The Political Voices of Women

Every once in a while something truly special airs on television. When “The People Speak” airs on The History Channel this upcoming Sunday it will be one of those moments.

Inspired by the books of Howard Zinn, (“A People’s History of the United States“) and Anthony Arnove, (“Voices of a People’s History“), The People Speak is a documentary which tells the story of American democracy through the words of the ordinary, yet powerful, people who have shaped it.

With a cast that includes: Benjamin Bratt, Josh Brolin, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Rosario Dawson, Danny Glover, Jasmine Guy, John Legend, Viggo Mortensen and Sandra Oh, this film shares the voices of the dissenters, the protesters, “the resistance in U.S. history ” who have helped shaped this nation’s history but are seldom mentioned in history texts. The result is a documentary which reminds us that democracies are built from the bottom up, not from the top down.

In the following video clip Howard Zinn and co-exec-producer Chris Moore discuss their film on the Today show:

Reporting for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Katie Leslie interviewed actress Jasmine Guy who shared her experience in making this documentary:

” ‘The live experience, the filming process, was really incredible,’ Guy said, explaining that actors and musicians practiced their lines backstage in character. ‘We had Frederick Douglass in one corner and Martin Luther King in another and Abraham Lincoln… it was deep.’

Guy said she was most touched by the work of Abbey Lincoln, whom she knew as an actress and singer, but not as an activist. Guy depicted Lincoln, Alice Walker, Sylvia Woods and others in the film.

‘In reading it, it was so raw and it kind of touched a nerve with me because it was talking about the acceptance of our own beauty as black women and how we can’t ever seem to get it right,’ Guy said of Lincoln’s work. ‘And I think those people you don’t expect to come out with these profound powerful moving words really moved me the most because they did come from everyday people.’ “

As Bill Moyers reminded us during his address at the NYU Kimmel Center on December 12, 2006, “democracy works when people claim it as their own” and “the next chapter is ours to tell.” “The People Speak“, reminds us of this important message once again.

Hopefully, enough of us are listening.

Related Posts:

A Challenge for Every American Citizen, 9/07

The following is cross-posted from the Political Voices of Women Community.

Have you ever wondered why:

• So few women run companies around the world
• Even fewer American companies are run by Japanese men
• There are more tall male leaders than short male leaders
• Pakistani leadership is filled with cricket fans but not racquetball players

Chances are it has nothing to do with outright bias or intentional discrimination. So what happens?

Where is the diversity? Businesses around the world have had diversity as a “must do” in their mission statements for years, in some cases for a decade or more. Multinational companies swear by diversity but behind the scenes swear at it. “Diversity is no longer a nice to have — it is a need to have” say many annual reports which are filled with diverse people smiling out from the pages. In my new book The Loudest Duck: Moving Beyond Diversity I call that the Noah’s Ark theory of diversity — if we could just get two of each in the Ark, we will have accomplished our goal of diversity! Unfortunately, the results are not promising; diversity has not actually truly happened after all this time, after all the effort and money spent.

What makes it hard for diverse companies to become, well, diverse? I saw a slogan that read “We hire for difference and fire because they are not the same.”

In The Loudest Duck I explain why diversity in reality is a lot harder to accomplish than many in management think and why the sea level on diversity has not risen by much. I have worked on leadership and diversity issues for many years — studied it, spoken about it, researched it and ran organizations. Why is Noah’s Ark so hard to really make work? Because the giraffe unconsciously looks at the zebra and thinks “He is funny looking with that stupid short neck and silly black and white stripes. I, the giraffe, am much more capable with my long neck and beautiful brown and white spots.”

The argument is not that diversity and heterogeneity are not worthwhile and extremely valuable for competing and getting the best, most creative ideas. It is that to create a true meritocracy and a place where all diverse ideas are heard and diverse people promoted fairly requires much more consciousness of what we think about others and how we react to them, especially if they are different from us. Diversity requires leaders to have more tools in their toolbox than if they were managing a homogeneous workforce.

