"
I went to a dinner party at a friend's home last weekend, and met her five-year-old daughter for the first time.
Little Maya was all curly brown hair, doe-like dark eyes, and adorable in her shiny pink nightgown. I wanted to squeal, "Maya, you're so cute! Look at you! Turn around and model that pretty ruffled gown, you gorgeous thing!"
But I didn't. I squelched myself. As I always bite my tongue when I meet little girls, restraining myself from my first impulse, which is to tell them how darn cute/ pretty/ beautiful/ well-dressed/ well-manicured/ well-coiffed they are.
What's wrong with that? It's our culture's standard talking-to-little-girls icebreaker, isn't it? And why not give them a sincere compliment to boost their self-esteem? Because they are so darling I just want to burst when I meet them, honestly.
Hold that thought for just a moment.
This week ABC news reported that nearly half of all three- to six-year-old girls worry about being fat. In my book, Think: Straight Talk for Women to Stay Smart in a Dumbed-Down World, I reveal that fifteen to eighteen percent of girls under twelve now wear mascara, eyeliner and lipstick regularly; eating disorders are up and self-esteem is down; and twenty-five percent of young American women would rather win America's Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize. Even bright, successful college women say they'd rather be hot than smart. A Miami mom just died from cosmetic surgery, leaving behind two teenagers. This keeps happening, and it breaks my heart.
Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them that looks are more important than anything. It sets them up for dieting at age 5 and foundation at age 11 and boob jobs at 17 and Botox at 23. As our cultural imperative for girls to be hot 24/7 has become the new normal, American women have become increasingly unhappy. What's missing? A life of meaning, a life of ideas and reading books and being valued for our thoughts and accomplishments.
That's why I force myself to talk to little girls as follows.
"Maya," I said, crouching down at her level, looking into her eyes, "very nice to meet you."
"Nice to meet you too," she said, in that trained, polite, talking-to-adults good girl voice.
"Hey, what are you reading?" I asked, a twinkle in my eyes. I love books. I'm nuts for them. I let that show.
Her eyes got bigger, and the practiced, polite facial expression gave way to genuine excitement over this topic. She paused, though, a little shy of me, a stranger.
"I LOVE books," I said. "Do you?"
Most kids do.
"YES," she said. "And I can read them all by myself now!"
"Wow, amazing!" I said. And it is, for a five-year-old. You go on with your bad self, Maya.
"What's your favorite book?" I asked.
"I'll go get it! Can I read it to you?"
Purplicious was Maya's pick and a new one to me, as Maya snuggled next to me on the sofa and proudly read aloud every word, about our heroine who loves pink but is tormented by a group of girls at school who only wear black. Alas, it was about girls and what they wore, and how their wardrobe choices defined their identities. But after Maya closed the final page, I steered the conversation to the deeper issues in the book: mean girls and peer pressure and not going along with the group. I told her my favorite color in the world is green, because I love nature, and she was down with that.
Not once did we discuss clothes or hair or bodies or who was pretty. It's surprising how hard it is to stay away from those topics with little girls, but I'm stubborn.
I told her that I'd just written a book, and that I hoped she'd write one too one day. She was fairly psyched about that idea. We were both sad when Maya had to go to bed, but I told her next time to choose another book and we'd read it and talk about it. Oops. That got her too amped up to sleep, and she came down from her bedroom a few times, all jazzed up.
So, one tiny bit of opposition to a culture that sends all the wrong messages to our girls. One tiny nudge towards valuing female brains. One brief moment of intentional role modeling. Will my few minutes with Maya change our multi-billion dollar beauty industry, reality shows that demean women, our celebrity-manic culture? No. But I did change Maya's perspective for at least that evening.
Try this the next time you meet a little girl. She may be surprised and unsure at first, because few ask her about her mind, but be patient and stick with it. Ask her what she's reading. What does she like and dislike, and why? There are no wrong answers. You're just generating an intelligent conversation that respects her brain. For older girls, ask her about current events issues: pollution, wars, school budgets slashed. What bothers her out there in the world? How would she fix it if she had a magic wand? You may get some intriguing answers. Tell her about your ideas and accomplishments and your favorite books. Model for her what a thinking woman says and does."
