Today, Laura Liswood, co-founder of the Council of Women World Leaders, writes about why it is important to look at the shifting rankings of certain countries in the fight for equality.

In its annual measurement of global progress in the lives of women and girls, released October 27, 2009, the World Economic Forum reported some major improvements in surprising places. The 2009 Global Gender Gap Report-which, country by county, examines data indicating the resources and status of women compared to men-ranks Lesotho, for example, in the top 10, a marked improvement from its place at 16 last year and 43 in 2006. By contrast, the United States moved down three slots since last year and now ranks 31st.

It is important to note that no country in the world has achieved full gender equality. However, it is important to note that Norway has legislation that demands all public institutions "promote gender equality, and these efforts are to be documented each year." The top ranking country, Iceland, passed this type of legislation back in 2000 as the Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women. Finland employs an "Ombudsman for Equality, the Gender Equality Unit, and the Council for Equality" in its pursuit of gender parity. And in Sweden, there is an Ombudsman on Discrimination, as well as measures taken in schools and workplaces to ensure women do not face bias. Interesting how in the top four countries, all of them have taken an active role in eliminating discrimination.

Liswood explains how the remaining countries are ranked:

The countries, explains Saadia Zahidi, fall into roughly three major groupings:

* Group I Countries making almost no progress to close gaps (Yemen, Chad, Pakistan);
* Group II Countries making progress on health and education but cultural constraints create barriers to economic and political participation. Such countries as Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are investing in health and education in girls but not getting the concomitant return on their investment as women are not actively engaged in the workplace and in the political process;
* Group III Gaps in these countries (including the United States and United Kingdom) have been almost completely closed in education and health; progress is occurring on economic and political participation. What is lagging is women's presence at the highest levels of power be it management of a business or head of state or government or parliament. Countries that adopt quotas for business or politics often see an immediate jump in their standing once these mechanisms kick in.

She then goes for the jugular:

Data collection alone can't make the sea level rise, but many political and business leaders hide behind the excuse that women must ‘make the case' for change. The case can rarely be made without information that proves what women may intuitively already know. And looking at a gender gap that has been indexed should give leaders pause if they are not fully utilizing 50 percent of their talent.

Why the lag between education/health and economic and political empowerment? One might have thought that once girls were educated and kept healthy then they would ‘naturally' find themselves in the workplace and in political positions of power. Power is probably the operative word in looking at this pipeline failure problem. Allocating health and education resources is in and of itself less threatening to the powers that be than relaxing control of the purse or political positions. Dominant groups rarely voluntarily relinquish their power.

Global Gender Gap Report: Some Gains in Africa [WMC]
The Global Gender Gap Report 2009 [World Economic Forum]
Gender issues [Research Council of Norway]
Gender equality in Iceland [Tea for Two]
Gender equality in Finland [Tea for Two]
Gender equality in Sweden [Sweden.se]

Gay marriage opponents in Maine used the same strategist who got the job done in California, and the same bullshit. The Associated Press reports that the organization "Stand for Marriage based many of its campaign ads on claims - disputed by state officials - that the new law would mean 'homosexual marriage' would be taught in public schools." Apparently, not enough voters asked the obvious question: What the fuck does that even mean? They just heard "homosexual" and "schools" and decided it was worth showing up to take a stand against equality. Again.

National Organization for Marriage director Brian Brown "was elated by Tuesday's result, saying it shows that 'that even in a New England state, if the voters have a chance to have their say, they're going to protect and defend the commonsense definition of marriage.'" Which is exactly the problem. The states that have legalized gay marriage have done so "through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote," while all 31 states that have put it to a popular vote have shot it down. Opponents of marriage equality see this as evidence that legislators are out of touch with the people and have no business telling folks what should and shouldn't be legal, conveniently forgetting that actually, that's what we elect them to do. Also, that when it comes to securing rights for an oppressed minority, if the majority would rather just keep on with the oppressing, our elected representatives and courts have a duty to stand up and protect more vulnerable citizens.

In The Daily Beast, Linda Hirshman lays out a persuasive argument for getting gay marriage off the ballots. Noting that the ostensibly liberal "Bow Out" movement opposing federal court involvement in gay marriage was founded by people who thought the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds when it insisted that public schools be racially integrated — and p.s., they've also got a big beef with Roe v. Wade — Hirshman underscores the absurdity of their position. "Painful as it is to them, as sincere supporters of abortion rights/gay marriage/your issue here, these wise ones think the federal courts should follow the election returns. Only when a majority of states have legalized something should the federal courts find that it was a fundamental constitutional right all along." If that seems even the tiniest bit logical to you, try this: "Imagine what the law would look like if the Brown court had waited until a majority of states were ready to pass the Civil Rights Acts."

