FEMINIST - Repeat after me... Suck My Ovaries.
Say it proud, say it strong.
Check out http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22suck+my+ovaries%22
At the top of the list you will you find the following blog: suckmyovaries.blogspot.com. Definitely worth checking out.
Especially the following posts:
Female Fronted Bands
Yeastie Girls
Libertarias/Freedomfighters Fim
:)
The Truth about Rape Trials
FEMINISM - Fact: Only 49% of sexual assault trials in Canada end in convictions.
It doesn't take a genius to realize similar statistics likely exist in the USA.
But here is the kicker. Most sexual assaults don't even go to trial. Only 9 to 10% of sexual assaults in Canada are even reported to the police.
According to Statistics Canada there is approx. 26,000 sexual assaults reported to police each year. But because Canadians only report 9% to 10% of sexual assaults that means there is between 260,000 and 286,000 sexual assaults per year.
Lastly only 20% of those include physical injuries.
Thus for 80% of cases sexual assault is very difficult to prove. And for the 20% that does have physical injuries, there is still no guarantee it will go to trial.
What is also known is that you are more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know, a friend, co-worker or even a relative, not by a stranger. Sexual assaults by strangers is actually pretty rare. However because women are often assaulted by friends, family, co-workers, etc. this is why so few people report it to the police.
Once it does get reported however the police are (generally speaking) very thorough. They interview the woman multiple times, comparing her story to make absolutely certain she isn't making it up. If there is any doubt the charges end up being dropped.
Thus the percentage of false claims that make it to court is so small its not even a percentage point. It is 99.99% or better truth.
Which means its practically a fact, but the problem is how do you prove it?
And that is where the he-said-she-said system comes into play. Without secondary witnesses and character witnesses, how are we to know who is telling the truth?
He says it was consensual. Or claims they were both drunk. Or whatever excuse he can think of. ie. She seduced him and just wants his money. Seriously, whatever lie that sounds plausible is the one that he will use in court.
She says it was rape. There was nothing consensual about it. She said NO and she meant it. She wasn't playing around. She wasn't seducing him or flirting with him. She was tricked, cornered, fooled, abused, assaulted, and then dismissed like yesterday's garbage.
It would be wonderful if someone could invent a lie detecting machine which is 100% infallible and allowable in a court room. Perfectly accurate. It measures their vitals, their heart rate, their hormone levels and brain activity.
And then the liars would be caught and put behind bars for their crimes. The system would be so much simpler with a lie detecting machine which works perfectly.
See Also
The Vagina on Trial
Stop Rape
Abortion, Rape and the American Way
Gender Violence in Mexico
The 10 Worst Countries for Women
It doesn't take a genius to realize similar statistics likely exist in the USA.
But here is the kicker. Most sexual assaults don't even go to trial. Only 9 to 10% of sexual assaults in Canada are even reported to the police.
According to Statistics Canada there is approx. 26,000 sexual assaults reported to police each year. But because Canadians only report 9% to 10% of sexual assaults that means there is between 260,000 and 286,000 sexual assaults per year.
Lastly only 20% of those include physical injuries.
Thus for 80% of cases sexual assault is very difficult to prove. And for the 20% that does have physical injuries, there is still no guarantee it will go to trial.
What is also known is that you are more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone you know, a friend, co-worker or even a relative, not by a stranger. Sexual assaults by strangers is actually pretty rare. However because women are often assaulted by friends, family, co-workers, etc. this is why so few people report it to the police.
Once it does get reported however the police are (generally speaking) very thorough. They interview the woman multiple times, comparing her story to make absolutely certain she isn't making it up. If there is any doubt the charges end up being dropped.
Thus the percentage of false claims that make it to court is so small its not even a percentage point. It is 99.99% or better truth.
Which means its practically a fact, but the problem is how do you prove it?
And that is where the he-said-she-said system comes into play. Without secondary witnesses and character witnesses, how are we to know who is telling the truth?
He says it was consensual. Or claims they were both drunk. Or whatever excuse he can think of. ie. She seduced him and just wants his money. Seriously, whatever lie that sounds plausible is the one that he will use in court.
She says it was rape. There was nothing consensual about it. She said NO and she meant it. She wasn't playing around. She wasn't seducing him or flirting with him. She was tricked, cornered, fooled, abused, assaulted, and then dismissed like yesterday's garbage.
It would be wonderful if someone could invent a lie detecting machine which is 100% infallible and allowable in a court room. Perfectly accurate. It measures their vitals, their heart rate, their hormone levels and brain activity.
And then the liars would be caught and put behind bars for their crimes. The system would be so much simpler with a lie detecting machine which works perfectly.
See Also
The Vagina on Trial
Stop Rape
Abortion, Rape and the American Way
Gender Violence in Mexico
The 10 Worst Countries for Women
The Truth about Feminomics
FEMINIST - A woman's work is never done.
And likewise trying to calculate the value of woman's work is infinite. Let me explain why...
When a mother teaches their children a skill and that skill is passed on to future generations, even if the skill changes over time, evolves, it ends up being of infinite value to the descendants who follow. ie. The ability to cook your own food, something which every human should know.
But how does women's work get calculated into the wealth (GDP) of a nation? In theory all that food that is grown, harvested and eaten at home has value that is being ignored when calculating the GDP of many countries, even European and Western countries.
Instead GDP is usually measured in dollars changing hands, like BP oil or the Alberta tar sands (and totally ignores the damage to the environment which will cost future generations billions to fix, let alone the damage to the health of people living near these environmental disasters).
GDP also ignores birthing, nursing, diapering, cooking, baking, nurturing and teaching that most mothers do (and if they don't then their nanny does it).
Political economist Marilyn Waring, a former New Zealand cabinet minister and now professor of public policy at the Institute of Public Policy at AUT University in Auckland believes we should be calculating the value of women's work. “The market wouldn’t survive if it wasn’t able to survive on the backbone of unpaid work," she says.
So its not just women's work we are talking about. Its also the value of being a father (teaching, nurturing and so forth) and even chores done by children. ALL UNPAID WORK.
Waring calculates that the largest source of unpaid work in any economy is performed by women.
In 1988, Waring’s book "Counting for Nothing" (known now as "If Women Counted" introduced the idea that the way we calculate wealth is flawed because it ignores the well-being of work done at home.
Lets take for example a person living in northern Canada. If they build, using their own two hands, a huge home made of stone and outfit it with a source of electricity from a local river and a waterwheel, what is the GDP value of the home?
Zero.
Because they didn't sell it.
Its like trying to keep track of barter, another source of "unpaid work". People perform barter on a regular basis without realizing it. Women's work is really just a form of barter. They cook, clean and nurture children in exchange for a roof over their head, food and spending money (we can ignore the love and intimacy factors that should be involved in such a relationship).
In 2005 StatsCan calculated that men perform an average of 2.5 hours of unpaid work per day while women do 4.3 hours. (This includes time spent doing volunteer work for the community.)
(Honestly I also wonder what does blogging count as... I am after all performing a free public service. But the value of informing other people of the worth of various truths is difficult to calculate.)