Source.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Preschool fights gender bias.
"At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.
From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.
"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.
To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.
Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.
"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued," says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls "gender madness" in Sweden.
Those bent on shattering gender roles "say there's a hierarchy where everything that boys do is given higher value, but I wonder who decides that it has higher value," she says. "Why is there higher value in playing with cars?"
At Egalia — the title connotes "equality" — boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, waving plastic utensils and pretending to cook. One boy hides inside the toy stove, his head popping out through a hole.
Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction.
Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless — until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg.
Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," ''Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.
Rajalin, 52, says the staff also try to help the children discover new ideas when they play.
"A concrete example could be when they're playing 'house' and the role of the mom already is taken and they start to squabble," she says. "Then we suggest two moms or three moms and so on."
Egalia's methods are controversial; some say they amount to mind control. Rajalin says the staff have received threats from racists apparently upset about the preschool's use of black dolls.
But she says that there's a long waiting list for admission to Egalia, and that only one couple has pulled a child out of the school.
Jukka Korpi, 44, says he and his wife chose Egalia "to give our children all the possibilities based on who they are and not on their gender."
Sweden has promoted women's rights for decades, and more recently was a pioneer among European countries in allowing gay and lesbian couples to legalize their partnerships and adopt children.
Gender studies permeate academic life in Sweden. Bergkvist noted on her blog that the state-funded Swedish Science Council had granted $80,000 for a postdoctoral fellowship aimed at analyzing "the trumpet as a symbol of gender."
Jay Belsky, a child psychologist at the University of California, Davis, said he's not aware of any other school like Egalia, and he questioned whether it was the right way to go.
"The kind of things that boys like to do — run around and turn sticks into swords — will soon be disapproved of," he said. "So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness."
Egalia is unusual even for Sweden. Staff try to shed masculine and feminine references from their speech, including the pronouns him or her — "han" or "hon" in Swedish. Instead, they've have adopted the genderless "hen," a word that doesn't exist in Swedish but is used in some feminist and gay circles.
"We use the word "Hen" for example when a doctor, police, electrician or plumber or such is coming to the kindergarten," Rajalin says. "We don't know if it's a he or a she so we just say 'Hen is coming around 2 p.m.' Then the children can imagine both a man or a woman. This widens their view."
Egalia doesn't deny the biological differences between boys and girls — the dolls the children play with are anatomically correct.
What matters is that children understand that their biological differences "don't mean boys and girls have different interests and abilities," Rajalin says. "This is about democracy. About human equality.""
Source.
The top 25 or so comments were all negative toward this school's agenda, some comparing it even to Nazi Germany/concentration camps/numbered people/brainwashing.
From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes.
"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," says Jenny Johnsson, a 31-year-old teacher. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."
The taxpayer-funded preschool which opened last year in the liberal Sodermalm district of Stockholm for kids aged 1 to 6 is among the most radical examples of Sweden's efforts to engineer equality between the sexes from childhood onward.
Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.
To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes.
Some parents worry things have gone too far. An obsession with obliterating gender roles, they say, could make the children confused and ill-prepared to face the world outside kindergarten.
"Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued," says Tanja Bergkvist, a 37-year-old blogger and a leading voice against what she calls "gender madness" in Sweden.
Those bent on shattering gender roles "say there's a hierarchy where everything that boys do is given higher value, but I wonder who decides that it has higher value," she says. "Why is there higher value in playing with cars?"
At Egalia — the title connotes "equality" — boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, waving plastic utensils and pretending to cook. One boy hides inside the toy stove, his head popping out through a hole.
Lego bricks and other building blocks are intentionally placed next to the kitchen, to make sure the children draw no mental barriers between cooking and construction.
Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless — until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg.
Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," ''Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.
Rajalin, 52, says the staff also try to help the children discover new ideas when they play.
"A concrete example could be when they're playing 'house' and the role of the mom already is taken and they start to squabble," she says. "Then we suggest two moms or three moms and so on."