In The Loudest Duck I talk about how we all bring Grandma to work with us. Who is Grandma? She is the accumulation of everything we learn about ourselves and others. We learn from our parents, peers, teachers, the media, religion, experience, toys, history, myths and legends. We are all taught from Day 1 about the world and that “learning” seeps unconsciously into our brains and it determines how we see the world and others, particularly others who are different than we are.

Grandma teaches American men that it is okay to brag, to trumpet their successes at work. For them, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Grandma teaches women around the world that there is a social penalty for doing that. (She’s too ambitious or pushy.) Grandma teaches the Chinese to be modest. They are taught from early on that “the Loudest Duck gets shot.” In a diverse American company, the American male manager hears the wheel and not the duck. He hears other American men bragging but hears nothing from the woman or the Chinese man and unconsciously leans toward the American man for the promotion, the pay raise, the better assignments.

Or the boss is an avid cricket fan. That is not a problem if the people who work for him are too. They get together, watch games, talk about the teams and the boss gets comfortable with those people who work for him. But in a diverse company not everyone is a cricket lover. The non-cricket aficionado is put just slightly at a disadvantage because he has less access and familiarity with his manager. The manager, a good person, brings Grandma to work with him and slightly, unconsciously favors the cricket fans.

My book explains why companies have to be far more thoughtful about their diverse workforce and how they are perceived in order to create a level playing field for all. It is not the diversity that is the challenge; it is how we handle the diversity that speeds some people’s careers up and slows others down. And usually it can be seen in the phenomenon of like being comfortable and looking favorably on others who are like them. The Loudest Duck explores the dynamics of dominant groups and non-dominant groups in organizations and the subtle advantage that goes to those in the former category and the subtle disadvantage that accrues to those who don’t look like the dominant group.

No one ever got to the top of the organization by saying “The reason I made it to the top is that I was subtly advantaged. I got to the top because the company is fair and meritocratic.” In a diverse company that is most likely completely untrue. As Malcolm Gladwell writes in his book, Blink 16% of men in the United States are 6′ 2″ or taller but 57% of Fortune 500 male leaders are 6’2″ or taller. We bring unconscious archetypes and beliefs about the attributes of tall versus short into our diverse workplace.

Diverse companies can be much better and more creative, much more profitable and able to succeed globally ONLY if they are aware and conscious of all we bring in preconceived notions of who others are. Leaders become aware that their experiences at work are NOT the same as others’ in Noah’s Ark. The tall white man at the top of the organization may think the world happens to others as it happens to him. It does not.

The Loudest Duck provides leaders and employees tools to make sure that diversity actually works to the benefit of all.

During a town hall meeting held at The Carter Center on Tuesday, former President Jimmy Carter called Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s address to Congress an act “based on racism.” Carter called Wilson’s comment “dastardly” and a reflection of an “inherent feeling” held by some in this country who feel that a black man should not be president.

Now President Carter’s comments seem to be the new topic of controversy. While many applaud the Nobel Peace Prize winner for pointing out what seems to be obvious, many others think that President Carter’s comments were off-base or should not have been made.

Political Voices of Women Community member Elizabeth Ross stated in her post titled, “President Carter’s Opinion on Obama or When It’s Best Not to State the Truth“:

“This is beyond being politically incorrect. It is stating the obvious when no one needs it to be said. Bringing up the fact that there is still a great deal of racism in America right now is back pedaling. Over the years I have often steered candidates for office away from various battles on the campaign trail. Invariably, it was because the candidate was dead set on fighting a battle that wasn’t worth fighting, or simply couldn’t be won. Carter pointed out one of the latter.

Eradicating racism in America will not happen in my lifetime. We may come close, and my children may see it, but I know I won’t. It isn’t anyone’s fault, and there isn’t a quick solution out there. The bottom line is that our society needs more time to move beyond the attitudes of the past and present. Change rarely happens in quick leaps, and when it does, continued change moves much more slowly. We have already interrupted the natural evolution of our society from one that proclaimed that blacks were subhuman to one that considers blacks as equal to whites more than once. Expecting the people to change more quickly is naive at best.”

So what do you think about former President Carter’s comments?

Was he right or wrong? Should he have commented at all?