Feminomics therefore is a very tricky thing to calculate... but I'd argue trying to calculate it in dollars is a moot issue because its not paid in dollars. IT SHOULD BE MEASURED IN HOURS.
Suzy's Feminomics Value of Women's Work (or FV)
FV = Hours per Annum per Capita.
ie. In 2005 Canada the FV was 1569.5 hours / Capita.
But if we went to a country where most women don't have careers, like Afghanistan, the FV might be closer to 3000 hours / Capita.
The idea here is that if we actually want to calculate women's work that we need to be using a different yardstick.
And likewise trying to calculate the value of woman's work is infinite. Let me explain why...
When a mother teaches their children a skill and that skill is passed on to future generations, even if the skill changes over time, evolves, it ends up being of infinite value to the descendants who follow. ie. The ability to cook your own food, something which every human should know.But how does women's work get calculated into the wealth (GDP) of a nation? In theory all that food that is grown, harvested and eaten at home has value that is being ignored when calculating the GDP of many countries, even European and Western countries.
Instead GDP is usually measured in dollars changing hands, like BP oil or the Alberta tar sands (and totally ignores the damage to the environment which will cost future generations billions to fix, let alone the damage to the health of people living near these environmental disasters).
GDP also ignores birthing, nursing, diapering, cooking, baking, nurturing and teaching that most mothers do (and if they don't then their nanny does it).
Political economist Marilyn Waring, a former New Zealand cabinet minister and now professor of public policy at the Institute of Public Policy at AUT University in Auckland believes we should be calculating the value of women's work. “The market wouldn’t survive if it wasn’t able to survive on the backbone of unpaid work," she says.
So its not just women's work we are talking about. Its also the value of being a father (teaching, nurturing and so forth) and even chores done by children. ALL UNPAID WORK.
Waring calculates that the largest source of unpaid work in any economy is performed by women.
In 1988, Waring’s book "Counting for Nothing" (known now as "If Women Counted" introduced the idea that the way we calculate wealth is flawed because it ignores the well-being of work done at home.
Lets take for example a person living in northern Canada. If they build, using their own two hands, a huge home made of stone and outfit it with a source of electricity from a local river and a waterwheel, what is the GDP value of the home?
Zero.
Because they didn't sell it.
Its like trying to keep track of barter, another source of "unpaid work". People perform barter on a regular basis without realizing it. Women's work is really just a form of barter. They cook, clean and nurture children in exchange for a roof over their head, food and spending money (we can ignore the love and intimacy factors that should be involved in such a relationship).
In 2005 StatsCan calculated that men perform an average of 2.5 hours of unpaid work per day while women do 4.3 hours. (This includes time spent doing volunteer work for the community.)
(Honestly I also wonder what does blogging count as... I am after all performing a free public service. But the value of informing other people of the worth of various truths is difficult to calculate.)
Feminomics therefore is a very tricky thing to calculate... but I'd argue trying to calculate it in dollars is a moot issue because its not paid in dollars. IT SHOULD BE MEASURED IN HOURS.
Suzy's Feminomics Value of Women's Work (or FV)
FV = Hours per Annum per Capita.
ie. In 2005 Canada the FV was 1569.5 hours / Capita.
But if we went to a country where most women don't have careers, like Afghanistan, the FV might be closer to 3000 hours / Capita.
The idea here is that if we actually want to calculate women's work that we need to be using a different yardstick.
What are YOUR feminist truths?
Do you have something really profound you'd like to share with the wider feminist community? Here's your chance to say something.
Leave a comment or email me at suzannemacnevin[at]gmail.com (all comments will be kept anonymous by default).
Also, if you have a topic you'd like me to write about, let me know about it.
Cheers!
Suzanne MacNevin
Examples to get you started:
1. Poverty is the main deciding factor in abortion. If anti-abortionists really wanted to stop abortion they'd fight poverty first.
2. Weightlifting doesn't make you look like a man. Steroids do.
3. There is no excuse for laziness. Don't make being female an excuse for why you can't "Just do it!" yourself. This applies to everything.
4. If you start telling yourself you can't do something because you're a woman then you need to go out there and prove to yourself that you CAN do it.
5. Don't do something because its "the feminist thing to do", do it because its the right thing for you to do.
6. Even men ask for advice. There is no shame in it.
7. Womens sports have a long way to go. Be patient, but always strive for more.
8. Unpaid "women's work" is the backbone on which our economy survives. If it wasn't for women teaching their children, child rearing, making meals, etc. our economy would collapse over night. But that doesn't mean every woman is destined to be a mother. Some women just don't have the maternal spirit, or they choose to delay that aspect of their life until later so they can better provide for themselves and their children.
9. Feminomics is the Future, the Past and the Present.
10. When push comes to shove most women choose love first. Your feminist beliefs are not about restrictions. Its about the freedom to choose what YOU want to do.
Leave a comment or email me at suzannemacnevin[at]gmail.com (all comments will be kept anonymous by default).
Also, if you have a topic you'd like me to write about, let me know about it.
Cheers!
Suzanne MacNevin
Examples to get you started:
1. Poverty is the main deciding factor in abortion. If anti-abortionists really wanted to stop abortion they'd fight poverty first.
2. Weightlifting doesn't make you look like a man. Steroids do.
3. There is no excuse for laziness. Don't make being female an excuse for why you can't "Just do it!" yourself. This applies to everything.
4. If you start telling yourself you can't do something because you're a woman then you need to go out there and prove to yourself that you CAN do it.
5. Don't do something because its "the feminist thing to do", do it because its the right thing for you to do.
6. Even men ask for advice. There is no shame in it.
7. Womens sports have a long way to go. Be patient, but always strive for more.
8. Unpaid "women's work" is the backbone on which our economy survives. If it wasn't for women teaching their children, child rearing, making meals, etc. our economy would collapse over night. But that doesn't mean every woman is destined to be a mother. Some women just don't have the maternal spirit, or they choose to delay that aspect of their life until later so they can better provide for themselves and their children.
9. Feminomics is the Future, the Past and the Present.
10. When push comes to shove most women choose love first. Your feminist beliefs are not about restrictions. Its about the freedom to choose what YOU want to do.
Canadian Feminists divided over Prostitution
SEX - Prostitution is legal in Canada, but there are a lot of things which restrict how a sex worker is allowed to ply their trade in Canada. Recently Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court struck down the following sections of the Canadian Criminal Code:
Section 210, which prohibits maintaining, owning or being a member of a “common bawdy-house.” The result is that brothels are no longer illegal in Canada.
Why is this important? Because brothels are safer than walking the streets or answering outcalls. With brothels comes security and bouncers for kicking out the rowdy men who don't follow the rules.
Section 212(1)(j), which affects those living “wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person.”
With this struck down, prostitutes are able to support dependents, including children and partners. It also means that if they run a brothel they can pay to have a bouncer, an accountant, desk clerks, etc.
Section 213(1)(c), best known as the “communicating law,” which prevents street prostitutes from screening clients before putting themselves at risk.
With this gone prostitutes can now screen individuals they choose to have sex with, often because they don't feel comfortable with the person. Examples: Too creepy, scary looking, is a member of the NRA, or even just plain ugly.