Egalia's methods are controversial; some say they amount to mind control. Rajalin says the staff have received threats from racists apparently upset about the preschool's use of black dolls.
But she says that there's a long waiting list for admission to Egalia, and that only one couple has pulled a child out of the school.
Jukka Korpi, 44, says he and his wife chose Egalia "to give our children all the possibilities based on who they are and not on their gender."
Sweden has promoted women's rights for decades, and more recently was a pioneer among European countries in allowing gay and lesbian couples to legalize their partnerships and adopt children.
Gender studies permeate academic life in Sweden. Bergkvist noted on her blog that the state-funded Swedish Science Council had granted $80,000 for a postdoctoral fellowship aimed at analyzing "the trumpet as a symbol of gender."
Jay Belsky, a child psychologist at the University of California, Davis, said he's not aware of any other school like Egalia, and he questioned whether it was the right way to go.
"The kind of things that boys like to do — run around and turn sticks into swords — will soon be disapproved of," he said. "So gender neutrality at its worst is emasculating maleness."
Egalia is unusual even for Sweden. Staff try to shed masculine and feminine references from their speech, including the pronouns him or her — "han" or "hon" in Swedish. Instead, they've have adopted the genderless "hen," a word that doesn't exist in Swedish but is used in some feminist and gay circles.
"We use the word "Hen" for example when a doctor, police, electrician or plumber or such is coming to the kindergarten," Rajalin says. "We don't know if it's a he or a she so we just say 'Hen is coming around 2 p.m.' Then the children can imagine both a man or a woman. This widens their view."
Egalia doesn't deny the biological differences between boys and girls — the dolls the children play with are anatomically correct.
What matters is that children understand that their biological differences "don't mean boys and girls have different interests and abilities," Rajalin says. "This is about democracy. About human equality.""
Source.
The top 25 or so comments were all negative toward this school's agenda, some comparing it even to Nazi Germany/concentration camps/numbered people/brainwashing.
Get excited!
The Women's World Cup started officially yesterday!
Discussion point: does lack of media attention cause the lack of interest in women’s sports or simply reflect it? Is FIFA promoting the Cup well enough? Are the media to blame for not covering women’s sports? Are viewers just not interested?
Discussion point: does lack of media attention cause the lack of interest in women’s sports or simply reflect it? Is FIFA promoting the Cup well enough? Are the media to blame for not covering women’s sports? Are viewers just not interested?
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Order on the Court (I came up with this little pun all by myself and am unashamed to say so with pride.)
'The official Wimbledon site is giving away free tickets to people for voting on the “best-looking female player”.
Really, Wimbledon, really? You couldn’t think of a better way to honor the top female tennis athletes in the world than to subject them to a glorified “hot or not” contest?
As if that weren’t enough, they’ve made sure to send their best copy-writers to get people excited about what I’m sure must be the showdown of the tournament:
“Maria Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic are neck and neck in this category so far, with each having 27% of the vote. Have your say below, and cast your vote to let us know who you think is the best looking female Wimbldon [sic] player” the website reads.
This inane and insulting contest comes on the heels of Wimbledon official Ian Ritchie making sexist and inappropriate comments about female players “grunting”.
According to Yahoo! Sports, the head of Wimbledon has said female tennis players who grunt when they hit their shots are “spoiling the game for fans”.
“The players have an ability to complain about it, if one player is grunting too much and the other player doesn’t like it and it is distracting, they can complain to the umpire,” Ritchie is quoted as saying'.
Source.
Really, Wimbledon, really? You couldn’t think of a better way to honor the top female tennis athletes in the world than to subject them to a glorified “hot or not” contest?
As if that weren’t enough, they’ve made sure to send their best copy-writers to get people excited about what I’m sure must be the showdown of the tournament:
“Maria Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic are neck and neck in this category so far, with each having 27% of the vote. Have your say below, and cast your vote to let us know who you think is the best looking female Wimbldon [sic] player” the website reads.
This inane and insulting contest comes on the heels of Wimbledon official Ian Ritchie making sexist and inappropriate comments about female players “grunting”.