The idea that we should just be patient until hateful bigots naturally come around to accepting the full equality of all citizens, and not rush into any crazy measures like writing that equality into law, is almost certainly not, despite the claims of said hateful bigots, what the founding fathers had in mind. On the output of legal scholars waving the Bow Out flag, Hirshman writes:

What these academic treatises ignore is the concern that Madison and others had that what they called the tyranny of the majority was legitimate. A majority, Madison predicted, often whipped up by demagogues, would oppress a helpless minority, a group so naturally small it could never hope to protect itself at the polls alone-using the government to deprive them of those aspects of life fundamental to a free society. No kidding.

According to the AP, "Richard Socarides, who was an adviser on gay-rights issues in the Clinton administration, said the loss in Maine should prompt gay-rights leaders to reconsider their state-by-state strategy on marriage and shift instead to lobbying for changes on the federal level that expand recognition of same-sex couples." At this point, it looks like he may be right. The fear, of course, is that it will backfire and leave the whole country farther behind, instead of just 31 states with a slight bigot majority. But given how successful demagogues have been at whipping those majorities up, and that — as Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, put it — "lies and fear can still win at the ballot box," waiting for reason and compassion to prevail among voters doesn't seem like the way to go.

Defeat In Maine A Harsh Blow To Gay-Marriage Drive [AP]
Get Gay Marriage Off The Ballot [Daily Beast]

Related: Washington Post Does Puff Profile Of NOM's Executive Director

Here's a little more about Tricia's background:

Patricia (Tricia) Degennaro is an adjunct assistant professor at New York University's Center for Global Affairs where she teaches courses on US Foreign Policy, International Military Interventions, Civil-Military Affairs, National Security Policy, and the War on Terrorism.

In addition to her work as a professor, she is a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute and a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Democracy, Queens University in Kingston, Ontario. Tricia has published several articles on US foreign policy and national security topics. Her focus is to encourage a holistic and integrated international policy that looks beyond war and the use of force.

Tricia capitalizes on over fifteen years of experience in a writer, independent analyst and consultant in international relations and economic development. Within the last year, she has spent a significant amount of time working in Afghanistan on provincial governance and capacity building, parliamentary reform and public policy development in the Office of the President of Afghanistan.

So, without further ado, here's the discussion with Patricia DeGennaro:

LatoyaPeterson: Hey Tricia! Thanks for joining me today.

Patricia DeGennaro: Hi Latoya. Happy to be here!

LatoyaPeterson: Can you tell the readers of Jezebel a little bit about your expertise in Afghanistan?

Patricia DeGennaro: Sure. I have visited the country several times. It is really an amazing place. I have been fortunate enough to work with the governors of a few provinces on capacity building. I also did a short project looking at women and how they are fairing in the Parliament. Then I was in the Afghan President's office for a short time as a policy advisor.

LatoyaPeterson: And what were the major issues that stood out to you during your time there?

Patricia DeGennaro: There are quite a number of issues. First, since 9/11 the international community has poured billions of dollars into the country. There was, however, little coordination with the Afghan people themselves and concentration on what they need as a society so that in itself is a problem. It is a very chaotic development and war initiative. Second, the US is trying to pretend that development and war is the same thing and this blurs lines between "good and bad guys" so to speak. Finally, the country is very poor and we have all seen the way women have been treated there.

LatoyaPeterson: Okay, let's tackle some of these in depth. Why is it important to understand that the money being spent in Afghanistan was poorly coordinated (and I assume poorly distributed)? How does that contribute to the current problems in the region?

Patricia DeGennaro: The idea of helping a country that is poor and suffering is a good one. However when aid flows in it is often targeted based on what donors what to see happen not what needs to be done on the ground. This is the first conflict. The second one is that due to the donor requests, organizations often prefer to operate individually. They don't want to cooperate or even operate as others due. In this respect there are often cultural conflicts withing Western organizations. Finally, government often gives money to a government aid agency - the US has the Agency for International development (USAID) - who then contracts portions of that money to non-profits. These non-profits then may contract to others. Before you know it there are thousands of orgs on the ground and no cooperation or coordination on what should be done.

Patricia DeGennaro: It's a long explanation, but i think you all get the idea of how complex this becomes. And although there are many qualified people, it is hard to operate with a client when that client is a large Western government. The Afghans get lost in the equation and they are the "real" client. Add war to this and you have several more problems because of security concerns.