The constitutional challenge was made by members of the Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) because they felt these laws were unfair and dangerous to the lives of sex workers, regardless of their intent.
Justice Susan Himel agreed and these laws were struck down because they endangered the health and safety of sex workers.
There are those feminists out there that argue that allowing brothels and screening will lead to an increase in pimping (which is still illegal in Canada) and organized crime / trafficking of women.
In major Canadian cities prostitution is not only common, its easy to find. Just open a NOW magazine in Toronto, flip to the back pages and you'll find advertisements for both male and female sex workers. You can also go to Craigslist or Kijiji. Or you can walk down one of the less reputable streets in the middle of the night.
For feminists however there is a huge ideological gap.
In the right corner we have the anti-sex-trade feminists, who believe prostitution should be completely illegal and that prostitutes should essentially be rounded up, forced to go to university and get decent jobs like the rest of us.
In the left corner we have the pro-choice feminists, who believe prostitution is going to happen regardless of what laws we implement because women sometimes just get desperate and are in a bad situation. They believe sex workers need to be protected, given more options for their personal safety and given choices so they can decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives.
Its actually very similar to the whole "women have the right to a safe abortion" argument. On the right side we have people who oppose abortion entirely. On the left side we have people who believe abortions are going to happen regardless and thus we should try and make it as safe as possible.
This isn't so much about "right and wrong", its about ensuring the safety of women who make those decisions, because they're going to make those decisions anyway regardless of what laws are out there. They're desperate enough to try anything.
Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court struck down as unconstitutional the bawdy house provision, which by preventing sex workers from sharing premises that ensured their common safety, increased their risk of exposure to violence.
The “living off the avails” section, which criminalizes those being supported by a sex worker, was meant to target pimps, it also affects a prostitute's live-in family, including partners, parents and children, as well as security guards or bouncers who might protect her.
The communication law was declared unconstitutional because experts all agree the greatest danger to street sex workers is their inability to safely screen johns before jumping into their cars.
“For me it's not complicated to understand why there's a divide: it's two visions,” says Diane Matte of Montreal's Coalition Against Sexual Exploitation, who has a street-level view of the sex worker industry. “The SPOC women do not hide the fact that they want to open brothels,” says Matte.
That much is certainly true. SPOC wants to open brothels and make prostitution a lot safer through government regulation and private security. The brothels would be owned by the prostitutes themselves, not by pimps.
Matte wants a Nordic model, such as the laws currently in place in Iceland and Sweden, which has decriminalized sex workers while criminalizing their clients. But all that does is cause prostitution to driven further underground, where violence is more likely to happen.
“As a criminologist I can guarantee you that that doesn't work because it doesn't remove the criminal element from prostitution,” says O'Doherty, who teaches at the University of the Fraser Valley. Making demand illegal only serves to drive sex workers underground, she says.
As the world's oldest profession prostitution will never be eradicated until we've eradicated poverty entirely. And even then we will have another problem, women who don't have sex for money but instead just "slut themselves around willy-nilly for kicks". (For reference being slutty isn't a sin per se, but doing so without regard to personal safety, the safety of others, and ignoring the feelings of others is a cause for concern.)
And lets face it, there's way more sluts than there is prostitutes.
The primary difference however is that sluts have the option of screening their sexual partners and can have sex in the privacy of their own homes if they choose to. They can be safe about it.
Which is what sex workers want to. Safety.
Eventually they will hopefully find a different job, go back to school, etc. There is no pension plan when you're a sex worker. Eventually even sex workers have to start thinking about retirement.
Section 210, which prohibits maintaining, owning or being a member of a “common bawdy-house.” The result is that brothels are no longer illegal in Canada.
Why is this important? Because brothels are safer than walking the streets or answering outcalls. With brothels comes security and bouncers for kicking out the rowdy men who don't follow the rules.
Section 212(1)(j), which affects those living “wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person.”
With this struck down, prostitutes are able to support dependents, including children and partners. It also means that if they run a brothel they can pay to have a bouncer, an accountant, desk clerks, etc.
Section 213(1)(c), best known as the “communicating law,” which prevents street prostitutes from screening clients before putting themselves at risk.
With this gone prostitutes can now screen individuals they choose to have sex with, often because they don't feel comfortable with the person. Examples: Too creepy, scary looking, is a member of the NRA, or even just plain ugly.
The constitutional challenge was made by members of the Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) because they felt these laws were unfair and dangerous to the lives of sex workers, regardless of their intent.Justice Susan Himel agreed and these laws were struck down because they endangered the health and safety of sex workers.
There are those feminists out there that argue that allowing brothels and screening will lead to an increase in pimping (which is still illegal in Canada) and organized crime / trafficking of women.
In major Canadian cities prostitution is not only common, its easy to find. Just open a NOW magazine in Toronto, flip to the back pages and you'll find advertisements for both male and female sex workers. You can also go to Craigslist or Kijiji. Or you can walk down one of the less reputable streets in the middle of the night.
For feminists however there is a huge ideological gap.
Its actually very similar to the whole "women have the right to a safe abortion" argument. On the right side we have people who oppose abortion entirely. On the left side we have people who believe abortions are going to happen regardless and thus we should try and make it as safe as possible.
This isn't so much about "right and wrong", its about ensuring the safety of women who make those decisions, because they're going to make those decisions anyway regardless of what laws are out there. They're desperate enough to try anything.
Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court struck down as unconstitutional the bawdy house provision, which by preventing sex workers from sharing premises that ensured their common safety, increased their risk of exposure to violence.The “living off the avails” section, which criminalizes those being supported by a sex worker, was meant to target pimps, it also affects a prostitute's live-in family, including partners, parents and children, as well as security guards or bouncers who might protect her.
The communication law was declared unconstitutional because experts all agree the greatest danger to street sex workers is their inability to safely screen johns before jumping into their cars.
“For me it's not complicated to understand why there's a divide: it's two visions,” says Diane Matte of Montreal's Coalition Against Sexual Exploitation, who has a street-level view of the sex worker industry. “The SPOC women do not hide the fact that they want to open brothels,” says Matte.
That much is certainly true. SPOC wants to open brothels and make prostitution a lot safer through government regulation and private security. The brothels would be owned by the prostitutes themselves, not by pimps.Matte wants a Nordic model, such as the laws currently in place in Iceland and Sweden, which has decriminalized sex workers while criminalizing their clients. But all that does is cause prostitution to driven further underground, where violence is more likely to happen.
“As a criminologist I can guarantee you that that doesn't work because it doesn't remove the criminal element from prostitution,” says O'Doherty, who teaches at the University of the Fraser Valley. Making demand illegal only serves to drive sex workers underground, she says.
As the world's oldest profession prostitution will never be eradicated until we've eradicated poverty entirely. And even then we will have another problem, women who don't have sex for money but instead just "slut themselves around willy-nilly for kicks". (For reference being slutty isn't a sin per se, but doing so without regard to personal safety, the safety of others, and ignoring the feelings of others is a cause for concern.)