According to Yahoo! Sports, the head of Wimbledon has said female tennis players who grunt when they hit their shots are “spoiling the game for fans”.
“The players have an ability to complain about it, if one player is grunting too much and the other player doesn’t like it and it is distracting, they can complain to the umpire,” Ritchie is quoted as saying'.
Source.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court sex-bias ruling
The Supreme Court rejected a mammoth class-action lawsuit charging sex discrimination at Wal-Mart Stores Inc on Monday in a ruling that could affect major cases in other industries.
The justices unanimously overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that more than a million female employees nationwide could join in the lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less and giving them fewer promotions and seeking billions of dollars.
The Supreme Court agreed with the giant American retailer that the class-action certification violated federal rules for such lawsuits.
It accepted Wal-Mart's argument that the female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit.
Source.
The justices unanimously overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that more than a million female employees nationwide could join in the lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less and giving them fewer promotions and seeking billions of dollars.
The Supreme Court agreed with the giant American retailer that the class-action certification violated federal rules for such lawsuits.
It accepted Wal-Mart's argument that the female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit.
Source.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Just so you know...
Until last year, I never knew there was such a thing as a Women's World Cup. I found out there was going to be one in 2011. So I've been waiting. Haven't heard anything. Finally did some research. Since you've probably been out of the loop because these hard-working women haven't gotten the press they deserve, let me tell ya: the games have been scheduled to take place between June 26th and July 17th in Germany.
Let's cheer them all on to victory!
Let's cheer them all on to victory!
Monday, June 13, 2011
Obama extends protections to gay couples under Medicaid
"The Obama administration is set on Friday to issue policy guidance to states expanding their ability to offer same-sex couples the same protections afforded to straight couples when they receive long-term care under Medicaid, the Washington Blade has learned exclusively.
Under the new guidance, dated June 10, states have the option to allow healthy partners in a same-sex relationship to keep their homes while their partners are receiving support for long-term care under Medicaid, such as care in a nursing home.
Medicaid kicks in for a beneficiary to receive care after an individual depletes virtually all of their money. To pay for the beneficiary’s expenses under Medicaid, a state could impose a lein, or take possession, of a beneficiary’s home to pay for Medicaid expenses.
However, federal law prohibits imposing this lein if beneficiaries are married to someone of the opposite-sex who’s still living in their home. The new guidance, signed by Deputy Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Cindy Mann, clarifies that states can offer this protection to the healthy partner of a Medicaid recipient in a same-sex relationship.
“A State can have a policy or rule not to pursue liens when the same-sex spouse or domestic partner of the Medicaid beneficiary continues to lawfully reside in the home,” the guidance states.
The Obama administration previously hadn’t articulated whether gay couples could receive these protections under the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The guidance doesn’t mandate that same-sex couples receive this protection, but allows states to “incorporate their criteria for determining when to impose a lien in the Medicaid State plan.”
The Department of Health & Human Services had been examining ways to offer more protections to same-sex couples under Medicaid as part of the work it has undertaken for LGBT people, but until now hadn’t issued the policy guidance to states.
Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement the new guidance represents a path for low-income same-sex couples to receive care under Medicaid.
“Low-income same-sex couples are too often denied equal treatment and the protections offered to other families in their greatest times of need,” she said. “That is now changing. Today’s guidance represents another important step toward ensuring the rights and dignity of every American are respected by their government.”"
Source.
Under the new guidance, dated June 10, states have the option to allow healthy partners in a same-sex relationship to keep their homes while their partners are receiving support for long-term care under Medicaid, such as care in a nursing home.
Medicaid kicks in for a beneficiary to receive care after an individual depletes virtually all of their money. To pay for the beneficiary’s expenses under Medicaid, a state could impose a lein, or take possession, of a beneficiary’s home to pay for Medicaid expenses.
However, federal law prohibits imposing this lein if beneficiaries are married to someone of the opposite-sex who’s still living in their home. The new guidance, signed by Deputy Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Cindy Mann, clarifies that states can offer this protection to the healthy partner of a Medicaid recipient in a same-sex relationship.
“A State can have a policy or rule not to pursue liens when the same-sex spouse or domestic partner of the Medicaid beneficiary continues to lawfully reside in the home,” the guidance states.
