"True, much of the dated advice ... is now amusingly camp,
but the potential thrill of being single still saturates each page."
![]()
Friday, June 11, 2004
By Marie Ewald | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
BROOKLINE, MASS. – It happened years ago, but Deborah Lindeman recounts the moment as if it happened yesterday. Her mother, chastising her, hit her so hard that she left a hand print on her 11-year-old's thigh. Stunned, they both cried for 25 minutes.
"We review our lives as parents with some pain, I know we all do," says Ms. Lindeman's mother, Susan Goldstein, who also has a clear memory of when her own father hit her with a belt after she had crossed a street without looking both ways. "I don't like power as a way of solving problems.... We just took it for granted."
Related stories
04/23/04
A teacher fights back against unruly kids
04/19/04
Opinion: Britain debates: to spank or not to spank
E-mail newsletters
Get all of today's headlines, or alerts on specific topics.
Subscribe for free.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish
Corporal punishment as a means of discipline has been entrenched in US culture since Colonial times. Attitudes have evolved over the years, but Thursday night the town of Brookline, a suburb of Boston, faced possibly the most radical public shift in approach to the divisive issue. Its citizens were scheduled to vote on a controversial resolution that encourages parents and caregivers to refrain from corporal punishment of children. If passed, Brookline would be the first US town with such a resolution, says Jordan Riak, founder of Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education in Alamo, Calif.
"These kind of things tend to start at the local level and rise to a more global level, and I suspect that they're reaching for legislation that would make [spanking] illegal," says Julaine Appling, acting director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, who supports judicious spanking and worries about infringement on parental rights. "It sounds very precedent-setting to me."
Mr. Riak attempted to make Oakland, Calif., a "no spanking zone" five years ago with a similar resolution, which failed by one vote in the Oakland City Council. National press jumped on the story, but it was largely treated as a joke, even as Riak felt the resolution would have helped reduce the city's high rate of domestic and street violence. Some studies have shown a correlation between spanking and antisocial behavior.
Oakland wasn't ready for the resolution, Riak says, but he'll try again if the Brookline resolution succeeds. "As a rule, social reform generally doesn't begin in places that most need it. That's why Brookline is the right place to do it," he says. "That sets a standard for other cities to follow. It has to be made socially safe or acceptable. I have many people watching the Brookline experiment [who] are ready to launch similar resolutions in their own cities."
Brookline boasts a well-educated citizenry and independent-minded voters, town Selectman Michael Sher says. The night before the vote on the resolution, he predicted a lively debate but said the outcome was too much of a tossup to predict.
Lindeman, a Brookline resident and mother of two, calls the resolution a "no-brainer" - simply a sensible recommendation, though she shares skepticism with other parents about how such a resolution could be enforced.
Elizabeth and Kai Leissner, however, feel less comfortable having the town weigh in on their child-rearing practices. They don't believe in spanking their own two children, but they also believe in the freedom to choose. "Every situation is different, and [government] can't say what's right and wrong," Ms. Leissner says. "Soon they will decide that I'm not able to give soda to my kids?"
Ron Goldman, who submitted the resolution with the backing of child-welfare organizations, says he has no intention of undermining parental authority, and characterizes the resolution as a nonbinding "suggestion."
"There's a reason for social concern about what goes on in the family because it does have social consequences for all of us," Dr. Goldman says.
"What's done to children, they will do to society," he adds, quoting American psychiatrist Karl Menninger.
Aside from the role of the government, the resolution opens debate about the role of the parent and the use of spanking. Is striking a child a human rights abuse or a legitimate means of discipline? Research offers no clear answer.
Goldman, an engineer with a doctorate in psychology, cites a 2002 Columbia University analysis of 88 studies on spanking that links the practice to aggression and mental-health problems in children.
On the other side, Dubose Ravenel, a member of the Society for Developmental Behavior Pediatrics with a practice in High Point, N.C., points to analysis that regards the use of spanking as part of "optimal child raising."
Dr. Ravenel says the large number of studies makes it "silly" to draw a meaningful conclusion without studying them in depth, yet policy is often made based on a superficial reading of the data.
Analysts point to the rise of popular psychology - and the focus on the child's individuality - as a major contributor to growing criticism of spanking.
And not just in the US. A dozen countries have national policies condemning corporal punishment - Germany, Israel, and Denmark among them. Sweden was the first to do so in 1979.
Goldman is hoping to make history with his petition, but if public awareness in Brookline is the only outcome, he says he'll be satisfied.
This tactic will succeed because such women are the targets of a universal misogynist hatred; the mass culture public loves to watch such women fall and will gladly divert its attention from the real evil - even when it is obviously against their own interest to do so.
It worked with Hillary Clinton and the reform of the medical system, and it worked with Martha Steward and the wall street rip offs.
And here it is again; Karpinski called incompetent and now a shoplifter in an obvious smear by the CIA - Sanchez, Carbone and Tenet, the men responsible for the torture of prisoners in Iraq allowed to retire with honor - they are called fine patriots by everyone, (the president, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Candidate John Kerry, even Ralph Nader) .
No one mentions the BS intelligence gathered under their thug methods and all their incompetence. No -it was Karpinski's fault.
And the CIA is not done with her - have you read about the "shoplifting charges". It seems Special Forces Commander Karpinski allegedly tried to steal a $22.00 bottle of perfume from a high toned department store.
She HAD to read about the alleged shoplifting because it never happened - although 2 weeks ago, immediately before Tenet's resignation as Director of the CIA, a report of the alleged conviction mysteriously surfaced.
One that never appeared before in any of the military's previous background checks.
A Challenge to the Feminist Community
Nude for Peace: Internet Pornography and the War
Excitement, Adoration; Grudging Admiration, or, Different Strokes for Different Sexes
Lest We Forget
On Sex Positiveness
Who's Co-opting Feminism?
by anon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you an ifeminist? Take this quiz to find out."
I click on the link. 'Interesting,' I think to myself. 'This will be an entertaining yet informative way to kill an idle ten minutes before my class.'
But what is "ifeminism," anyway? More than likely, we are all at least somewhat familiar with liberal feminism, radial feminism, ecofeminism, and a whole host of others. But I for one had never even heard of ifeminism. Curious to learn about it, I happened upon a website called www.ifeminists.com and read the introduction.
I came to discover that Ifeminism, formally known as "Individualist Feminism," premises itself on the goal equal rights between the genders. That makes perfect sense to me. After all, isn't that our goal? So does that make me an ifeminist? I didn't see why not.
But as I continued to read, I began to feel less and less sure. States Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminism.com: "Ifeminists believe that freedom and diversity benefit women, whether or not the choices that particular women make are politically correct. They respect all sexual choices, from motherhood to porn."
According to ifeminism, "freedom and choice do not threaten women. Government and orthodoxy do." Functioning within a libertarian, post second-wave politic, ifeminists propose that women are both intelligent and empowered enough to know what is right for them. They believe that telling women what is or is not best for them by enacting legislation against pornography is "paternalistic" to women who choose to work in the sex-industry, and affirmative action only "embeds gender privilege" for women in the law.
So then what's wrong with ifeminism?
Plenty.
As feminists, we all want equality. But according to ifeminism, "equality" is synonymous with equal treatment under the existing legal, economic and social systems. In other words, rather than opposing the status quo, ifeminism operates within it. While other feminists view the law as inherently unjust and in need of reconstruction, ifeminists have absolutely no desire to prosecute pimps, legislate against sexual harassment, or otherwise compromise and challenge the default male standard.
And this is supposed to help women progress as a class how?
What ifeminists need to realize is that because the law was designed without significant input by women and other minorities, it innately disfavors them. Ifeminists argue that affirmative action tramples on the rights of individuals, thereby completely disregarding the fact that the system is fundamentally flawed and unbalanced. Common sense, however, dictates otherwise. If the system was not designed by a privileged group, then there would have been no need for affirmative action in the first place, because women and other minorities would have always been equally represented from the very beginning.
But there you have it. The crux of ifeminist analysis can be summed up in two words: Anything goes. There's nothing inherently sexist about the sex-industry (but where are all the male prostitutes and victims of the sex trade?), and all women who participate in it are doing so of their own "choice" (hell, if I had no economic privilege and a history of sexual abuse, I'd probably "choose" to sell my body too!)
Are these responsible positions for a feminist to take?
A decent dose of "individualism" is the cornerstone of mental health and productivity for all each of us. As distinctive human beings, we often find ourselves placed at different intervals on the full spectrum of political beliefs. This is a good thing. Without individuality, there would be no difference of opinion and therefore no progress.
But by denying that current inequities even exist, do ifeminists have a legitimate claim to feminism, or is the very term "Individualist Feminist" an oxymoron?
So what kind of feminist am I? Well, I don't know - I never bothered taking the quiz. But I do know for certain that I am not an "ifeminist", nor am I inclined to take ifeminism, or any other specious euphemisms for conservative/libertarian agendas, very seriously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last month the former actress apologised in court, and said: "I never knowingly wanted to hurt anybody."
In her book she wrote about issues such as racial mixing, immigration, the role of women in politics and Islam.
The book also contained a section attacking what she called the mixing of genes and praised previous generations who, she said, had given their lives to push out invaders.
Bardot's comments prompted anti-racism groups to launch legal proceedings against the actress, who now campaigns for animal rights.
The court said: "Madame Bardot presents Muslims as barbaric and cruel invaders, responsible for terrorist acts and eager to dominate the French to the extent of wanting to exterminate them."
It awarded a symbolic one euro in damages to France's anti-racism movement MRAP and to the League for Human Rights who brought the case to court.
The court also ordered a 5,000 euro fine against the head of Bardot's publishing house, Le Rocher, and ordered both to pay for advertisements in two newspapers announcing their convictions.
Bardot has previous convictions for inciting racial violence after criticizing in print the Muslim practice of slaughtering sheep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT from GreenConsciousness: Buy her Book,A Cry In The Silence,to protest France's silencing of women's exposing the Islamic patriarchy for the threat to women it actually is in reality.
BB is right about the Islamisation of France although France has more intelligence than does the US about letting girls IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS wear garbage bags over their heads because their slaveholders insist on it.
But after all we are as much slaves to Jehovah as the Moslems are to Allah. Wait till the Moslems start broadcasting their "5 times a day prayers" on a loudspeaker near your home and the Madison left, along with the middle east student exchange population, calls it religious freedom and objections cultural relativism.
In the US not only are the Muslim girls allowed to wear the symbols of their slavery (like the Nazi yellow stars and pink triangles) but they have a special room where they can kneel and kowtow slave obedience to their male god from 1:00 TO 1:30 PM
Boxer Introduces Bill For Afghan Women's Security and Freedom -- Urge Your Senators To Co-Sponsor
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the "Afghan Women Security and Freedom Act 2004" (S2032) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week. Please email your Senators now and urge them to support Boxer’s bill to provide the necessary support and security for Afghan women and girls.
This act calls for direct funding for the Ministry of Women's Affairs, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, and Afghan women's organizations. The bill authorizes $300 million for each of the fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, earmarking $20 million for the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs and $10 million for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission each year. The act will fund programs for women in the areas of political and human rights, education and training, healthcare, and security, protection and shelter. According to the act, "not less than 25 percent of such assistance" should be provided to women-led non-governmental organizations that are located in Afghanistan.
In addition, the act calls for the expansion of international peacekeeping forces and the authorization of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and peace troops to intervene to stop human rights and women's rights violations, which the current mandates do not allow.
Please send a message today to urge your Senators to co-sponsor this important bill. Afghan women and girls need your support.
Want to do more than send email? Start an Action Team for Afghan Women and Girls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO FIND THE BELOW SITES
MORE INFORMATION
Background of the Campaign to Help Afghan Women and Girls
For more alerts on this issue, see Equality Now's column:
Spotlight: Speaking Out About Global Violence
Other organizations working on this issue:
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
But I at green consciousness WOULD NOT OFFER ANY MONEY TO RAWA AS IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ.
I THEREFORE QUESTION ITS' USE OF MONEY RAISED IN THE UNITED STATES.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MONEY GOES TOWARD ASSISTING WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN.
I am a feminist and have been trying to help Moslem women since 1972 when I learned about female genital mutilation.
Because of my horror at the slave status of women in the middle east;and,
because I have tracked the Moslem brotherhood for a long time;
I DO support this war (Afghanistan/Iraq and hopefully Iran someday) with every fiber of my being.
And except for the CIA and Military Intelligence, I believe President Bush has done a good job in fighting terror and Sec. Rumsfeld has done a good job in planning and executing the war. Those who criticize the "bad post war planning" not only could not do better but never even comprehended the problem and still do not get it for the most part. Previous Democratic and Republican presidents both, walked past women in burkas, women obviously held in slave status, and they did nothing.
However, some things about groups now raising money "to help Afghanistan women " in the United States are disturbing to me. I have noticed there are woman's groups raising $ off the plight of women in Iraq and Afghanistan who ALSO present position papers against the "invasion" of those countries and against the occupation of those countries.
I have asked for an accounting of what happens with the money they raise and they refuse to disclose.
I believe these groups may be fronts, not legitimate organizations.
THREE Women's groups identified as being against the war are also "begging" for money for charitable purposes in Afghanistan and Iraq and one brags of having raised over $70,000.00 last year in the U.S.
These groups are RAWA, Women for Women, International and Women Helping Afghan Women.
http://rawasongs.fancymarketing.net/index.html
http://www.womenforwomen.org/
http://www.womenforafghanwomen.org/press_release/press022003.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I compared their anti-invasion press releases which explain why they are against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq - and they are all three the same press release. Women Helping Afghan Women is also asking for money for RAWA's so-called hospital located in PAKISTAN (not in Afghanistan where the "burn victim" are located).
RAWA is a group that tried to stop the US invasion of Afghanistan. After their leader was killed in Afghanistan, they used her martyrdom to raise money and then used that money for the anti-war movement.
The organizers are from the Pastune tribe which produced the Taliban. The Pastune's position in governing Afghanistan with the Taliban was the same as the Sunni's position with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
I believe the leadership in RAWA shifted dramatically sometime after the murder of their leader. Although RAWA fundraises in the US, they opposed US intervention in Afghanistan, opposed working with all the ethnic tribes to govern Afghanistan and do not make public accounting for the money that is donated to their organization. This is dangerous.
I am very familiar with both socialist groups and CIA lack of ethics. They both often work through front groups. So do this country's terrorist enemies.
It is plausible that RAWA being no longer viable because of THEIR anti-invasion stance, had their US organizers simply branch off into another group.
Women for Women, International,(WFWI) uses the same anti-invasion Press Release but changes a few words, standing against the "invasion" of Iraq and Afghanistan, citing their poor country and fear of bombing. When I asked for their current stance they took all their "anti-war/women are under worse conditions after the war" articles off their website. They also refused to disclose any info about their U.S. woman employee who was killed organizing women in Iraq. I believe her first name was Fern.
WFWI, hired a U.S. women to organize in Iraq, primarily because of her strong contacts with members of the US Senate and House. Rather, she applied for a job position and they hired her. After some time of successful organizing of women in Iraq, she was killed by "terrorists".
Terrorist killed the WFWI organizer in Iraq after receiving intelligence concerning the organizer's movements. Women for Women International refuses to put a memorial to the dead organizer's efforts on their website. Then all the Iraqi women quit the projects she was organizing because they started getting death threats.
What a nice way to get Afghanistan and Iraqi women to refuse to step out of line. Just murder their organizers. Then claim that things are worse for women than before the United States' invasion as does RAWA and as did Women for Women International before they took the articles off their website.
Nice. A very effective tactic and one previously employed by terrorists world-wide..
So now we have, Women helping Afghanistan Women, (WHAW) - same Press Release against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, same request for donations to RAWA's "hospital" in Pakistan not Afghanistan on their website.
And now WHAW is advertising for a bookkeeper to work for them. They have refused to disclose to me their tax status and the amount of money they have raised for the hospital in Pakistan.
The position is advertised for a bookkeeper who speaks darsi - not much more info is given. Since money is the priority of Women Helping Afghan Women it stands to reason that bookkeeping in the U.S., not organizing in Afghanistan, is also their employment priority.
You do not need to be in Afghanistan to raise money -you can just take a plane to drop off used goods every once in a while to justify raising millions in the US.
The real question is, how long before those organizers who work for Women Helping Afghan Women and who might actually live in Afghanistan are killed as was the organizer who worked for Women for Women International was killed in Iraq?
Wouldn't it be horrible if these groups were, like Hamas, supposedly raising money for "charity" but actually funding terrorism?
I hope people on this website will e-mail Women Helping Afghan Women, Women for Women International and RAWA to ask the following questions. I hope anyone considering donating to these organizations will ask the following questions.
1. Ask for their PR against the war/invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and all the articles they had on their website on the "worse" position of women after the invasion.
2. Ask them to describe how they expected the Taliban to be overthrown without a US invasion.
3. Ask how they were going to change things for Iraq women/people without the US invasion?
4. Ask to see their current position on the wars for liberation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. Ask for a statement of accounting detailing the amount of funds donated to their organization, from what sources and an accounting of the distribution of funds that have been donated to their organizations.
5. Ask for the organization's tax status in this country.
6. Ask Women for Women International, why they refuse to discuss what happened to their Iraqi women's organizer or place a memorial to her on their website.
I am serious. I believe all these groups are front groups. For who or what? I do not know, but the liberation of women is NOT their primary purpose if they are against the U.S. invasion.
There could be no organizing for women in Iraq or Afghanistan, no changes in the status of women, as long as Hussein or the Taliban were in power. There will be no changes in the status of women in Iran without a U.S. invasion there either.
Considering that an innocent women went to work for WFWI Iraq and was KILLED because she was too successful, and that they are raising a lot of money without accounting for its' distribution, I think these three groups should be examined carefully.
If I am exposed as wrong that will be wonderful - but I want you who do support the war, to help me find out . We do not yet know if my suspicions are correct and I hope I am wrong - but if they are correct this is so disgusting because the women - and all the people of Afghanistan are so needy that this is the cruelest kind of exploitation.
I am not confusing the organizations with the legitimate needs of Afghan women for freedom and justice. The plight of Afghan women (and Iraqi women) is real - there is no gender justice in their male dominated society - the courts were designed to keep the women slaves of their male relatives.
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20020627.jhtml
The organization RAWA, and now it seems others as well,WHAW and WFWI, may be exploiting that situation to raise money from gullible women in the US. The question is -What did RAWA do with those funds? What are Women for Women International and Women Helping Afghanistan Women, doing with the money they are raising right now? Why won't they release their tax status or current position on the war?
BELOW ARE BETTER LINKS IF YOU WANT TO HELP IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WOMEN:
http://www.radiofeminista.net/25nov03/International2003.htm
http://www.fire.or.cr/agosto03/notas/kandahar.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/c8973.htm
http://usawc.state.gov/index.htm
http://www.radiofeminista.net/25nov03/International2003.htm
http://www.fire.or.cr/agosto03/notas/kandahar.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/c8973.htm
http://usawc.state.gov/index.htm
http://www.equalitynow.org/english/navigation/hub_en.html
In Central America the problem has been growing, with sex tourists attracted to the region by ever-cheaper flights as well as easily circumvented child protection laws.
One man, a British charity director, has dedicated himself to tracking down the offenders that governments have failed to prosecute.
Bruce Harris, of the Catholic children's charity Casa Alianza, wants to stop the area from becoming one of the world's biggest centres for child sex tourism.
Mr Harris is based in Costa Rica where, he says: "We get plane loads of sex tourists coming in".
"They leave millions of dollars in the country. Sex tourism is big money."
Paedophiles have been able to exploit loopholes in Costa Rica's child protection laws and, for years, the chances of being caught and punished were almost non-existent. In a country where the authorities seemed reluctant to pursue offenders, child sex tourists appeared likely to get what they were looking for: anonymity and immunity.
After years of persuasion, Mr Harris finally managed to convince the government that the problem needed to be acted on. He has recently filmed pimps undercover, set up elaborate stings to trap internet paedophile rings and harangued governments to change laws and act against offenders.
But some successful convictions - helped also by tougher laws and the appointment of a special prosecutor - have led to death threats for Mr Harris. The country is now marketing itself as a modern holiday destination and trying to show that times are changing, but two of Mr Harris's biggest cases will test the country's resolve.
Madame Siani Monge Munoz - accused of being Costa Rica's biggest child pimp - has finally been arrested, 10 years after first being investigated by Mr Harris. It is said she has a secret list of clients that includes major public figures and politicians.
Also, American tourist Arthur Kanev has just been extradited to Costa Rica on charges of sexually exploiting several young girls, after Mr Harris tracked him down in the US with the help of a television crime programme.
But international co-operation across borders as well as massive resources and training are required to bring more cases like these to trial or to prevent more abuse.
[Table of Contents - Archives are Here]