United, our only issue is “Women’s rights are human rights.” We know that as citizens of the United States we too have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we too have the right to a representative government and equal justice and we are not getting it. TMU has formed WOMEN as an umbrella group inviting all groups to unite under the umbrella individually so the majority can show a united front while each group remains itself independent and dedicated to its own cause but bolstered by the strength of a national united women’s non-partisan non- issue group.

Whatever battle women are facing, we know that we are stronger when we have an organization behind us. We are stronger when that organization has no single issue partisan ax to grind but instead is fighting only for human rights and Justice. We know we stand a greater chance of being heard and taken seriously when we are strong. And we know we are stronger when we are united than we are when we are fighting alone! We invite your group to join our women’s coalition of groups united in solidarity of Women Organized Mobilized Empowered Nationwide (WOMEN) working toward justice and human rights for women and children in the United States.

 

Join us: https://www.facebook.com/groups/MajorityUnited/

 

We need Volunteers and Board Members and Officers

 

Facebook: promoting sexual violence and rape as if it is a first amendment right!

Please sign a petition asking Facebook to remove pages that promote sexual violence. This is not free speech – it is gratuitous violence

Tell Facebook to take down pages that promote violence against women.

The following are actual pages on Facebook:

  • “Raping your mates girlfriend to see if she can put up a fight”
  • “Kicking Sluts in the Vagina”
  • “I know a silly little bitch that needs a good slap”
  • “Riding your Girlfriend softly, Cause you don’t want to wake her up.”

http://www.change.org/petitions/demand-facebook-remove-pages-that-promote-sexual-violence?utm_medium=email&alert_id=cBnfZkvgtZ_hRwAOhvLhi&utm_source=action_alert

Tell Facebook to take down pages that promote violence against women.

Rape Victims Condemned and Dismissed: Then and Now

In 1970 Jerry Plotkin and three others gang raped an acquaintance. Plotkin pleaded not guilty: He was a sexual libertine; he did what he wanted without limits. Through innuendo he implied that his victim was a libertine, too. Proof: she’d had sex without marriage.

The jury acquitted: A woman who’d had sex outside of wedlock could not be raped.

A rape victim condemned, her suffering dismissed.

Turning back 20 years earlier, an article from the 1952-53 Yale Law Journal explained why rape was illegal: “Women’s power to withhold or grant sexual access is an important bargaining weapon… it fosters, and is in turn bolstered by, a masculine pride in the exclusive possession of the sexual object… whose value is enhanced by sole ownership.”

The victim’s pain dismissed.

Discounting rape reaches far into history – at least when women are prey. In the Old Testament (Judges 19:22-29) we find depraved men pounding at the door of a Levite’s home, demanding a male guest be turned out to be raped. The Levite refuses, sending out his virgin daughter and his guest’s concubine, instead:

23 No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.

25: So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. 27 When her master got up in the morning … 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer.   

No distress arises as the concubine’s “husband” turns her out to be raped or finds her dead. If anyone has been harmed it is him, his property defiled.

If you think we’re past these attitudes, think again.

A lack of compassion continues in the Middle East. Instead of nurturing a victim through her trauma, she faces an honor killing as punishment for the sin of being attacked.  

In today’s India, female rape victims can be subjected to a “finger exam” to see if her hymen is intact, or whether her vagina is “narrow” or “roomy.” A focus on virginity leaves her suffering of no import.

In the U.S., things are better. But problems remain. Helena Lazaro was raped at knifepoint at a car wash. She has spent 13 years trying to get her case properly investigated. But her attacker remains loose while authorities fail to test her rape kit.  Currently, 180,000 rape kits are left untested nationwide, creating more rape victims.

Meanwhile, too many women are blamed for a crime that is committed against them.

Rape victims undergo depression, anxiety, and even post-traumatic stress disorder. Many become sexually dysfunctional.

Rape is the crime women most fear outside of murder. But you wouldn’t know it by the way victims are ignored and condemned.

Georgia Platts

Source:

Susan Griffin. “Politics: 1971.” The Power of Consciousness. HarperCollins. 1979

Did Women Create Burqa Culture?

The upcoming French vote on the burqa ban has got me thinking. Did women have equal power to create the burqa? And who benefits from this garment?

Some charge that rejecting the burqa comes from fear of the other, or ethnocentrism. I’m in sync with cultural relativism, so long as no one is being hurt. But buqas and “burqa cultures” don’t give women equal power. And women certainly did not have equal sway in creating the customs of these societies.

Think about the laws that exist in places where women are required to cover up in burqas or niqabs (facemasks) or various other veilings.

Is it likely that women decided that men could easily demand a divorce, but women could get one only with difficulty?

Is it likely that women created the notion that sharing a husband with other women might be nice?

Did women create the idea that an adulterous man be punished by burial up to his waist before being stoned, while a woman must be buried to her breasts – and one who escapes, escapes the stoning?

In these cultures, when a woman is raped it is her fault. She obviously let some hair fall from her covering, or she allowed an ankle to show. Everyone knows that no man could resist such things. Did women decide that women, and not men, are responsible for men’s sexuality?

Did women originate the notion that after rape, the victim must be killed to restore the family honor?

Did women clamor for a burqa that limits their power and autonomy – keeping them from driving and getting jobs that are far from home? Did women design this garment that prevents small pleasures like seeing clearly or feeling the sun and the wind?

And who benefits?

Men benefit from easily obtaining a divorce, but not allowing their wives the same privilege. Men benefit from the sexual variety of having many wives, while women are left to share one man. Men benefit by more easily escaping a stoning. And men can rape with impunity since women fear reporting sexual assault, lest their families kill them. Men gain power when women are incapable of getting jobs and income. How much easier is it to beat women for the infraction of straying outside the home, or letting a wrist show, when they are black and blue blobs, and not human beings?