The Obama administration previously hadn’t articulated whether gay couples could receive these protections under the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The guidance doesn’t mandate that same-sex couples receive this protection, but allows states to “incorporate their criteria for determining when to impose a lien in the Medicaid State plan.”
The Department of Health & Human Services had been examining ways to offer more protections to same-sex couples under Medicaid as part of the work it has undertaken for LGBT people, but until now hadn’t issued the policy guidance to states.
Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement the new guidance represents a path for low-income same-sex couples to receive care under Medicaid.
“Low-income same-sex couples are too often denied equal treatment and the protections offered to other families in their greatest times of need,” she said. “That is now changing. Today’s guidance represents another important step toward ensuring the rights and dignity of every American are respected by their government.”"
Source.
North Carolina passes “Women’s Right to Know” Act
"
Yesterday, North Carolina House voted 71-48 to pass the “Women’s Right to Know” Act which forces women to wait 24 hours to have an abortion, forces them to see a sonogram and feeds them “information” about the risks of abortion. Because nothing says ‘I love you women of North Carolina’ like forcing state mandates on women about what they think is best for their minds and bodies.
Source.
Yesterday, North Carolina House voted 71-48 to pass the “Women’s Right to Know” Act which forces women to wait 24 hours to have an abortion, forces them to see a sonogram and feeds them “information” about the risks of abortion. Because nothing says ‘I love you women of North Carolina’ like forcing state mandates on women about what they think is best for their minds and bodies.
“This is about respecting women,” said Rep. Ruth Samuelson, a Charlotte Republican who sponsored the bill. “This bill keeps abortion legal. It keeps abortion safe. And, by golly, we know it helps make it more rare. It is still her choice. It makes it her informed choice.”I agree that women should be informed before having an abortion and even before they have sex. Women should be informed, period. I don't think a forced sonogram is appealing as much to the rational side of things that legislative proponents think it is. It's a purely emotional tactic attempting to scare women out of the choice.
Opponents called it an unwarranted intrusion on a women’s privacy.
“Today we decide we know better than every woman in North Carolina about her body, her mind and her soul,” said Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat.
Perdue joined the criticism.
“The Legislature should be focused on what they said they would focus on: creating jobs and strengthening education,” she said in a statement. “Government has no role interfering in the relationship between a doctor and a patient. Legislative leaders who vow to make government less intrusive and to protect individual freedom are advancing a bill that does just the opposite.” "
Source.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard
"A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.
The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"
Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.
But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.
"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.
The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.
Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.
"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.
The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.
"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.
Jessen says her client's ex-boyfriend has crossed the line.
"Nobody is stopping him from talking about father's rights. ... but a person can't invade someone's private life."
For his part, Holmes invoked the U.S. Supreme Court decision from earlier this year concerning the Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for its anti-gay protests at military funerals and other high-profile events. He believes the high court's decision to allow the protests, as hurtful as they are, is grounds for his client to put up the abortion billboard.
"Very unpopular offensive speech," he told the Alamogordo Daily News. "The Supreme Court, in an 8 to 1 decision, said that is protected speech."
Holmes says he is going to fight the order to remove the billboard through a District Court appeal."
Dire stage set for Iranian women's soccer team: No Olympics, No Gold
"The Iranian women’s soccer team has effectively been banned from the 2012 Olympics because their uniform adheres to Iran’s interpretation of Islamic standards, and thereby violates FIFA’s Olympic ban on religious displays.
The law of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that women must cover their heads in public. The FIFA rules for uniforms and equipment state that “Players and officials shall not display political, religious, commercial or personal messages or slogans in any language or form on their playing or team kits.”
The Iranian women’s team, in keeping with the country’s Islamic law, plays in full-body suits that cover their hair. They were informed last week that their uniform violated the rules, moments before an Olympic qualifying match against Jordan. Unable to play, they forfeited the game, meaning that qualifying for the Games will be virtually impossible. Heartbroken, some of the women burst into tears on the field.