If you were raised in the United States, you can probably recall the PSA with the image of an egg frying and the saying, “This is your brain on drugs”. Well the current political climate in America indicates that our collective brain is well on its way to being just as fried.

In an article for Alternet, Tammy Ganeva outlined the, “10 of the Most Obscenely Stupid Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories and Attacks Against the President.”

Janet Shan of The Hinterland Gazette posted a story, “Capt Connie Rhodes Files Lawsuit to Fight Deployment to Afghanistan, Disputes the Legitimacy of Barack Obama’s Presidency.”

Stacy Morrow posted a story for MSNBC informing us that the Arlington Independent School District which passed on showing President Obama’s address to school children plans to bus (yes, bus) some of those children to Texas Stadium on September 21st to hear former President George W. Bush.

What do these stories have in common?

They are all describing the insanity that has gripped this country. A form of mental illness so severe that it prompted Rep. Congressman Joe Wilson (SC) to shout “You Lie” at President Obama during the latter’s address to Congress.

Friends this isn’t Sparta, this is madness

Like an addict hooked on crack, it seems that a large portion of American society is hooked on fear. And now that fear is turning to disrespect, race baiting and worst of all, religious zealotry that twists the gospel of Jesus Christ from a message of love into a sermon of hate.

What bible is this man reading? Certainly not the same one that I am because in my bible Matthew 22:36-40 reads:

³⁶“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” ³⁷Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Pastor Steven Anderson needs to rethink his religion. A lot of people do.

We also need to rethink our political conversation. Yes, the blogosphere has had a lot of fun pointing out the hypocrisy and absurdities coming from both of the major political camps. In fact, some blogs/bloggers have become famous and infamous for their flaming conversations. But is this really who we want to be as a society?

It would be easy to say that this is all the result of the American public having had their fears manipulated for the past 8 years. I’m sure that eight years of: environmentalists being portrayed as kooks; war veterans being portrayed as cowards; twisted stories about weapons of mass destruction; politically timed and motivated terror alerts; anti-war dissent being labeled as of being un-American; the suspension of habeas corpus; mass wire-tapping by the telecoms; et. al. had their effect. But I suspect that the current outpouring of venom is something that has always been hidden in the dark recesses of our national soul like some dormant parasite just waiting to be fed.

In the months ahead, health care reform may or may not pass. The economy may continue to improve or it may worsen. And political candidates may or may not be re-elected. But many of the words of hate spoken over the past months will be remembered for a very long time.

America, this is our brain on fear. Consider this an intervention. Now get help!

Related links:

Tell Congressman Joe WIlson to apologize for disrsepecting the President during his address to Congress.

Sign the Credo mobile petition urging the FBI and Secret Service to do all that they can to protect the President.

crossposted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation

The following is a great post by Political Voices of Women Community member Bobbie Woods.

When we stop reeling from the overwhelming fact that our economic system just spun out of control (though it will probably come back) we’ve all got to ask ourselves the big questions: How did this happen? Did I personally contribute? Can I live my life in accordance with my values of environmental sustainability and still function in our capitalist system? Yeah, so I know that last question just sent 99% of readers clicking away to Perez Hilton…

If you’re still with me, here’s the thing that I’ve been thinking about: macroeconomics shows us that our capitalist system requires continual growth. Continual consumption of natural resources and environmental degradation as a result. Some authors even call it carbon-based growth to differentiate between a petroleum based economy and… something else. What else?? Here’s a chunky quote about our petroleum-based economy:

Research by the McKinsey Global Institute and McKinsey’s Climate Change Initiative finds that reconciling these two objectives means that “carbon productivity,” the amount of GDP produced per unit of carbon equivalents (CO2e) emitted, must increase dramatically. To meet commonly discussed abatement paths [to stop global climate change], carbon productivity must increase from approximately $740 GDP per ton of CO2e today to $7,300 GDP per ton of CO2e by 2050—a tenfold increase. This is comparable in magnitude to the labor productivity increases of the Industrial Revolution. However, the “carbon revolution” must be achieved in one-third of the time that economic transformation took in the Industrial Revolution if we are to maintain current growth levels while keeping CO2e levels below 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv), a level that many experts believe is the maximum that can be allowed without significant risks to the climate.