And lets face it, there's way more sluts than there is prostitutes.The primary difference however is that sluts have the option of screening their sexual partners and can have sex in the privacy of their own homes if they choose to. They can be safe about it.
Which is what sex workers want to. Safety.
Eventually they will hopefully find a different job, go back to school, etc. There is no pension plan when you're a sex worker. Eventually even sex workers have to start thinking about retirement.
The World's 100 Most Powerful Women?
POLITICS - According to Forbes the list down below shows the world's most powerful women in 2010.
However this list is extremely Americentric. 70% of the women are Americans, quite a few of them are entertainers (ie. Does Lady Gaga really deserve the #7 spot? Or Katie Couric #22?)... And to be honest, most of them you probably have never even heard of because they're not that famous.
A lot of the non-American women are presidents, CEOs or First Ladies of their countries, with very few exceptions. One of them is just a presidential candidate in Brazil... so apparently just running for president in a country makes you one of the top 100 according to Forbes.
A few are supermodels or athletes. Seriously, how does that make them powerful? By selling lingerie or tennis raquets?
Its all utter nonsense.
So BOOOOOO to Forbes and their phoney baloney list. They are just like making lists apparently to fill space, satisfy their idiot readers and get attention. Boooo!
1
Michelle Obama
First Lady 46 United States
2
Irene Rosenfeld
Chief Executive, Kraft Foods 57 United States
3
Oprah Winfrey
Talk show host and media mogul 56 United States
4
Angela Merkel
Chancellor 56 Germany
5
Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State 62 United States
6
Indra Nooyi
Chief Executive, PepsiCo 54 United States
7
Lady Gaga
Singer and performance artist 24 United States
8
Gail Kelly
Chief Executive, Westpac 54 Australia
9
Beyonce Knowles
Singer, fashion designer 29 United States
10
Ellen DeGeneres
Talk show host 52 United States
11
Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House 70 United States
12
Angela Braly
Chief Executive, Wellpoint 49 United States
13
Janet Napolitano
Secretary, Homeland Security 52 United States
14
Cynthia Carroll
Chief Executive, Anglo American 53 United States
15
Sheila Bair
Chair, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 56 United States
16
Sarah Palin
Political maverick and commentator 46 United States
17
Mary Schapiro
Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission 55 United States
18
Ellen Kullman
Chief Executive, DuPont 54 United States
19
Sonia Sotomayor
Supreme Court Justice 56 United States
20
Ursula Burns
Chief Executive, Xerox 51 United States
21
Angelina Jolie
Actor and UN Goodwill Ambassador 35 United States
22
Katie Couric
News anchor 53 United States
23
Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary, Health & Human Services 62 United States
24
Anne Lauvergeon
Chief Executive, Areva 51 France
25
Elena Kagan
Supreme Court Justice 50 United States
26
Patricia Woertz
Chief Executive, Archer Daniels Midland Co. 57 United States
27
Melinda Gates
Co-chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 46 United States
28
Arianna Huffington
Founder and editor-in-chief, Huffington Post 60 United States
29
Madonna
Singer, fashion designer 52 United States
30
Ho Ching
Chief Executive, Temasek Holdings 57 Singapore
31
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice 77 United States
32
Maria Ramos
Chief Executive, Absa Group Banks 51 South Africa
33
Chelsea Handler
Talk show host and author 35 United States
34
Tina Brown
Cofounder and editor-in-chief, The Daily Beast 56 United States
35
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy
First Lady 42 France
36
Lynn Laverty Elsenhans
Chief Executive, Sunoco 54 United States
37
Elizabeth Warren
Assistant to the President and Special Adviser to the Secretary of Treasury 61 United States
38
Ana Patricia Botin
Chair, Banesto bank 49 Spain
39
Heidi Klum
Model and producer 37 United States
40
Meredith Vieira
Co-anchor 56 United States
41
Queen Elizabeth II
Monarch 84 United Kingdom
42
Carol Bartz
Chief Executive, Yahoo! 62 United States
43
Christine Lagarde
Finance Minister 54 France
44
Sallie Krawcheck
President, Global Wealth & Investment Management, Bank of America 45 United States
45
Sarah Jessica Parker
Actor and fashion designer 45 United States
46
Diane Sawyer
News anchor 64 United States
47
Meg Whitman
Gubernatorial candidate, California 54 United States
48
Marina Berlusconi
Chair, Mondadori and Fininvest Group 44 Italy
49
Stephenie Meyer
Author 36 United States
50
Rachel Maddow
Talk show host 37 United States
51
Carly Fiorina
Senatorial candidate, California 56 United States
52
Guler Sabanci
Chair, Sabanci Holding 54 Turkey
53
Maria Shriver
First Lady, California 54 United States
54
Carol Meyrowitz
Chief Executive, TJX companies 56 United States
55
Serena Williams
Athlete 28 United States
56
Anna Wintour
Editor-in-Chief, Vogue 60 United States
57
Andrea Jung
Chief Executive, Avon Products 52 United States
58
Julia Gillard
Prime Minister 48 Australia
59
Abigail Johnson
President, Fidelity Personal, Workplace and Institutional Services 48 United States
60
Venus Williams
Athlete 30 United States
61
Suze Orman
Author and personal finance guru 59 United States
62
Tarja Halonen
President 66 Finland
63
Marjorie Scardino
Chief Executive, Pearson PLC 63 United States
64
Mary McAleese
President 59 Ireland
65
Annika Falkengren
Chief Executive, SEB 48 Sweden
66
Sheryl Sandberg
Chief Operating Officer, Facebook 41 United States
67
Cathleen Black
Chair, Hearst Magazines 66 United States
68
Cristina Fernandez
President 57 Argentina
69
Anne Sweeney
Co-chair, Disney Media Networks 52 United States
70
Sheikha Lubna Al Qasimi
Minister of Economy 51 United Arab Emirates
71
Chua Sock Koong
Group Chief Executive, Singapore Telecommunications 51 Singapore
72
Gisele Bundchen
Model and fashion designer 30 Brazil
73
Christiane Amanpour
Anchor 52 United States
74
Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned
First Lady 50 Qatar
75
Susan Ivey
Chief Executive, Reynolds American 51 United States
76
Queen Rania Al Abdullah
Monarch 40 Jordan
77
Nancy McKinstry
Chief Executive, Wolters Kluwer 51 United States
78
Rachael Ray
Talks show host and author 42 United States
79
Nikki Finke
Founder and blogger, Deadline Hollywood Daily 56 United States
80
Johanna Sigurdardottir
President 67 Iceland
81
Jing Ulrich
Managing director and chair, China Equities and Commodities, J.P. Morgan Chase 43 United States
82
Laura Sen
Chief Executive, BJ's Wholesale Club 54 United States
83
Laura Chinchilla
President 51 Costa Rica
84
Mary Callahan Erdoes
Chief Executive, Asset Management, JP Morgan Chase 43 United States
85
Janet L. Robinson
Chief Executive and President 60 United States
86
Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
President 71 Liberia
87
Amy Pascal
Co-Chair, Sony Pictures Entertainment 52 United States
88
Tory Burch
Fashion designer 44 United States
89
Shikha Sharma
Chief Executive, Axis Bank 49 India
90
Sun Yafang
Chair, Huawei Technologies 54 China
91
Vera Wang
Fashion designer 61 United States
92
Chanda Kocchar
Chief Executive, ICICI Bank 48 India
93
Danica Patrick
Race car driver 28 United States
94
Maha Al-Ghunaim
Cofounder and chair, Global Investment House 50 Kuwait
95
Dilma Rousseff
Presidential candidate 62 Brazil
96
Donna Karan
Fashion designer 61 United States
97
Angela Ahrendts
Chief Executive, Burberry Group 50 United States
98
Ellen Alemany
Chief Executive, Citizens Financial Group 54 United States
99
Martha Stewart
Lifestyle Guru 69 United States
100
Dominique Senequier
Chief Executive, AXA Private Equity 57 France
However this list is extremely Americentric. 70% of the women are Americans, quite a few of them are entertainers (ie. Does Lady Gaga really deserve the #7 spot? Or Katie Couric #22?)... And to be honest, most of them you probably have never even heard of because they're not that famous.
A lot of the non-American women are presidents, CEOs or First Ladies of their countries, with very few exceptions. One of them is just a presidential candidate in Brazil... so apparently just running for president in a country makes you one of the top 100 according to Forbes.
A few are supermodels or athletes. Seriously, how does that make them powerful? By selling lingerie or tennis raquets?
Its all utter nonsense.
So BOOOOOO to Forbes and their phoney baloney list. They are just like making lists apparently to fill space, satisfy their idiot readers and get attention. Boooo!
1
Michelle Obama
First Lady 46 United States
2
Irene Rosenfeld
Chief Executive, Kraft Foods 57 United States
3
Oprah Winfrey
Talk show host and media mogul 56 United States
4
Angela Merkel
Chancellor 56 Germany
5
Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State 62 United States
6
Indra Nooyi
Chief Executive, PepsiCo 54 United States
7
Lady Gaga
Singer and performance artist 24 United States
8
Gail Kelly
Chief Executive, Westpac 54 Australia
9
Beyonce Knowles
Singer, fashion designer 29 United States
10
Ellen DeGeneres
Talk show host 52 United States
11
Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House 70 United States
12
Angela Braly
Chief Executive, Wellpoint 49 United States
13
Janet Napolitano
Secretary, Homeland Security 52 United States
14
Cynthia Carroll
Chief Executive, Anglo American 53 United States
15
Sheila Bair
Chair, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 56 United States
16
Sarah Palin
Political maverick and commentator 46 United States
17
Mary Schapiro
Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission 55 United States
18
Ellen Kullman
Chief Executive, DuPont 54 United States
19
Sonia Sotomayor
Supreme Court Justice 56 United States
20
Ursula Burns
Chief Executive, Xerox 51 United States
21
Angelina Jolie
Actor and UN Goodwill Ambassador 35 United States
22
Katie Couric
News anchor 53 United States
23
Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary, Health & Human Services 62 United States
24
Anne Lauvergeon
Chief Executive, Areva 51 France
25
Elena Kagan
Supreme Court Justice 50 United States
26
Patricia Woertz
Chief Executive, Archer Daniels Midland Co. 57 United States
27
Melinda Gates
Co-chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 46 United States
28
Arianna Huffington
Founder and editor-in-chief, Huffington Post 60 United States
29
Madonna
Singer, fashion designer 52 United States
30
Ho Ching
Chief Executive, Temasek Holdings 57 Singapore
31
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice 77 United States
32
Maria Ramos
Chief Executive, Absa Group Banks 51 South Africa
33
Chelsea Handler
Talk show host and author 35 United States
34
Tina Brown
Cofounder and editor-in-chief, The Daily Beast 56 United States
35
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy
First Lady 42 France
36
Lynn Laverty Elsenhans
Chief Executive, Sunoco 54 United States
37
Elizabeth Warren
Assistant to the President and Special Adviser to the Secretary of Treasury 61 United States
38
Ana Patricia Botin
Chair, Banesto bank 49 Spain
39
Heidi Klum
Model and producer 37 United States
40
Meredith Vieira
Co-anchor 56 United States
41
Queen Elizabeth II
Monarch 84 United Kingdom
42
Carol Bartz
Chief Executive, Yahoo! 62 United States
43
Christine Lagarde
Finance Minister 54 France
44
Sallie Krawcheck
President, Global Wealth & Investment Management, Bank of America 45 United States
45
Sarah Jessica Parker
Actor and fashion designer 45 United States
46
Diane Sawyer
News anchor 64 United States
47
Meg Whitman
Gubernatorial candidate, California 54 United States
48
Marina Berlusconi
Chair, Mondadori and Fininvest Group 44 Italy
49
Stephenie Meyer
Author 36 United States
50
Rachel Maddow
Talk show host 37 United States
51
Carly Fiorina
Senatorial candidate, California 56 United States
52
Guler Sabanci
Chair, Sabanci Holding 54 Turkey
53
Maria Shriver
First Lady, California 54 United States
54
Carol Meyrowitz
Chief Executive, TJX companies 56 United States
55
Serena Williams
Athlete 28 United States
56
Anna Wintour
Editor-in-Chief, Vogue 60 United States
57
Andrea Jung
Chief Executive, Avon Products 52 United States
58
Julia Gillard
Prime Minister 48 Australia
59
Abigail Johnson
President, Fidelity Personal, Workplace and Institutional Services 48 United States
60
Venus Williams
Athlete 30 United States
61
Suze Orman
Author and personal finance guru 59 United States
62
Tarja Halonen
President 66 Finland
63
Marjorie Scardino
Chief Executive, Pearson PLC 63 United States
64
Mary McAleese
President 59 Ireland
65
Annika Falkengren
Chief Executive, SEB 48 Sweden
66
Sheryl Sandberg
Chief Operating Officer, Facebook 41 United States
67
Cathleen Black
Chair, Hearst Magazines 66 United States
68
Cristina Fernandez
President 57 Argentina
69
Anne Sweeney
Co-chair, Disney Media Networks 52 United States
70
Sheikha Lubna Al Qasimi
Minister of Economy 51 United Arab Emirates
71
Chua Sock Koong
Group Chief Executive, Singapore Telecommunications 51 Singapore
72
Gisele Bundchen
Model and fashion designer 30 Brazil
73
Christiane Amanpour
Anchor 52 United States
74
Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser Al-Missned
First Lady 50 Qatar
75
Susan Ivey
Chief Executive, Reynolds American 51 United States
76
Queen Rania Al Abdullah
Monarch 40 Jordan
77
Nancy McKinstry
Chief Executive, Wolters Kluwer 51 United States
78
Rachael Ray
Talks show host and author 42 United States
79
Nikki Finke
Founder and blogger, Deadline Hollywood Daily 56 United States
80
Johanna Sigurdardottir
President 67 Iceland
81
Jing Ulrich
Managing director and chair, China Equities and Commodities, J.P. Morgan Chase 43 United States
82
Laura Sen
Chief Executive, BJ's Wholesale Club 54 United States
83
Laura Chinchilla
President 51 Costa Rica
84
Mary Callahan Erdoes
Chief Executive, Asset Management, JP Morgan Chase 43 United States
85
Janet L. Robinson
Chief Executive and President 60 United States
86
Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
President 71 Liberia
87
Amy Pascal
Co-Chair, Sony Pictures Entertainment 52 United States
88
Tory Burch
Fashion designer 44 United States
89
Shikha Sharma
Chief Executive, Axis Bank 49 India
90
Sun Yafang
Chair, Huawei Technologies 54 China
91
Vera Wang
Fashion designer 61 United States
92
Chanda Kocchar
Chief Executive, ICICI Bank 48 India
93
Danica Patrick
Race car driver 28 United States
94
Maha Al-Ghunaim
Cofounder and chair, Global Investment House 50 Kuwait
95
Dilma Rousseff
Presidential candidate 62 Brazil
96
Donna Karan
Fashion designer 61 United States
97
Angela Ahrendts
Chief Executive, Burberry Group 50 United States
98
Ellen Alemany
Chief Executive, Citizens Financial Group 54 United States
99
Martha Stewart
Lifestyle Guru 69 United States
100
Dominique Senequier
Chief Executive, AXA Private Equity 57 France
Leslie J. Sacks' Ten Commandments
FEMINISM - We received the following list from Leslie J. Sacks in an email. The ideas are certainly worth a read. Editor's Note: I've edited some of the wording of the commandments to make them more palatable.
"In these uncertain and consequential times, I humbly suggest that we put aside our penchant for iPods and immediate gratification and consider my 10 new commandments [below]." - Leslie J. Sacks, L.A. California.
1) Men should learn to think more with their brains and not their genitals.
2) Women should focus more on their intellects and temper their hearts.
3) Never use violence and intolerance except to defend liberty.
4) Morality exists only in behavior and actions. Preaching morality doesn't make it so.
5) Women are ALWAYS equal.
6) Freedom and democracy are both rights and irrevocable responsibilities that must be protected.
7) Each individual has the inalienable right to their political and religious beliefs.
8) No institution or belief should take precedence over any one person.
9) No path to happiness is exclusive or worthy of domination over any other.
10) People who seek to dominate, control, subvert or destroy the freedom of other people do not deserve the respect of the free world.
"In these uncertain and consequential times, I humbly suggest that we put aside our penchant for iPods and immediate gratification and consider my 10 new commandments [below]." - Leslie J. Sacks, L.A. California.
1) Men should learn to think more with their brains and not their genitals.
2) Women should focus more on their intellects and temper their hearts.
3) Never use violence and intolerance except to defend liberty.
4) Morality exists only in behavior and actions. Preaching morality doesn't make it so.
5) Women are ALWAYS equal.
6) Freedom and democracy are both rights and irrevocable responsibilities that must be protected.
7) Each individual has the inalienable right to their political and religious beliefs.
8) No institution or belief should take precedence over any one person.
9) No path to happiness is exclusive or worthy of domination over any other.
10) People who seek to dominate, control, subvert or destroy the freedom of other people do not deserve the respect of the free world.
The Truth about Women and Gun Control
POLITICS - Gun control is actually a gender issue. Why? Because when you compare the percentage of men who support gun control and the percentage of women who support gun control you see some startling differences.
Support Gun Control
U.S. Men: 51%
U.S. Women: 64%
Against Gun Control
U.S. Men: 46%
U.S. Women: 30%
Undecided
U.S. Men: 3%
U.S. Women: 6%
(Source: Pew Research Center / 2008)
Education is also another big factor in who supports gun control (people with a college or university education are over 25% more likely to support gun control), as is race. 75% of African-Americans support gun control, but only 54% of Caucasian-Americans support gun control.
In Canada and the U.K. we have stricter gun control and it shows in our much lower crime rates.
For the purpose of this blog post however we're going to look at the example of Mavis Moore who was 4-years-old when she first had a gun pointed at her. She and her mother were picking up a newspaper in their small Saskatchewan town of Crown Butte when a neighbour decided to point his .22 at them and threatened to kill them both.
Mavis Moore was so frightened she remembers dropping her blue mitten in the snow.
“You can't imagine what it's like, this adult man having a gun on you and threatening to kill you and your mother,” says Mavis who is now 72-years-old. Her mother picked up her daugher and the mitten and left immediately.
She also recalls how decades later, while out hunting (Mavis is now an avid hunter) how a fellow hunter suddenly aimed his cocked rifle at her in the northern Saskatchewan bush. He claims he had mistook her 5-foot-4 frame, draped in red, for a moose.
Guns are a constant threat in the lives of rural Canadian women. Many rural Canadian families have guns in their homes (from my perspective, my family had 2 that I knew of).
Mavis Moore, who grew up in Crown Butte, Saskatchewan, says she is incensed at Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to scrap the Long Gun Registry in Canada. Mavis is an avid hunter even at the age of 72, but she strongly supports the Long Gun Registry.
“That makes me so mad,” says Mavis, who still owns three licensed and registered long guns. “It's not a matter of rural versus urban. It's a public safety issue. How many women and children in rural Canada are threatened in their own homes with a gun? More than we want to know, I think.”
According to a Harris/Decima research poll released on Sept. 8th the difference between urban and rural men who support gun controlis very little.
48% of Canadian men say its a bad idea to abolish the Long Gun Registry.
42% of Canadian men support abolishing it.
10% of Canadian men are not sure.
There is only a 2% difference between whether the people polled who live in the city or the countryside in terms of support. [It should be noted only 18% of Canadians live in rural society.] So gun control support has very little to do with where you live.
49% of Canadian men who live in cities support the Long Gun Registry.
47% of Canadian men who live in rural society support the Long Gun Registry.
41% of Canadian men who live in cities support abolishment.
43% of Canadian men who live in rural society support abolishment.
In contrast
49% of Canadian women who live in cities support the Long Gun Registry.
47% of Canadian women who live in rural society support the Long Gun Registry.
30% of Canadian women who live in cities support abolishment.
40% of Canadian women who live in rural society support abolishment.
Overall 48% of Canadians support keeping the Long Gun Registry, while 38% support its abolition.
(Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians. A sample of this size has a margin of error of 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.)
Meanwhile 81% of Canadian police officers support the Long Gun Registry and say they use it help protect the public. Officers consult the registry before responding to domestic violence 911 calls to see if there are guns on site, and also for murder and criminal investigations.
Over 1,500 Canadians were refused gun licenses between 2006 and 2009 because background checks determined they were a criminal risk.
6,093 gun licenses were also revoked during the same period due to continuous screening, court orders and public safety complaints.
Police and criminal psychologists all agree these revoked gun licenses and refusals to grant gun licenses have saved lives, but unfortunately it's hard to document prevention. We have no way of knowing how many lives the Long Gun Registry and similar gun control measures have saved.
What is documented is that 69% of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths in Canada involved long guns in 2004, a drop from 72% of firearm deaths in 2001. More drops are expected in the future as more statistical data becomes available.
And what is also known is that rural and farm women are more likely to encounter domestic violence involving long guns.
“Rural and farm women who experience violence in the home describe a cycle of intimidation with guns . . . which makes it really difficult for women even to report what's going on, “ says Jo-Ann Brooke, director of the Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Renfrew County in Pembroke, Ontario.
Domestic abuse victims say they support the Long Gun Registry because it takes the responsibility for reporting the presence of guns out of their hands, and alerts police to the guns if they are called to a domestic violence incident.
The $4-million annual price tag for running the Canadian Long Gun Registry is worth it.
See Also
Gun Control in Canada
Handguns in Canada
RCMP Report vindicates Long Gun Registry
Canada needs to keep Long Gun Registry
Stephen Harper's Gun Raffle
Jordan Manners and the C.W. Jefferys Massacre
Killer Goth on the Rampage in Montreal
German gunman kills 11 women, 4 men
Support Gun Control
U.S. Men: 51%
U.S. Women: 64%
Against Gun Control
U.S. Men: 46%
U.S. Women: 30%
Undecided
U.S. Men: 3%
U.S. Women: 6%
(Source: Pew Research Center / 2008)
Education is also another big factor in who supports gun control (people with a college or university education are over 25% more likely to support gun control), as is race. 75% of African-Americans support gun control, but only 54% of Caucasian-Americans support gun control.
In Canada and the U.K. we have stricter gun control and it shows in our much lower crime rates.
For the purpose of this blog post however we're going to look at the example of Mavis Moore who was 4-years-old when she first had a gun pointed at her. She and her mother were picking up a newspaper in their small Saskatchewan town of Crown Butte when a neighbour decided to point his .22 at them and threatened to kill them both.
Mavis Moore was so frightened she remembers dropping her blue mitten in the snow.
“You can't imagine what it's like, this adult man having a gun on you and threatening to kill you and your mother,” says Mavis who is now 72-years-old. Her mother picked up her daugher and the mitten and left immediately.She also recalls how decades later, while out hunting (Mavis is now an avid hunter) how a fellow hunter suddenly aimed his cocked rifle at her in the northern Saskatchewan bush. He claims he had mistook her 5-foot-4 frame, draped in red, for a moose.
Guns are a constant threat in the lives of rural Canadian women. Many rural Canadian families have guns in their homes (from my perspective, my family had 2 that I knew of).
Mavis Moore, who grew up in Crown Butte, Saskatchewan, says she is incensed at Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to scrap the Long Gun Registry in Canada. Mavis is an avid hunter even at the age of 72, but she strongly supports the Long Gun Registry.
“That makes me so mad,” says Mavis, who still owns three licensed and registered long guns. “It's not a matter of rural versus urban. It's a public safety issue. How many women and children in rural Canada are threatened in their own homes with a gun? More than we want to know, I think.”
According to a Harris/Decima research poll released on Sept. 8th the difference between urban and rural men who support gun controlis very little.
48% of Canadian men say its a bad idea to abolish the Long Gun Registry.
42% of Canadian men support abolishing it.
10% of Canadian men are not sure.
There is only a 2% difference between whether the people polled who live in the city or the countryside in terms of support. [It should be noted only 18% of Canadians live in rural society.] So gun control support has very little to do with where you live.
49% of Canadian men who live in cities support the Long Gun Registry.
47% of Canadian men who live in rural society support the Long Gun Registry.
41% of Canadian men who live in cities support abolishment.
43% of Canadian men who live in rural society support abolishment.
In contrast
49% of Canadian women who live in cities support the Long Gun Registry.
47% of Canadian women who live in rural society support the Long Gun Registry.
30% of Canadian women who live in cities support abolishment.
40% of Canadian women who live in rural society support abolishment.
Overall 48% of Canadians support keeping the Long Gun Registry, while 38% support its abolition.
(Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians. A sample of this size has a margin of error of 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.)
Meanwhile 81% of Canadian police officers support the Long Gun Registry and say they use it help protect the public. Officers consult the registry before responding to domestic violence 911 calls to see if there are guns on site, and also for murder and criminal investigations.Over 1,500 Canadians were refused gun licenses between 2006 and 2009 because background checks determined they were a criminal risk.
6,093 gun licenses were also revoked during the same period due to continuous screening, court orders and public safety complaints.
Police and criminal psychologists all agree these revoked gun licenses and refusals to grant gun licenses have saved lives, but unfortunately it's hard to document prevention. We have no way of knowing how many lives the Long Gun Registry and similar gun control measures have saved.
What is documented is that 69% of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths in Canada involved long guns in 2004, a drop from 72% of firearm deaths in 2001. More drops are expected in the future as more statistical data becomes available.
And what is also known is that rural and farm women are more likely to encounter domestic violence involving long guns.
“Rural and farm women who experience violence in the home describe a cycle of intimidation with guns . . . which makes it really difficult for women even to report what's going on, “ says Jo-Ann Brooke, director of the Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Renfrew County in Pembroke, Ontario.
Domestic abuse victims say they support the Long Gun Registry because it takes the responsibility for reporting the presence of guns out of their hands, and alerts police to the guns if they are called to a domestic violence incident.
The $4-million annual price tag for running the Canadian Long Gun Registry is worth it.
See Also
Gun Control in Canada
Handguns in Canada
RCMP Report vindicates Long Gun Registry
Canada needs to keep Long Gun Registry
Stephen Harper's Gun Raffle
Jordan Manners and the C.W. Jefferys Massacre
Killer Goth on the Rampage in Montreal
German gunman kills 11 women, 4 men
The Truth about Eileen Nearne, aka Agent Rose
POLITICS - Eileen Nearne died alone on Sept 2nd at the age of 89. Nobody in her neighbourhood knew that she had been an WWII secret agent in France, spying on the gestapo and the German military during the German occupation. It was only after documents and photographs were found in her apartment, and her story was determined to be already listed in several historical books about WWII spies, that the truth about Eileen Nearne came out.
What had seemed an old woman destined for a pauper's grave is now being hailed as a British national hero. With no known relatives authorities searched her apartment looking for evidence of family... Amongst the things she left behind they found a treasure trove of medals and documents which referred to her as "Agent Rose", a wireless operator during Germany-occupied France and a member of the secretive Special Operations Executive (SOE).
At the age of 23 the brave young Nearne had flown into France under the cover of darkness in March 1944 to work as an undercover agent helping coordinate resistance fighters and spies.
She was arrested by the Gestapo in July but thanks to her fluent French was able to hide her British identity. Her family had lived in France during her childhood. She was arrested again weeks later and imprisoned at Ravensbrueck concentration, then transferred to a forced labour camp in Silesia. She and two French girls escaped the camp in April 1945 but were caught days later.
She was later released when Nearne convinced their captors of their innocence, claiming they had only joined the French Resistance because it was exciting.
After WWII ended, Nearne was awarded with a membership in the Order of the British Empire in recognition of her services. She lived most of her life with her sister Jacqueline, who had also served in the SOE.
The Royal British Legion has taken over the funeral preparations, scheduled next week. (Personal Note: I am planning to attend the funeral myself, if the general public is allowed in.)
On Tuesday a relative of Nearne was found living abroad, a niece who says she visited her aunt regularly and “she was always cherished by the family.” She added her aunt wanted her ashes to be scattered at sea.
Eileen Nearne’s story is well remembered by historians, including M.R.D. Foot in his popular book about the SOE in France (SOE, The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946, published in 1984) who writes:
"Eileen Nearne of WIZARD, who had transmitted a good deal of economic and military intelligence besides helping in the routine work of arranging drops for SPIRITUALIST, was caught at her set in July. She brought off a dextrous bluff, and persuaded the Gestapo she was only a foolish little shopgirl who had taken up resistance work because it was exciting; they never discovered she was half English. But they took her away to Germany all the same."
Later in the book, Foot recounts Eileen Nearne’s amazing escape from a Ravensbrück working party in April 1945. There are at least five other references to Nearne in the book. Foot’s book is not obscure either. Its quite popular. Eileen Nearne also apparently appears in Marcus Binney’s popular book "The Women Who Lived for Danger".
So Eileen Nearne's, aka Agent Rose's, story will be remembered by many.
What had seemed an old woman destined for a pauper's grave is now being hailed as a British national hero. With no known relatives authorities searched her apartment looking for evidence of family... Amongst the things she left behind they found a treasure trove of medals and documents which referred to her as "Agent Rose", a wireless operator during Germany-occupied France and a member of the secretive Special Operations Executive (SOE).At the age of 23 the brave young Nearne had flown into France under the cover of darkness in March 1944 to work as an undercover agent helping coordinate resistance fighters and spies.
She was arrested by the Gestapo in July but thanks to her fluent French was able to hide her British identity. Her family had lived in France during her childhood. She was arrested again weeks later and imprisoned at Ravensbrueck concentration, then transferred to a forced labour camp in Silesia. She and two French girls escaped the camp in April 1945 but were caught days later.
She was later released when Nearne convinced their captors of their innocence, claiming they had only joined the French Resistance because it was exciting.
After WWII ended, Nearne was awarded with a membership in the Order of the British Empire in recognition of her services. She lived most of her life with her sister Jacqueline, who had also served in the SOE.
The Royal British Legion has taken over the funeral preparations, scheduled next week. (Personal Note: I am planning to attend the funeral myself, if the general public is allowed in.)On Tuesday a relative of Nearne was found living abroad, a niece who says she visited her aunt regularly and “she was always cherished by the family.” She added her aunt wanted her ashes to be scattered at sea.
Eileen Nearne’s story is well remembered by historians, including M.R.D. Foot in his popular book about the SOE in France (SOE, The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946, published in 1984) who writes:
"Eileen Nearne of WIZARD, who had transmitted a good deal of economic and military intelligence besides helping in the routine work of arranging drops for SPIRITUALIST, was caught at her set in July. She brought off a dextrous bluff, and persuaded the Gestapo she was only a foolish little shopgirl who had taken up resistance work because it was exciting; they never discovered she was half English. But they took her away to Germany all the same."
Later in the book, Foot recounts Eileen Nearne’s amazing escape from a Ravensbrück working party in April 1945. There are at least five other references to Nearne in the book. Foot’s book is not obscure either. Its quite popular. Eileen Nearne also apparently appears in Marcus Binney’s popular book "The Women Who Lived for Danger".
So Eileen Nearne's, aka Agent Rose's, story will be remembered by many.
The Truth about Feminism in Britain
By Suzanne MacNevin - September 2010.
FEMINISM - I've been living in Britain for awhile now (on and off thanks to the fact I have dual citizenship) but one of the things I've noticed is that so-called British feminism suffers from a duality of problems.
#1. British feminism has a lot of history and there are a fair number of feminists here who support that history and stand on the shoulders of feminists who have come before them... the problem however lies in that they seem to have lost their spirit and have become more... academic. Its feminist historians arguing back and forth, very little activism.
#2. Girl Power is strong here (Spice Girls anyone?), but its done in a very post-feminist way... ie. they're selling their sex appeal at the same time. Sexy Feminists and Girl Power kind of leaves a bitter taste in your mouth after awhile. (Pun intended.)
I met earlier this week a few feminists from Oxford and I was astonished by how cynical and... for lack of a better word... complacent they were. They didn't think they would see major change in their life times. As one girl put it "its two steps forward and two steps backwards. We're not getting anywhere."
The feeling is that their message isn't getting across to young women out there so why bother trying? I disagree. The problem is that they're promoting the wrong message.
Its a bit like you're trying to sell a car. You don't try to sell the car based on whether you can get to work in it. You sell the car with the lifestyle and freedom that comes with it.
Same thing goes with feminism. Its not about corporate climbing and breaking the glass ceiling. Its a LIFE STYLE of freedom from sexual persecution. A woman's goal should be to ignore love and only pursue her career, the idea is for her to have the freedom to do everything she sets her mind on, whether its career, politics, family, education, hobbies, sports, whatever she wants to do. Her sex and gender should not interfere in those goals.
My advice to the women of Britain, and the rest of the world: Stop thinking of feminism as a means to an ends. Think of it as a philosophy of life and don't hinder yourself based on what people say you can and can't do... because if you choose to have a career AND a family there is no one stopping you but yourself.
Let your heart think big and follow it always.
FEMINISM - I've been living in Britain for awhile now (on and off thanks to the fact I have dual citizenship) but one of the things I've noticed is that so-called British feminism suffers from a duality of problems.
#1. British feminism has a lot of history and there are a fair number of feminists here who support that history and stand on the shoulders of feminists who have come before them... the problem however lies in that they seem to have lost their spirit and have become more... academic. Its feminist historians arguing back and forth, very little activism.
#2. Girl Power is strong here (Spice Girls anyone?), but its done in a very post-feminist way... ie. they're selling their sex appeal at the same time. Sexy Feminists and Girl Power kind of leaves a bitter taste in your mouth after awhile. (Pun intended.)
I met earlier this week a few feminists from Oxford and I was astonished by how cynical and... for lack of a better word... complacent they were. They didn't think they would see major change in their life times. As one girl put it "its two steps forward and two steps backwards. We're not getting anywhere."
The feeling is that their message isn't getting across to young women out there so why bother trying? I disagree. The problem is that they're promoting the wrong message.
Its a bit like you're trying to sell a car. You don't try to sell the car based on whether you can get to work in it. You sell the car with the lifestyle and freedom that comes with it.
Same thing goes with feminism. Its not about corporate climbing and breaking the glass ceiling. Its a LIFE STYLE of freedom from sexual persecution. A woman's goal should be to ignore love and only pursue her career, the idea is for her to have the freedom to do everything she sets her mind on, whether its career, politics, family, education, hobbies, sports, whatever she wants to do. Her sex and gender should not interfere in those goals.
My advice to the women of Britain, and the rest of the world: Stop thinking of feminism as a means to an ends. Think of it as a philosophy of life and don't hinder yourself based on what people say you can and can't do... because if you choose to have a career AND a family there is no one stopping you but yourself.
Let your heart think big and follow it always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)