It is common to make accusations of ethnocentrism when one culture rejects the practices of another. Often the fears are valid.

But if a powerful group creates a culture that benefits themselves to the detriment of others, the critique is not about ethnocentrism. It is about human rights.

Georgia Platts

Porn: Pro and Con

When it comes to pornography feminists are divided. Where do you stand?

Pro-porn feminists

Feminists who call themselves “sex-positive” say sexual freedom is essential to women’s freedom. They feel patriarchy represses women’s sexual expression, and say porn can liberate through challenging conventional notions that women should be monogamous, romantic, and that sex should be tied to procreation. They do not believe that laws written in a male-dominated society would serve women’s interests.

 Anti-porn feminists

Feminists who oppose pornography say it turns women into objects, promotes misogyny, eroticizes male dominance, and leads to violence against women. As one anti-porn blogger put it, “instead of being portrayed as individuals, as human beings, they are treated as fragmented body parts; women, men and children are depicted and used as holes, cunts, living sex aids, receptacles for the depositing of waste fluids.”

Does pornography cause violence against women?  

Studies are not conclusive.

Researchers asked male volunteers to administer electric shocks to women, under the guise of providing feedback in learning experiments. Men who had been exposed to violent and humiliating pornography were more aggressive in administering shocks.

Men who were shown violent and humiliating pornography also developed attitudes that were closer to those of rapists’. But the effects evaporated after a couple of months.

And we still don’t know whether pornography causes actual rape.

On the other hand, correlation studies often find that the more pornography is consumed, the lower the rate of rape. Does pornography decrease rape? Other factors could be in play. Over the last 20 years:

  • pornography consumption increased due to the Internet
  • women’s power and status rose because of increased opportunity in our society
  • the rate of rape decreased according to Justice Department victimization surveys

Has rape decreased because of higher pornography consumption or because women’s power and status has broadly risen despite porn?

Civil Libertarian Feminists

Other feminists believe that pornography is offensive and even harmful, but they feel that protection of individual rights and freedoms is more important.

What should be done?

Should pornography be celebrated as “pro-sex” feminists believe? Should laws be imposed against pornography as many anti-porn feminists advocate, and as civil libertarians fear? Should those who are concerned about negative effects of pornography turn to dialogue and education rather than the law?

 Where do you come down on the issue?

 Georgia Platts

Sources:

Gloria Cowan. “Pornography: Conflict Among Feminists.” Women: A Feminist Perspective, Fifth Edition. Edited by Jo Freeman. 1995

Michael Kimmel. Guyland. Harper. 2008

Human contact lacking in today’s push-button parenting

By: Lynette Long

Police cars sit parked outside Richmond High School in Richmond, Calif. where authorities are investigating the rape and beating of a 15-year-old girl on school grounds following a homecoming dance. (AP photo)

In Deerfield Beach, Fla., five boys surrounded seventh-grader Michael Brewer, doused him with alcohol, and set him on fire in mid-October. Brewer survived the attack but has burns on more than 65 percent of his body.

Chicago honor student Derrion Albert, 16, wasn’t so lucky. His death was taped on a cell phone as a group of boys brutally beat him with wooden boards in late September.

Each of these crimes was particularly disturbing because not only did the perpetrators show no respect for human life but no empathy for the pain and suffering inflicted on the victims of their crimes.

These recent attacks horrified a nation that is struggling to curb teen violence and understand why so many teens seem so out of control.


As a society, we tend to look to the already overburdened school systems to fix problems with our youth.

Traditional interventions of increasing school security, teaching values in the classroom and increasing police presence in and around schools, will do little to curb the frequency or the intensity of these attacks. Schools didn’t create these problems and they can’t fix them.

Teachers and administrators are the psychological victims of teen violence as they spend their days working in “urban war zones.” The problems with our youth start long before they enter school and can only be addressed by educating parents and making them accountable for their children.

The sad truth is a cultural shift and technological advances have changed the way we parent our children, reduced their respect for authority and their ability to authentically connect with others.

Traditional time-intensive methods of parenting have been scrapped for efficiency. The rocking chair has been replaced by an electronic swing, story time by a video and face time by glimpses through the rearview mirror of a car.

Board games, which once fostered interpersonal interaction and sportsmanship, have been replaced by first-person shooter video games such as “Doom” and “Call of Duty” that desensitize children to killing.

Face-to-face interaction with groups of friends has been replaced by “instant messaging” and social networking sites like Facebook. The primary mode of one-on-one conversations has shifted from talking to texting.

Children need contact with other humans to grow up to be healthy adults. The early years have a profound effect on adult behavior and attachment. Babies and young children need to hear the sound of a human voice, not the jingle of a stuffed toy. Babies need to find comfort in people, not machines.

Older children need to spend more time with adults and fewer hours glued to a television or a computer screen.

Middle school and high school students need more supervision than can be provided by an occasional check-in call with their parents.

Lynette Long

The lack of involvement by either parent not only puts an undue stress on the custodial parent, but it is likely to create a deep sense of abandonment and anger in the child.

The reality is many of our children are parented by machines and feel less and less connection with their parents and, consequently, humanity.

The television is the baby sitter, the computer the social meeting place and the cell phone the touch point. Machines might keep our children entertained and allow us to parent our children remotely, but machines by their nature are cold, detached and place no value on human life.

Children need love to grow up to be healthy adults, and you can’t get that from a television, a video game, an iPod or a computer. There is no substitute for human contact and until we change the way we parent our children, no amount of security or surveillance will protect them.

Lynette Long is a licensed psychologist in Chevy Chase, Md., and the author of 20 books including “The Handbook for Latchkey Children and Their Working Parents.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,378 other followers