What this means is that it may be impossible to correct global warming using our current economic system. We need to examine our economic system in order to support sustainability, living within the means available to us without further damaging our environment. The financial meltdown, global climate change, they’re both symptoms of one REALLY BIG problem: capitalism without sustainability.

We kind of already knew that, but somehow no one seems to ever just say it outright. Back to the finance world, aka the witch’s brewpot of capitalism.

The “did I personally contribute” question is valid when we look at how we can change. Do you invest in mutual funds that in turn own stocks from companies you cannot support? How about your 401K? Those greedy-ass investment bankers who tanked our economy were leveraging something: YOUR money. Do the due-diligence and examine your investments to ensure they’re in line with your values. You may own Exxon stock and not even know it. Do you buy too much plastic on a daily basis? Lord knows I do, and it drives me crazy! I hate plastic, but even Trader Joes wraps their veggies in it! (yup, time to go write that email to TJs corporate office…) Okay, so we get it on the environmental impact of daily habits. We’re saving up for the Prius or better yet, the Aptera. But we still participate every day in an economic model that demands continuous expansion to sustain it’s health. We’re hurting now because of shrinkage. Everything we’ve been taught tells us this shrinkage is BAD. People are losing jobs and houses. We haven’t even BEGUN to see the impact on retirement savings that have now evaporated. Life is getting harder.

But the pain is necessary. Until we find a widespread and sustainable form of energy production (beyond resource depletion), the world cannot support a western lifestyle for everyone on earth. What does a sustainable economic model look like?

Maybe socialism, and definitely with a LOCAL emphasis. For us Americans, rugged individualists that we are, there’s always the pain-threshhold question associated with socialism: how much pain would you like to subject your neighbors to before you’ll pay more taxes to help them? How about someone else’s neighbors? How about rude people? How about lazy people who just lie and don’t work? Yup, gets us every time. We cringe at socialism. But I guess my argument is that it provides a cushion against economic contraction, which we need if we are going to try for zero-sum growth, meaning some periods of expansion balanced against some periods of contraction. We need to pull back from globalism and back to local self-sufficiency. My mind reels at how Luddite this starts to sound, but we really do need to stop consuming plastic crap from overseas, and support local economies. Green Party style.

Here’s a quote (my emphases added) from an excellent article on no-growth economics by Stephen Stoll in Har…:

“Our trouble lies in a simple confusion, one to which economists have been prone since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Growth and ecology operate by different rules. Economists tend to assume that every problem of scarcity can be solved by substitution, by replacing tuna with tilapia, without factoring in the long-term environmental implications of either. But whereas economies might expand, ecosystems do not. They change—pine gives way to oak, coyotes arrive in New England—and they reproduce themselves, but they do not increase in extent or abundance year after year. Most economists think of scarcity as a labor problem, imagining that only energy and technology place limits on production. To harvest more wood, build a better chain saw; to pump more oil, drill more wells; to get more food, invent pest-resistant plants. That logic thrived on new frontiers and more intensive production, and it held off the prophets of scarcity—from Thomas Robert Malthus to Paul Ehrlich—whose predictions of famine and shortage have not come to pass. The Agricultural Revolution that began in seventeenth-century England radically increased the amount of food that could be grown on an acre of land, and the same happened in the 1960s and 1970s, when fertilizer and hybridized seeds arrived in India and Mexico. But the picture looks entirely different when we change the scale. Industrial society is roughly 250 years old: make the last ten thousand years equal to twenty-four hours, and we have been producing consumer goods and CO2 for only the last thirty-six minutes. Do the same for the past 1 million years of human evolution, and everything from the steam engine to the search engine fits into the past twenty-one seconds. If we are not careful, hunting and gathering will look like a far more successful strategy for survival than economic growth. The latter has changed so much about the earth and human societies in so little time that it makes more sense to be cautious than triumphant.”

James Surowiecki of the New Yorker called the US economy the provberbial shark. If it doesn’t keep swimming it dies. That can’t be good.

originally posted on www.duhpookie.com

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that in an effort to stabilize the economy The Federal Reserve is saying it will “flood the financial system with an additional $1.2 trillion.”