LatoyaPeterson: Good to know. Now why is the government, as you say, "blurring the lines between good guys and bad guys?" And how is investing in a country's development different from continuing a war?

Patricia DeGennaro: It was clear that the initial attack on Afghanistan was in response to 9/11. After many of us realized the horrendous situation in Afghanistan - the brutal government, the treatment of women and the sever poverty - the initial reaction of the Bush Administration was to "fix' this. The country however was at war with a large US and NATO military presence. As aid workers came in they build large compounds as well and looked just like military bases or invaders so this blurs the lines between who is helping and who is bombing so to speak. Also, in many of the provinces the US put together teams led by the military that do both security and development so the perception is that any development is military.

Patricia DeGennaro: There is a distinct difference between development and war. Militaries are there to complete a mission based on a countries foreign policy interest. Development or aid workers are there to stop the suffering of people and improve their livelihoods. They are independent of politics and policies. The military is not.

LatoyaPeterson: Good explanation. Switching gears a bit, how would you describe the political climate in Afghanistan?

Patricia DeGennaro: That is a very difficult question. Politics in Afghanistan is much different than what we are used to in the west. There are no political parties and no loyalties. Power is based on how many people you can convince that if your in power there interests will be served. Today Afghanistan participated in its second election. I think you will see that whoever wins was able to garner support from people who are very powerful in other areas of the country.

LatoyaPeterson: Of the candidates presented in the election, are there any you are watching closely?

Patricia DeGennaro: I am watching three candidates very closely. Of course, the current president, Hamid Karzai and then two others, his former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah and his former economics minister, Ashraf Ghani.

LatoyaPeterson: What is capturing your interest about each of these candidates?

Patricia DeGennaro: The interesting thing about this election is that Ashraf Ghani is running a less traditionally Afghan campaign. He is speaking to the people, talking about issues and garner grassroots support. In contrast, both Karzai and Abdullah are making deals with mullahs and warlords for influence and positions, which is how Afghanistan has been run for so many years. The problem with the way Karzai and Abdullah are running their campaign is, again, loyalties can switch at anytime and this is very dangerous. Every previous leader has paid for this way with their lives.

LatoyaPeterson: That's interesting. So is that the reason the Taliban are working so hard to disrupt the elections? Because the people are getting involved? Or is that explanation too simplistic?

Patricia DeGennaro: Not exactly. The Taliban are disrupting the election because they view this government as illegitimate. They see themselves as the legitimate government and are fighting for their right to return. In addition, the Taliban see the foreign presence as an occupation, which on the ground it looks like that is exactly what it is, and garner much support to fight against that. No country has ever occupied Afghanistan and most Afghans prefer it to stay that way.

LatoyaPeterson: Interesting. So is the perception of the occupation undermining our efforts there?

Patricia DeGennaro: Absolutely. I always ask people how they would feel if a country, let's say Russia, came in and set up a huge military fortress in Central Park and start driving around and checking houses. Doubtful one American would stand for that. In addition to that the continued military air strikes are making it worse. In a country where people believe in an eye for and eye, there is no forgiving anyone who killed one person in your family. He/she must pay with their own life.

Patricia DeGennaro: Afghans also continue to tell me that the behavior of the US (and allies of course) is looking more and more like Soviets. This is not good news. They were pushed out of the country quite quickly through the same irregular warfare that the military is dealing with today.

LatoyaPeterson: So is the best solution to start the withdrawal process? Or is that unfeasible due to the damage war has inflicted on the country?

Patricia DeGennaro: This may be a little controversial, but yes. I think that what's there needs to be cleaned up and/or weeded out. If forces and, for that matter, aid workers stay at all it should be a very light footprint. This seems to be much more affective in that part of the world.

LatoyaPeterson: Now, are there other tensions influencing the country? I was reading an article that hinted at tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Patricia DeGennaro: Of course some kind of repercussions come with destruction. People must be responsible for their actions especially if they've done this much harm.

Patricia DeGennaro: Afghanistan and Pakistan have always had tense relations. They share a border called the Durand line that is not recognized by most Afghans. That border was imposed by the British and all agreed that it would be non-existent 10 years after that imposition. It split tribes and families. It also stopped the free flow of many of the tribes that move around the country for their livelihood. After Pakistan was created this boarder stayed.

Tensions are also quite high between the countries because many Afghans blame the Pakistanis for supporting the Taliban.

Many of the Taliban were trained in Pakistani religious schools funded by the Saudis in Pakistan. So Aghans feel they are responsible for much of the brutality they endured under the Taliban

Of course there are more issues going on here, but these are the two most important.