Earlier this year, following a FIFA ruling about religious displays, the team started wearing a new uniform with tight-fitting headscarf, which they believed to be in keeping with the FIFA guidelines. Not so, it seems, and now, it looks like the team’s chances of making the Games are dashed.
Farideh Shojaei, the women’s representative on the Board of the Iranian Football Federation, said that the team now has little chance of making it to London. “It is extremely difficult to predict what results will come out of this, but I think it unlikely because the preliminary games will not be repeated,” she said. “The countries that invested, and spent money and time and took part in the second round will clearly not be willing to repeat these games, especially if this week it becomes clear which team will enter the final round. So it is extremely unlikely.”
Shahrzah Mozafar, the team’s former head coach agrees, but says that the consequences will stretch far beyond 2012. “This ruling means that women soccer in Iran is over,” she said. Mozafar predicts that Iran will simply stop sending the team overseas to play if they’re not allowed to play in headscarves. “Headscarves are simply what we wear in Iran,” she said."
Source.
The law of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that women must cover their heads in public. The FIFA rules for uniforms and equipment state that “Players and officials shall not display political, religious, commercial or personal messages or slogans in any language or form on their playing or team kits.”
The Iranian women’s team, in keeping with the country’s Islamic law, plays in full-body suits that cover their hair. They were informed last week that their uniform violated the rules, moments before an Olympic qualifying match against Jordan. Unable to play, they forfeited the game, meaning that qualifying for the Games will be virtually impossible. Heartbroken, some of the women burst into tears on the field.
Earlier this year, following a FIFA ruling about religious displays, the team started wearing a new uniform with tight-fitting headscarf, which they believed to be in keeping with the FIFA guidelines. Not so, it seems, and now, it looks like the team’s chances of making the Games are dashed.
Farideh Shojaei, the women’s representative on the Board of the Iranian Football Federation, said that the team now has little chance of making it to London. “It is extremely difficult to predict what results will come out of this, but I think it unlikely because the preliminary games will not be repeated,” she said. “The countries that invested, and spent money and time and took part in the second round will clearly not be willing to repeat these games, especially if this week it becomes clear which team will enter the final round. So it is extremely unlikely.”
Shahrzah Mozafar, the team’s former head coach agrees, but says that the consequences will stretch far beyond 2012. “This ruling means that women soccer in Iran is over,” she said. Mozafar predicts that Iran will simply stop sending the team overseas to play if they’re not allowed to play in headscarves. “Headscarves are simply what we wear in Iran,” she said."
Source.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Women Writers Suck, eh?
"VS Naipaul is a winner of the Nobel Prize for literature, and is considered one of the greatest British writers of his generation. So he must be a smart guy, right? Sure, sure.
Hates women, though. Yeah. Shame. In an interview this week, Naipaul said, 1) that no woman writer could be his literary equal; 2) that Jane Austen's "sentimental sense of the world" made her his inferior; 3) "I read a piece of writing and within a paragraph or two I know whether it is by a woman or not. I think [it is] unequal to me."
What else?
I do agree with the first comment on this article: "how is not respecting women's writing ability the same as "hating" them?" True, he put his trust in a woman editor (before she became an author) so I do not know if 'hate' is the right term, but at any rate, he is highly prejudicial and bigoted.
Source.
Hates women, though. Yeah. Shame. In an interview this week, Naipaul said, 1) that no woman writer could be his literary equal; 2) that Jane Austen's "sentimental sense of the world" made her his inferior; 3) "I read a piece of writing and within a paragraph or two I know whether it is by a woman or not. I think [it is] unequal to me."
What else?
"And inevitably for a woman, she is not a complete master of a house, so that comes over in her writing too," he said.VS Naipaul is like the Too Short of the literary world! But more patronizing."
He added: "My publisher, who was so good as a taster and editor, when she became a writer, lo and behold, it was all this feminine tosh. I don't mean this in any unkind way."
I do agree with the first comment on this article: "how is not respecting women's writing ability the same as "hating" them?" True, he put his trust in a woman editor (before she became an author) so I do not know if 'hate' is the right term, but at any rate, he is highly prejudicial and bigoted.
Source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)