That’s TRILLION with a T.

Washington Post Staff Reporter Neil Irwin reports:

“The Federal Reserve yesterday escalated its massive campaign to stabilize the economy, saying it would flood the financial system with an additional $1.2 trillion.

The decision by the Fed to buy government bonds and mortgage-related securities is designed to lower borrowing costs for home mortgages and other types of loans, thereby stimulating economic activity. The central bank, effectively, will print more money to pay for the purchases.

Combined with the billions already deployed by the Fed, the new money dwarfs even the biggest government bailouts of financial companies.”

You’re not kidding that it dwarfs other bailouts. So, I just have two questions:

• Where is The Federal Reserve getting this money? and,

• If The Fed has access to this much money why did Bernanke and Bush state that the world as we know it would come to an end if Congress didn’t rush to pass a $700 billion bill to bail out the banks?

I’m the first to admit that I’m no economic guru. I’m just a finance novice who is trying to maintain my household and make sense of the world around me. I really need someone to explain this. But be advised, momma didn’t raise no fool.

Here’s what I understand so far.

Wikipedia gives this description of the Federal Reserve System:

“The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system^[1] that comprises (1) the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous other private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils.

The primary motivation for creating the Federal Reserve System was to address banking panics.^[13] Other purposes are stated in the Federal Reserve Act, such as “to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.”^[14]“

And according to the site FederalReserve.gov this is how the Fed is funded :

“The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers, and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions (the rate on which is the so-called discount rate). After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.”

So if the Federal Reserve turns all of its earnings, minus operating expenses, over to the U.S Treasury, how does the Fed now have trillions of dollars to “flood the banking system”?

To recap, The Federal Reserve is a “quasi-public”/private agency that was created to address banking panics and has trillions of dollars at its disposal but couldn’t prevent the current economic crisis unless Congress ponied up $700B of TARP money for the banks.

??????

Oh, I do have one last question.

Is it sheer coincidence that the Fed made this announcement while the US public is totally engrossed by the AIG bonus debacle?

Related posts:

The Narcoleptic Public Consciousness of America, 2/09

Other articles:

The Bush Bulldozer Strategy by Danny Schechter, 10/06

In the following post, Political Voices of Women Community Member, WageLaborer responds to the recent announcement that President Obama will be sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

Big Government by WageLaborer

Obama wants to double the amount of US troops in Afghanistan and is pressuring NATO to supply more, also.

He insists that we must “win” in Afghanistan, but doesn’t say what “winning” is. When asked, the military commander states that he has no idea.

But, reading between the lines, as I have learned to do in this Orwellian society we live in, they are trying to establish a US friendly strong central government in Afghanistan.

How’s it working out for them? Not so well. Afghanistan is a decentralized tribal country, (much more than Iraq, where, although family ties are still strong, a strong central government existed before the US invaded and took it over.) Democracy Now had an interesting interview with an aid worker who told how US contractors built 41 courthouses and then tried to hand them over to the Afghan Justice Dept, who pointed out that they didn’t have staff, furniture or utilities to run them. The tribes have their own system of justice.

Every centralized government has gone through a period where they consolidated their power. Most people don’t like being run by tribal warlords. The US has its own stories of towns run by corrupt sheriffs in cahoots with the local elite, especially in the South. We have the story of the taming of the Wild West, with the same scenario – big government coming in and restoring justice corrupted by violent local thugs in power.

So Americans tend to think of Big Government as the arbitrator of justice. Federal troops escorting 5-year old African American girls to elementary school past jeering crowds of boorish white people. Starting with Teddy Roosevelt, the protection of some of the most beautiful parts of America, like Yosemite and Yellowstone, from private predation. The Supreme Court as the last chance for a fair trial.

Ironically, those Americans who don’t like Big Government tend to be the more politically conservative, especially in the South, where many are still angry that their tribes lost to the Feds 144 years ago. But these are the same ones who are especially enthusiastic about killing Afghans who resist having outside agitators coming in to their country and forcing centralized oppression on them.

Americans need to quit worrying about the tribal warlords in Afghanistan. What we have here is worse. We have corporate warlords who have captured our centralized government and are using its powerful structure to loot and oppress us.