LatoyaPeterson: Fascinating. Before we go, I wanted to talk a little bit about the interview with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in the New York Times magazine. In the interview, she mentions that there is a strong link between "societies that nurture terrorism" and societies that oppress women.

LatoyaPeterson: She specifically says:

What does preventing little girls from going to school in Afghanistan by throwing acid on them have to do with waging a struggle against oppression externally? It's a projection of the insecurity and the disorientation that a lot of these terrorists and their sympathizers feel about a fast-changing world, where they turn on television sets and see programs with women behaving in ways they can't even imagine. The idea that young women in their own societies would pursue an independent future is deeply threatening to their cultural values.

Does your experience in the field support this assertion?

Patricia DeGennaro: Yes, I read that. I do feel that there are many factors that are contributing to this absolutely unacceptable behavior. Women in Afghanistan are very removed from society so for many men they are an afterthought. I am not sure though that the action of acid in this case and say the uni-bomber in the US really just have to do with the oppression of women. After spending so much time in these parts of the world, I often think that it is a male issue and that the men need to go through the "therapy" and be reintroduced to women.

An example. When Eve Ensler started working in American Indian reservations her initial thoughts were to work with the women who were being beaten and terrorized by the men on the reservation. She later found that the work they started doing with the men is what changed their behavior toward women.

We have to realize that there is never one issue in these problems. There are complex connections between experiences, upbringing, and, in many cases, war. I wrote an article on the Women's Media Center website that talks about more holistic ways to approach things. Often when you approach things from one side it backfires and you end up hurting the very people you want to help - in this case women.

LatoyaPeterson: Great point. Ultimately, what actions do you think need to be taken to help stabilize the county?

Patricia DeGennaro: In Afghanistan, the first thing that needs to happen is an internal reconciliation. The country went through a brutal civil war and there are great divisions between ethnic groups due to the brutality and massacres that happened during this time. Second, they need to figure out their own way with help not imposition of how the outside thinks things should be done. Third, education and health. Eighty percent of Afghans are illiterate. Women's mortality is the highest in the world. One other thing we always forget, healthy bodies and minds develop from good nutrition. If people are not eating well how can they think, work, progress. Hunger is one of the worst issues in a society. Then we can work on next steps like changing the ways of boys and men.

Patricia DeGennaro: Afghans have an average of seven children. Think about feeding that many on a dollar a day.

LatoyaPeterson: Great points Tricia! That was my last question - is there anything else you wanted to mention before we wrap up?

Patricia DeGennaro: I would just say that we all need to remember that things are way more complicated than we often think and the real changes in life start from within us.

It was a pleasure to join you all today. Thank you for asking Latoya. I look forward to all the comments.

Patricia DeGennaro [SheSource]
Patrica's Blog [Tricia's Take]
Turnout Seen As Uneven in Afghanistan As Polls Close [NY Times]
Saving Afghan Women From The "Liberators" [Women's Media Center]
Afghanistan Election Drives: 'Men Have Destroyed The Country' [Guardian]

[Los Angeles, May 26. Image via Getty]

[San Francisco, May 26. Image via Getty]

SAN FRANCISCO - MAY 26: Kerri McCoy (L) and her partner Erin Carder embrace following the California Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Proposition 8 May 26, 2009 in San Francisco, California. The California State Supreme Court voted 6-1 to uphold proposition 8 which makes it illegal for same-sex couples to marry in the state of California. More than 18,000 same-sex couples that wed before prop 8 was voted in will still be legally married. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Although Bill Clinton had a similar office in the nineties — shuttered in favor of the Office on Faith-Based Initiatives by Dubya — some groups like NOW initially asked that it be made a Cabinet-level office (others wanted it to be a Presidential Commission). Obama opted for neither, noting that he had decided to make it a kind of interagency task force staffed with 24 Cabinet-level officials in an effort to make each agency consider the impact of regulations and laws on women and girls. That is, however, apparently, not nearly good enough for some.

"I think it falls far short of what's needed," Martha Burk, a former chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, said about the new board. The council will be headed by two top Obama advisers, Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen.

"With all respect to Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen, both of whom are excellent folks….I think both are going to find this is one of many things they're responsible for and I think they'll be stretched to give it proper attention. We have told them that," Burk said.

The Clintonistas are apparently not happy either, though they're not blasting Obama... yet.

One group – made up primarily of women who supported Hillary Clinton over Obama in the Democratic primary – said it will go to Congress seeking a presidential commission on women. The group sent out a blast email to rally its members around the idea just hours after Obama spoke.

Others are taking it to the web, e-mailing screeds to PUMA Amy Suskind about how awful it all is, though Suskind has some weird ideas about Ms. Jarrett.

First and foremost was the notion that Jarrett is perceived to be a major villain in the plot to bring down then Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin: Did Jarrett stand up when Obama was using sexism, when the Democratic party was and the media was throwing mud and spitting in our faces? No she did not. Second, feminists ask: Where's the beef? Show me something, I mean anything, on Jarrett's resume that demonstrates the vaguest commitment to women's rights: I've been trying to find the answer to this question myself. Can anyone point to any work Jarrett has done to advance women's equality? Third, Jarrett is still linked to the Chicago-style scandals that plague politicians from that city (some rightfully and some wrongfully): She does have her detractors, and is a highly or lowly regarded slum landlady from Chicago. And finally, women feel that Jarrett is not in touch with our needs. One comment on our blog read: My concern with Valerie Jarrett is that I don't think she has been "kicked to the curb" enough to understand the depth and breadth of the problems that women in this country face.

Suskind says, "I see the merit of those concerns." Really? You can only be a "proper" feminist if you've been abused enough? What the hell kind of feminist says crap like that?

Finally, Time's Amy Sullivan, the New York Times' Lisa Belkin and the Independent Women's Forum's Michelle Bernard, on Hardball last night, want to know where the boys are. First up, Bernard, who told Matthews that — despite the fact that she considers the Council wholly unnecessary — she was upset not to be asked.


Later she added:

"Why don't we have an office that looks as to who takes care of boys? Who are our daughters going to marry as our boys are falling behind? And they are. We have a boy crisis."

I'd mock that, but it doesn't seem that necessary.

Belkin has a similar concern, but from a different angle. She thinks that the term "women's issues" ignores the need for men to be more fully integrated into work-life balance issues in order to achieve that balance. On pay equity she says:

Yet to call this a "woman's problem" is to glide over the fact that the pay difference hurts more than just women. Pay discrimination is a family issue. In a two-parent family, it reduces the income of the entire household, and is often a determinative factor in tipping a single parent family from stable to impoverished.

That's rather heteronormative, actually. Also: Isn't equality a goal on its own?

On parental leave, she adds:

Studies show that men already feel stigmatized about taking the minimal leave available to them, and that reluctance hurts who? Among others, women.

Because a government council is going to be able to, through forcing agencies to take note of the effects of laws on women and children, change society's and men's mixed feelings about men taking parental leave through policy?

Basically, Belkin goes on about the changes that she'd like to see the government make to society and social norms along these lines, and Sullivan more or less signs off.

There's also, of course, the whole problem of even calling things like equal pay, maternity/paternity leave, child care, and public health "women's issues." Lisa Belkin has a smart discussion of why some of the items on the Council's agenda won't get far until they're redefined simply as universal issues.

Which is all well and good, but a little outside of the mandate of a government council, Cabinet position and Presidential commission. There isn't even universal consensus that the government should be trying to make women equal, let alone on the idea that equal pay hurts men and not just insofar as they might lose their jobs to women. If we define certain things as being of more importance to the way women lead their lives in this country — which is, after all, the reality — and define women as less privileged by those things then men, I don't see how that's a terrible thing.

Some Women Wanted More From W.H. [Politico]
Is Valerie Jarrett Anti-Woman? [The Daily Beast]
Obama's Council On Women And Girls [New York Times]
It's Not Just Women's Work [Time]

Earlier: Hello, Ladies
Feminists Miffed At Hillary-Hating Ms. Magazine

On Saturday in Saudi Arabia, Nora bint Abdullah al-Fayez, a US-educated former teacher, was made deputy education minister in charge of a new department for female students, reports the Guardian. The appointment was part of a cabinet reshuffle by King Abdullah that did away with several ultra-conservative minsters and clerics and paved the way for more moderate reforms.

While Al-Fayez's appointment as vice minister for women's education marks the highest rank a woman has achieved in Saudi Arabia, there are questions about how much power she will actually have, since other Saudi women have been appointed to lower councils, but then never heard from. Al-Fayez says she's confident that her appointment is not just symbolic, telling CNN, "I think by being the second person after the minister, I think I have enough power to work in the improvement of girls' education."

But, women's rights advocate Wajeha al-Huwaider tells CNN that while the appointment of Al-Fayez is a step in the right direction, she is still subject to oppressive Saudi laws.

"Even this minister now ... she is not really in control of her life," al-Huwaider noted. "It is not up to her, it's up to her male guardian."

She said the "guardianship system" is the first thing that should be removed by the new Saudi government.

"This is the main thing that is controlling our life," al-Huwaider said. "We want to be able to drive our cars, you know, to feel like we are just like the rest of the world."

This weekend, several hundred Muslim women attended a conference in Kuala Lumpur to discuss such conditions and to come up with ways to demand equal rights for women, reports the New York Times. Advocates came from 47 countries for the project, called Musawah, which is the Arabic word for equality.

The women argue that the repression of women does not come from the Koran, but from the human interpretation of it, which has evolved over the centuries into Islamic law. "Secular feminism has fulfilled its historical role, but it has nothing more to give us," said Ziba Mir-Hosseini, an Iranian anthropologist. "The challenge we face now is theological." She referred to controversial Muslim intellectuals who say that the laws derived from the Koran should be interpreted in a historical context and can change over time.

Mir-Hosseini said that President Bush's policies wound up hurting the campaign for women's rights in Islamic countries:

Ms. Mir-Hosseini argues that Muslim societies are trapped in a battle between two visions of Islam: one legalistic and absolutist that emphasizes the past; the other pluralistic and more inclined toward democracy. She said that in Iran reformers were gaining ground, but that President Bush's antagonism toward the country ended up strengthening hard-liners there.

"It's really a struggle between two world views," she said, adding that time was on the side of the women.

Though some scholars argue that the women's efforts to reinterpret years of Islamic scholarship are unrealistic since to do so would require entirely replacing the system of Islamic law, the activists point out that change is already taking place at the grass roots level in many Islamic countries. Isobel Coleman, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says women's movements are making progress, as girls' education levels increase and the Western world is a click away on satellite television. "It's a slow shift," she said. "It's just beginning to come together as a movement."

[Image via Musawah.org]

Saudi Arabia Appoints First Female Minister [Guardian]
Saudi Activist: Female Minister 'First Step' But More Needed [CNN]
In Quest For Equal Rights, Muslim Women's Meeting Turns To Islam's Tenets [New York Times]

Bartow says:

This seems designed to mock people who supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary.

What? Really? Labeling a President who supports the Ledbetter Act and reproductive choice a "feminist" is mocking Hillary Clinton (and her supporters) how exactly? Bartow is also upset that Ms. editors Photoshopped Obama's head onto a guy making like Superman because 37 years ago Ms. had a satirical cover with a cartoon Wonder Woman nominating her for President.

Amy Siskind has essentially the same reaction.

The current women’s rights movement is hardly recognizable to those of us who are truly trying to advance the discourse on gender. Exhibit A, the planned “special Inaugural edition” cover of Ms. magazine. I will readily admit, when this visual first hit my inbox, my first thought was that it was a hoax or a joke. But it is not, and this is hardly a laughing matter. The current vision of “feminism” is a man striking a Superman pose.

Okay, seriously. The image has one really obvious meaning that has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton supporters (note to world: once again, not everything is about you... or Hillary Clinton) or about fucking over feminism. Mild-mannered Clark Kent has a secret, world-saving identity that he wore under his clothes — and the image is communicating the idea that, under Barack Obama's workaday clothes lies a man who believes in gender equity, promotes women to prominent positions in his Administration and is working to advance a feminist policy agenda. Yes, God forbid.

Siskind, sadly, though, continues:

Witness the rebirth: the start of the fourth wave of the women’s rights movement, a big tent movement that invites women and like-minded men of all political parties and views on reproductive rights. A women’s movement that stands up and speaks out for the women of this country when other groups will not. A women’s movement that keeps a watchful eye on its constituency and their needs.

It is time that we take back the term “feminism” and restore its dignity and honor. It is time that we, our daughters, and granddaughters discover our inner Wonder Woman.

So she wants a 4th-wave that includes like-minded men and people with "all... views on reproductive rights" but that somehow, despite incorporating anti-choicers, manages to stand up for the needs of women and, furthermore, features only women in its imagery. But, hey, man can tag along!

Hmm. Wait, is all this outrage sounding strangely familiar? Where else have we heard recently that women should ignore reproductive choice issues and that feminism is all — and only — about electing women...? Oh, right, the P.U.M.A.s. Well, Bartow says she isn't a P.U.M.A. though she agreed with them on a lot of things and Siskind, well, she's practically the poster child. So maybe it's not so surprising they missed the point Ms. was trying to make in celebrating a President who supports so many of the policy issues that have been on the feminist movement's agenda, like wage equality and reproductive choice — it's still only the composition of his chromosomes that matter to some. I think that's called sexism, right?

Not Really Super [Feminist Law Professors]
How Feminism Became The F-Word [The Daily Beast]

Related: About Those PUMAs [Feminist Law Professors]
FOXNEWS: Amy Siskind Speaks Out For Hillary [YouTube]

Between the P.U.M.A.s and La Palin, one would think that if this election season had taught the women's movement anything, it would have been that having a government that pushes for and fairly represents the interests of women is not necessarily related to having women in the government — let alone in proportion to their percentage of the population. Unfortunately, one would be wrong. And Hillary Clinton's primary loss still continues to smart for some women, despite her elevation to the highest cabinet position and to the line of Presidential succession today. As seen in a new story on Reuters:

"Secretary of State has become the women's spot — a safe expected place for women to be. In the ideal world, we'd see woman as Treasury secretary and throughout these ranks (of government)," [Carol Jenkins, president of the Women's Media Center] said.

So the Secretary of State — our face to the world at large, and the first Cabinet member in the Presidential line of succession — is now a soft position? Get a grip! If by virtue of the fact that two of its last three incumbents were women it's now a "girly" position, then we're all contributing to the ghettoization of jobs by making them supposedly too easy for a man to do. Gross.

Stacy Mason, the executive director of WomenCount, is similarly unenthused about the Year of the Woman.

The record number of women in Congress in the new session that opens in January still reflects small net gains in the November elections — one in the U.S. Senate and three in the House of Representatives. As of now, women will number 17 in the 100-member Senate and 74 in the 435-member House. One Ohio race was so close it has not yet been decided.

"It's a really really dismal number ... the U.S. still ranks 83rd in terms of the number of women in elected office," said Mason.

It is not a great number, but, as has been noted before, the number of women who hold political office in a country is hardly the way to judge their equality, positions in society or opportunities. Furthermore, many of us would probably agree that we'd rather elect 100 Joe Bidens or Barack Obamas than 100 Sarah Palins to Congress — let alone Marilyn Musgraves or Liddy Doles. Both of those women lost re-election to other women, which resulted in no net increase in the number of women in Congress but significantly improved the representation of progressive women's issues.

So, while we're more than happy to see more women running for and elected to office, let's all take a deep breath and recognize that if the women's movement is supposed to be one for rights and equality, electing women to office cannot be the be-all, end-all measure of success. Then let's take a deeper breath and think about the fact that of the first 2 people in line for succession to the Presidency, two of them are women. Yes, there are gains to be made — necessary gains, even — but insulting the position of Secretary of State, bemoaning the loss of women without consideration given to their politics and generally insisting on unattainable goals before being able to crack a smile about the achievements of other women aren't going to get us there.

Women See Clinton Job As Triumph, Disappointment [Reuters]

Related: United States Presidential Line Of Succession [Wikipedia]

Earlier: As Far As I'm Concerned, Former Ms. Editor Elaine Lafferty Can Go F-ck Herself
Sarah Palin: When Choosing A Woman Might Not Be Choosing For Women
Do Women Want Equality Of Outcomes Or Opportunities?

• Hillary Clinton has not agreed to be Obama's Secretary of State even if she is officially offered it. [Politico]
• She has, however, been asked to head Ted Kennedy's health reform task force next year. [The Hill]
• Mr. Jowls will remain the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. Jane Hamsher and others say, in so many words, fuck that guy. [Politico, Firedoglake, Politico]
• Chuck Norris might be able to defeat ninjas, cowboys and anyone who talks back, but what he's really, really scared of is boys who like to kiss other boys (we assume that, like most raging homophobes, he furiously masturbates to girl-on-girl porn). Chuck Norris, I have watched gay bear porn and survived with nary a scratch. I double dog dare you. [Queerty]

• In the mean time, Eric Holder appears poised to become this country's first African-American attorney general. Some people have their panties all in a bunch that he might or might not have had something to do with the 11th hour pardon of Marc Rich in the Clinton Administration. [Newsweek]
• Beau Biden, on the other hand, will not accept an appointment to his father's Senate seat and will likely deploy to Iraq as planned. [Washington Post]
• Less gracious is outgoing Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado) who has yet to officially concede the race she lost in a landslide to Democrat Betsy Markey or thank her staff, but what would you expect from the woman who staked her legislative career on trying to pass a Constitutional amendment to forever prohibit same sex marriage? [Politico]
• Speaking of controversial pardons, apparently Ted Stevens wants one. [Politico]
• Republicans are trying to decide whether to try and trample people's rights in order to regain some semblance of political relevance, or whether they'd like to try doing stuff for the Real Americans they so desperately swear they represent. [Huffington Post]
• Chuck Hagel pretty much said that Rush Limbaugh can go fuck himself during a speech. I say that all the time, Chuck! Want to grab a drink and make fun of him sometime? [CNN]
• Diane Sawyer conducted her interview with Ashley Alexandra Dupre, originally famous for fucking former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer for money, who, if this picture is any guide, will heretofore be known for sneaking into Sarah Palin's tanning beds one too many times and stealing Jane Fonda's steez from 9 to 5. It's unclear whether she actually says anything to make the interview worth watching, but since she's probably not going to dish about whether Spitzer really tried to fuck her up the ass without a condom while wearing his socks and singing show tunes, I'm guessing not. Fine, I never really heard rumors of show tunes. [Huffington Post]

Unfortunately, the report also found that there is still a gender gap for "invisible" household work: Women still do the majority of the management stuff, like scheduling children's medical appointments, buying gifts for birthday parties, arranging holiday gatherings, etc. Still, the overall findings in the report suggest that couples are moving towards more equitable partnerships. "The younger set of dads have their own expectations about themselves as to being helpful and participatory," says Carol Evans, founder and CEO of Working Mother magazine. "They haven't quite gotten to equality in any sense that a women would say, 'Wow, that's equal,' but they've gotten so much farther down the road."

But is the media trying to convince men that dirty dishes = potential blow job? Do men who do housework get laid more? Is it because they're not selfish jerks? Do you think we'll ever get to place where all men and women share the housework (visible and invisible!) equally? Or are there some things that will always be "the woman's job"?

Men Who Do Housework May Get More Sex [Yahoo! News]
Honey, You're Out Of Date: Why Men No Longer Want A 1950s Wife [Daily Mail]
Today's Perfect Wife: A Good Cook Who Argues [Telegraph]

Related: A Fifties Wife? No Thanks, I've Got One [Daily Mail]

Earlier: Is A Hot Guy Hotter When He's Doing Your Laundry?
The Porn Ultimatum

As expected, Democrats tooted their own horns (no pun intended) upon passing the legislation, while neglecting to mention stripping the bill of transgender non-discrimination rights and leaving out any protections for homosexuals that work for religious institutions (which includes hospitals) or the military. On the positive side, 200 Democrats and 35 Republicans voted for the bill; in less heartening news, 25 Democrats and 159 Republicans voted against, and 14 of our elected Representatives didn't bother voting at all.

Meanwhile, it's probably not ever going to come to a vote in the Senate, it's chances of passage are probably iffy if it does, and President Bush is keeping his veto pen ready, just in case. For those of you counting, the bill is well short of the number of votes it would require to override a veto were it to even reach the President's desk.

So, yay. The House passed a bill they've got no hope of seeing become law in order to make people believe they're actually effective, and now they can get back to naming Post Offices and shit.

House Approves Broad Protections for Gay Workers [NY Times]
Employee Nondiscrimination Act Roll Call Vote [Clerk of the House]

So, Congressman Barney Frank, the only openly gay Congressman, introduced a bill to provide protection for our gay, lesbian and bisexual friends against discrimination in the workplace. Yay! However, according to Roll Call, he had to take out provisions that would have provided equal protections to our transgendered friends to try to get enough votes to pass the rest of the bill. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (the only openly lesbian Congresswoman) has announced that she plans on introducing an amendment to restore the transgender provisions, and so Speaker Pelosi has put off passing anything until Baldwin and the transgender community can prove they have enough votes to pass their amendment, which they don't and probably won't, so gay rights in the workplace will have to wait a bit longer so that some Democrats can prove to other ones that America isn't ready to be fair to transgendered people, too.

Meanwhile, the bill exempts religious organizations and the Armed Forced (naturally), there's no indication it could pass the Senate, President Bush has vowed to veto it because he says it messes with states rights to discriminate against teh gays (and because the veto pen is his new favorite toy), and your boss remains able to fire you because he thinks it's gross/creepy/against God's will if you love a person of the same gender or engage in certain kinds of sex acts on your own time. Oh, and if you're an MIT- and Harvard- educated neurobiologist at Stanford doing groundbreaking research, well, according to one GOP leadership aide, you'd best be thankful that you live in the Bay Area because the rest of "us" don't think you should have "special" rights.

Gay Rights Bill Stalls in House [Roll Call]
Transgender prof defends women scientists [MSNBC]