The bank bailouts are the most publicized, but the giveaway of public land for private profit is just as outrageous. What about taxpayer subsidies to corporations who shut down American factories and move them to cheaper labor countries? What about the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the last three decades? What about the relaxing of air and water pollution rules?

And the ongoing attack on our personal freedoms. The latest is the proposal to centralize and computerize our medical records, so that everything you tell your doctor, the results of your lab tests and xrays, etc., will be available to whoever has access to those records. In other words, thousands of people, including insurance companies and the FBI and the military.

And now you have to submit fingerprints, bodily fluids and background checks to get many jobs! You now have to show two forms of ID to get a job. You can’t travel out of the USA without a passport. You can’t buy a plane or train ticket, or check into a hotel, without a government issued ID.

Listen up, America. You can’t “export freedom” to other countries when you don’t have it here. Do you want to see our future? Look at Iraq. They now have checkpoints, fingerprints, retina scans, more prisons than they had before, and soldiers breaking into their houses without warrants.

The corporate warlords who have seized our government have the same plans for us. Let’s concentrate on regaining our own country and quit trying to conquer other people’s countries.

Since I couldn’t host a stimulus party this past weekend, I decided to do the next best thing. I’m joining with the bloggers of Political Voices of Women in hosting a party online and you’re invited.

Join us on Twitter for “24 Hours of Stimulus: an online bipartisan citizen discussion on the Economic Stimulus and Recovery Bill“.

The discussion will start at 12 noon EST Monday, February, 9th as the President begins his Townhall Meeting in Elkhart, Indiana and will continue for the next 24 hours, the time that the Senate is expected to vote on the bill known as S.1 – The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

To participate in the discussion add the hashtags. #24stimulus and/or #pvow to each of your tweets. This will make sure that your message is visible to everyone participating in the discussion.

If you are new to Twitter here are a few tips for participating in the discussion.

Go to TweetChat

• Logon on with your Twitter ID and password.
• You will be prompted to enter the name of the room that you want to enter.
• At this point type either #pvow or #24stimulus
• You will now see all of the tweets that have been entered using the hashtags.

For more help with using Twitter check out Everything Twiiter

I hope that you’ll join the conversation and share your thoughts, questions, blog posts and any other information that you think that the public needs to know about the Economic Stimulus and Recovery Bill. It should be a fascinating discussion.

Hope to see you there.

P.S. Keep an eye out for a few surprise guests

Here is a video of Keith Olbermann’s Special comment on whether or not the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes and torture…

What do you think? Let me know in comments.

Tonight marks the start of the Jewish New Year. According to ads in today’s New York Times wishing me a happy new year from Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s, it is 5769 on the Jewish calendar. That’s a long time to survive repeated attempts to eradicate the Jews, if I do say so myself.

In keeping with the holiday theme, the Times ran an article about the overlap of Ramadan and Rosh Hashana this year. It seems that the streets and pathways in Old Jerusalem are more crowded with people studiously ignoring one another than ever. What I like about the article is that there is something in it sure to piss off everyone. (Just check out the comments.) Now that’s the holiday spirit!

Actually, the first comment on the article, from esthermiriam in DC, is exactly where I wanted to go with this. She wrote: “And those who control both those holy sites do agree on other thing: that women should be physically separated from men for prayer there…” In the article, Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz said of the Western Wall, “this wall makes even those with hearts of stone shed a tear.” Oh, Rabbi. Let me explain my tears: they are tears of anger, frustration, and humiliation. For my own people not only separate the women and men, but give the women an inferior place at which to pray. We are accorded less than a quarter of the Wall for our reflections. We are given prayer books and other equipment that are inferior to those provided to the men. I’m not even sure we’d be allowed to read from the Torah on our side. When we live according to our standards and interpretations of Judaism, we are physically and verbally assaulted by the thugs (i.e. – the Hasidim) who control the Wall. So, yes, when I think of the wall, I shed many tears.

L’shanah tova, and peace be upon us. Not only between various religions of the world, but between the factions within them. May the universal religious war on women end in 5769.

Cross-posted at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants