Get it on Google Play تحميل تطبيق نبأ للآندرويد مجانا

Disability in Media: Where Misperceptions Loom Large


It was a full year ago that I applied for a background actor role for a major network’s television show. The casting call specifically stated that they were looking for people who used mobility aids such as a wheelchair, cane, walker, etc. I, as a life-long wheelchair user, applied and got the job. I showed up on the day of the shoot, filmed one scene which lasted about an hour, and then awaited instructions for the next scene. We were then told to go outside to take the bus to the next set. I had no idea the next set was in a different location, but I assumed since they were casting for disabled people and knew I was in a wheelchair, they would provide accessible transportation. Unfortunately, I was wrong. A production assistant soon approached me with what she said was ‘good news and bad news.’ “The bad news is that the transportation to the next set is not accessible,” he said, “The good news is that you’re wrapped early for the day!” I was astonished and I was angry. They knew I was in a wheelchair, yet rather than providing alternative accessible transportation, they decided to send me home, thereby denying me the opportunity for more experience on the set, screen time, and consideration for my accessibility needs. I wish I could say my experience is a unique one, but performers with disabilities often face many levels of discrimination and ostracization. 

Although disabled people constitute 26% of the U.S. population, disabled characters represent only 5% of television characters. Additionally, 95% of them are portrayed by nondisabled actors. A University of Southern California study on representation in film and television from 2015-2019 found that of the top 100 films of 2018, over half (58) did not include a disabled character in any role, and 83 films did not include a female character with a disability. Further, of all films that included a disabled character over the past four years, 72.5% were male, 63.1% were white, and only two were LGB (lesbian, gay, or bisexual), further demonstrating a significant lack of diversity.

According to a 2016 survey conducted by The Ruderman Family Foundation, disabled actors with nonvisible disabilities were more likely to get auditions and roles than visibly disabled performers. When questioned about their experiences in the entertainment industry, 75 of 177 disabled respondents said they had a negative experience. One anonymous respondent said, “The largest challenge I’ve had is folks’ preconceptions. When they find out I’m low vision they worry that I can’t do the job as well as others. I was told by many directors that I respect never to tell other directors about my disability because I won’t get called in.”

“Cripping up” is a term the disability community often uses to describe nondisabled actors playing disabled characters. Some well-known examples of cripping up include Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, and Daniel-Day Lewis in My Left Foot. Notably, all of these actors won Oscars for their portrayal of disabled characters. This is not surprising since nominated non-disabled actors playing disabled characters are nearly 50% more likely to win. 

Little thought is given, however, to how cripping up affects the disabilities community. Even when there are disabled characters on-screen, they are often negatively portrayed. Films such as Me Before You or Million Dollar Baby portray main characters who become disabled as feeling that life is not worth living, sometimes even expressing the desire to end their lives. Will, the wealthy main character in Me Before You, becomes a quadriplegic in an accident, falls in love with his caretaker, and has plenty of opportunities and money to do whatever he wants in life, but ultimately decides to commit suicide because he does not wish to livedue to his disability. Similarly, Million Dollar Baby is the story of Maggie, a female champion boxer who, after becoming a quadriplegic, begs her trainer, Frankie, to help her end her life. After Maggie attempts suicide on her own but fails, Frankie fulfills Maggie’s wish by killing her with a fatal injection of adrenaline. Films such as these have been boycotted by disability activists for their harmful messages. In the recent remake of the movie The Witches, actress Anne Hathaway, who plays a witch, uses an old trope of making her visibly evil by making her hands split, which resembles the disability ectrodactyly, a limb difference characterized by missing fingers or toes that creates a claw-like appearance. Disabled people, especially those with limb differences, protested the film by posting pictures with the hashtag #NotAWitch to signify that disability is not synonymous with evil. Hathaway responded on Instagram with an apology, but the film still remains a reminder of how the media can misrepresent disability. Additionally, Sia’s new movie Music, which she wrote and directed, has caused controversy since the film centers around an autistic character but is played by the non-autistic actor and dancer, Maddie Ziegler. Sia was met with criticism by autistic people for working with the group Autism Speaks, a highly problematic organization, for not casting one of the many autistic actors in the role. Sia, in turn, lashed out at autistic actors on Twitter in several angry tweets, one of which was a reply to one who questioned her decision to not cast an autistic person in the main role, to which Sia replied, “Maybe you’re just a bad actor.”

It also seems clear that poor on-screen representation of disabled people is reflective of the lack of off-screen representation. Disabled people often experience difficulty attaining employment in all fields, and working behind the scenes of the entertainment industry is no exception. “Nothing about us without us”, a phrase that originated from South African disability rights advocates in the 1980s, is now being used as a hashtag by disabled people demanding the entertainment industry consult and hire them, especially if films include disabled characters. 

Fortunately, some disabled people have recently broken through the entertainment industry, such as Ali Stroker, an actor and singer who was the first wheelchair user to perform on Broadway in the show, Spring Awakening. She was also the first person in a wheelchair to win a Tony award for her performance in the play Oklahoma!, Kiera Allen was the first woman in a wheelchair to star in a Lifetime Christmas movie, Run, RJ Mitte, who plays Walter White Jr. in the series Breaking Bad, has cerebral palsy in real life, and Millicent Simmonds, who starred in the 2018 film A Quiet Place, is actually deaf.

Yet diversity still has a long way to go, since all of these actors are Caucasian, Representation of intersectionality within the disability community regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. has yet to be addressed. As Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, President of RespectAbility, a non-profit media organization for people with disabilities, notes: “Entertainment contributes to our values and ideals. With just 1.6 percent of speaking characters having disabilities in film, compared to 25 percent of American adults having a disability, we will continue to work with entertainment leaders to promote positive, accurate, diverse and inclusive media portrayals on TV and in film. Disability impacts every gender, race, age and sexual orientation. We want the film industry to understand that accurate, authentic and diverse portrayals of disability benefit everyone.”

About the Author: Cheyenne Leonard is a fellow with The Loreen Arbus Accessibility is Fundamental Program, an inaugural fellowship created to train women with disabilities as professional journalists so that they may write, research and report on the most crucial issues impacting the disabilities community.

January 21st 2021, 1:18 pm

On Inauguration Day: A Look Back, and a Step Forward


It was twilight; a chill January morning.  I was wedged into a charter bus packed with strangers — no masks — barreling along the highway on the seven-hour pilgrimage to D.C. to protest the outcome of a presidential election I could not – and will never — accept.

Call me a fanatic:  I don’t care a whit.  I could have joined a local protest, saving me from equipping my backpack and abandoning my husband and four kids for the 24-hour round-trip, but the Capitol’s pull – like Mecca –was too powerful to resist.  If I were to lay down my flesh in sacrifice so the greater Powers could hear my anguish, I figured, I’d be damned if I was going to do it at a satellite altar and not the central hub.

At dawn the morning of January 21, 2017, my cohort unloaded at RFK Stadium, two miles from the Capitol, on the brink of what would go down in history as the largest single-day protest in U.S. history: The Women’s March on Washington.

Now, reflecting on the January 6th election protest in D.C. that left six dead, 120 arrested and our Capitol bolted shut; the meaning of the march I attended four years ago becomes clearer.

I went to D.C. to express my hurt that a man who spoke so degradingly about women had assumed the most powerful position in the world.  Hearing Trump repeatedly judge women by their appearance conjured up the humiliation of a high school girl who’s worth equaled a number from 1-10 held high over a lunch table of guffawing boys.

“Look at that face!” Trump jeered about Carly Fiorina. “Sadly, she’s no longer a 10,” he gibed at Heidi Klum. “A picture is worth a thousand words,” he tweeted above side-by-side photos of Heidi Cruz in an unphotogenic moment and Melania in an airbrushed one.  

And I worried that handing the poster child for toxic masculinity the authority to impact the lives of the sexual assault victims I advocate for would be unbearably triggering for them. And it was traumatic: calls to crisis centers skyrocketed after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced.  By Trump’s inauguration, a colleague of mine who survived childhood trauma had already moved to Canada.

Approaching the Capitol, I likely shared much in spirit with some of the anguished protestors as they approached it last week: heartbreak, disbelief, fear, betrayal, suspicion of nefarious forces.  

A sort of jack-hammering of the soul.

Something grips you on the brink of bold action.  Adrenalin trounces jetlag.  The gut whispers, but it’s hard to decipher what it says.  Purpose has yet to coalesce.  There is a thrum, a quest for agency:  to march, holler, move the physical frame through space; a powerful urge to act.

Navigating a strange city in a mob is daunting, vulnerable. (Is it the Silver, Blue or Orange Line that runs from 19th St. to Capitol South?)  One probes adjacent spaces like a blind insect would through hyper-sensitive antennae; glomming onto faces and voices that seem to know the ropes; decoding cues from anyone who projects authority – especially anyone in uniform.

I wonder how my skittish cohort would have reacted if a trusted, powerful figure descended from the heavens in Marine One, and stoked our urge to act with a clear directive to race to a building, barge our way in, and do harm to the traitors inside who had betrayed us.  I wonder if I would have been carried  along by the momentum of the crowd.

But that is where the protest of January 2017 and the riot of January 2021 parted ways.  Although the 470,000 participants at The Women’s March dwarfed the 3,000 to 20,000 participants at the siege of the Capitol, the blanket of peace and calm that antecedent day was palpable.  There were no arrests.  

Mourners at a funeral have no appetite for wilding.

We were so sardine-packed along the route from the Capitol Building to the Washington Monument that moving one’s physical frame forward was all but impossible.  So we stood, wedged, as updates from a distant stage traveled the grapevine: “Gloria Steinem is speaking now!”  “Scarlet Johannson is at the mic!”

At one point, my eyes lifted to the only open space, the field of view just above us, decorated with what looked like streams of colorful, Tibetan prayer flags.  They were hand-crafted posters, like speech bubbles, enabling their holders to express their pain and hopes, receive validation,  strength and support from the community.  

One poster featured an Angela Davis quote, “I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change.  I am changing the things I cannot accept.”  Another floral collage soothed, “Take Your Broken Hearts and Make Art.”  A prescient one quipped, “You’re fired 2021!”

It was while standing with my neck craned that the purpose of my pilgrimage coalesced.  

I realized that I hadn’t spent a sleepless night on a bus to show up and complete a defined, bold action. 

We were there to be there; among those towering Neoclassical white columns, to feel the strength and comfort of a sacred place we trusted would welcome us and care about what we felt and had to say.  We were there — as were our fellow citizens gathering that same day at Capitol buildings throughout the nation and the world — to be soothed and strengthened by each other.  We needed time to process and collect ourselves so we could figure out how to act — but that would come later.

We certainly weren’t there to rip the places to shreds; to set things back.

The past four years, and past weeks, have brought new meaning to that day, including a realization that moving forward can sometimes require staying completely still; and that meaningful momentum initiates from within.

More than anything, they have summoned a deep gratitude for our nation’s heart of democracy along the Potomac — and its satellite Capitol buildings in every State — where we can go and bare our hearts.

 And a fervent prayer that we can keep them all open.

About the author:  Julie Vogel is a freelance writer

January 19th 2021, 7:15 pm

Cheating on the Country: A Matter of Presidential Integrity


“So what if he cheated on his wife with an intern?” I asked my dad in 1998, carefully skirting the word “blowjob” that had entered our culture’s lexicon as acceptable everyday language, as “pussy” later would in Donald Trump’s America.

“It’s not like he’ll cheat on the country.”

I said it with the smug certainty and perceived sophistication of a teenager who’d voted in her first election and as such has superior knowledge of politics over her forty-something year old dad, who knew nothing. Because he was old.

He was a staunch Republican and I thought his response (“It shows his moral character and lack of integrity”) was partisan sour grapes. He hated Bill Clinton, as conservatives in that era did. He’d later hate Hillary too.

Let’s just say I disagreed. Loudly. 

He was a John McCain guy, and I liked Obama. When the 2008 election was called, I rang him up, ready to gloat. 

“He’s a class act, baby,” he said, throwing me for a loop. Obama was a Democrat. My dad’s guy lost a hard-fought, grueling election that exposed the raw nerves of racism. Wasn’t he supposed to disparage him? Wasn’t he mad that he lost?

The Obama Presidency played out, twice, although my dad was only alive for the few short months of his first term. I’ve wondered, often, what he would think of Donald Trump. Of course, we’re New Yorkers, so he knew Trump. I think he might have liked his brash, say-it-like-it-is speaking style, the unorthodox approach to debates and campaigns. A veteran from the Vietnam era, I have to feel he would have rolled his eyes at the bone spurs. Working class kids like my dad had no such “out” of the draft. I suspect he’d have lost some respect there.

When the Trump supporters of this generation overtook the Capitol, trampling each other, assaulting police, smearing feces on the walls and parading firearms and Stars and Stripes outfits and flags that replaced “America” with “Trump” in a misguided understanding of what the word “patriotism” means, I thought of the old man again. Now I’m forty-something, with a politically-minded kid who will vote in the next election. 

And finally, I think I learned something he tried to teach me more than twenty years ago. 

It’s about moral character. It’s about integrity. Without either, if you take away accountability, the country is no longer safe. This is why the “grab ‘em by the pussy” brag mattered, the cheating on his postpartum wife with a porn star mattered, the stealing from a children’s cancer charity mattered, not paying workers for their work mattered, lying mattered, insults mattered, cruelty mattered. It wasn’t separate from the inciting of riots and the five dead bodies in DC; it’s not unrelated to his inability to accept what was clearly and inarguably a free and fair election that he lost. It’s not a far jump from seeing deaths from Covid as a personal attack on his presidency, instead of the biggest challenge and responsibility of his life. 

It’s about moral character. It’s a lack of integrity. 

Going forward, I will use that as my barometer to elect political leaders from all parties.

I get it now, Pop.

Jaime Franchi

About the author: Jaime Franchi is the former Executive Editor for the Long Island Press, and was recognized as a 2017 recipient for Writer of the Year by the New York Press Association. Jaime’s work has been published in the New York Times, Salon, and The Huffington Post, and is a contributing author to two award-winning anthologies, including “These Winter Months, The Late Orphan Project” and “Love Her, Love Her Not: The Hillary Paradox.” 

January 14th 2021, 5:06 pm

Who is Worth Saving? Medical Inequities in Disabled Communities


In the midst of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, child neurologist, cancer and stroke survivor, Diana Cejas, shared to Twitter in August 2020: “I worry that my doctors won’t believe me. Every time. Every appointment. Every doctor. Even the ones with whom I have a good relationship. Why? Because once, when I was sick and needed them the most, my doctors did not believe me.” Cejas, a woman of color, found a lump on her neck that turned out to be a malignant tumor. When she asked her doctors about it, “They continually reassured me that nothing was wrong or that I was worrying about something when I shouldn’t be,” she recalled. A number of Twitter users responded to Cejas’s story with similar claims of confrontations with medical providers who were dismissive of their symptoms from what turned out to be debilitating illnesses.

The medical field has a history of discriminatory biases that view, for example, disabilities as a health issue that needs to be resolved, and assume Black people are considered more resistant to pain, which has contributed to the inequitable care and treatment that these communities receive. 

The issue of medical bias, and the consequential culture of distrust towards healthcare providers, is now more urgent since it has been found that those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are three times more likely to die if they are diagnosed with Covid-19 compared to others, according to The New York Times. Although those surveyed were enrolled in private Medicare plans, the database did not include patients on Medicaid, the government plan for low-income earning people that covers one in 35 individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). For a vast majority of those with IDD who receive Medicaid and live in congregate settings, the Covid-19 case-fatality rate is much higher, according to a recent California study reported in Disability Scoop.

States must turn to their state-wide Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) guidelines when determining which groups of people with critical needs will be considered high-priority in the Covid-19 vaccine allocation. Crisis standards of care, as defined by the CDC, is a report that focuses on current concepts and guidance that can assist state and local public health officials, healthcare facilities, and professionals in the development of systematic and comprehensive policies and protocols for crisis standards of care in disasters where resources are scarce. Some states’ CSC guidelines, however, have contained discriminatory language and policy against disabled people and the elderly, such as the states of Washington and Alabama. The CSC guidelines for the state of Alabama, for example, originally stated that “persons with severe mental retardation, advanced dementia or severe traumatic brain injury may be poor candidates for ventilator support.” Another section reads: “Persons with severe or profound mental retardation, moderate to severe dementia, or catastrophic neurological complications such as persistent vegetative state are unlikely candidates for ventilator support.” The policy has since been revised and resolved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as of April 2020, due to such discriminatory language originally contained within.

Barkoff has worked with state leadership and the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to remove such discriminatory language and policy from CSC guidelines since the rise of Covid-19 cases in March.  “Sometimes, it’s really an intentional discrimination in terms of excluding people who have certain types of disabilities, or certain limitations, from even getting in line to get treatment, like ventilators, or other things,” Barkoff continued,“Whereas sometimes, the way that plans are set up, it in practice deprioritizes people with disabilities, and particularly disabled people of color.” According to The New York Times, the fatality statistics reported for people with IDD in congregate settings are even higher than those reported for Black Americans. 

Current CSC guidelines may further deprioritize disabled people by allocating ventilators and vaccines to those whom medical providers predict will have a longer lifespan following treatment. Unfortunately, people with IDD are often wrongly assumed to have a lower quality of life due to their disability. Sam Crane, a legal director at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, has suggested that doctors look at whether the degree to which the individual will benefit from the treatment, instead of the length of time they will live beyond treatment. She also suggested these measures be considered on an individual basis. Currently, doctors use a mortality prediction score, called a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), to ration medical care and resources. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that Los Angeles County’s public hospitals have prepared “triage officers,” consisting of critical care and emergency room doctors, to decide which patients can benefit from continued treatment. “One of the considerations in the SOFA score is what is called the Glasgow Coma Scale,” said Crane. “And the Glasgow Coma scale included questions like: Can this person speak? Can this person voluntarily use their limbs? That might be a relevant consideration if you’re dealing with someone who normally can speak and move their limbs, but they’re so ill that right now they can’t. But if you have someone who was paralyzed before they became ill, or someone who had developed mental disability before they became ill and couldn’t ever speak, or had difficulty speaking, then that person being unable to speak isn’t reflective of critical illness in the same way.” 

Looking ahead to the vaccine rollout, many people of color with IDD, particularly Black people, are now skeptical about receiving Covid-19 vaccinations during its early rollouts due to historical medical bias and mistreatment. Kausha King, the mother of a young adult son with autism, expressed fears for his safety if he were to be given the vaccine in its early stages. “For me, we’re talking about systems that have said, ‘You’re always last,’” said King. “My child, he’s always last when it comes to something. If they say he’s up first, that concerns me. That concerns me because why is he up first all of the sudden? What’s wrong with that?” 

Cejas, who has recently been vaccinated, is publicly informing her social media followers about the treatment process in an effort to provide transparent information to Covid-19’s most vulnerable communities. “I’m sure that there’s a population of people within this vaccine-hesitant community who are looking at it from the ‘anti-vaxxer’ lens,” said Cejas. “But I don’t think that’s the case most of the time. I think it’s that people are coming in and they’re remembering these stories. They’re remembering this history. They’re remembering how the medical community has treated them in the past, and they’re like, ‘What is to say that you’re going to keep me safe now?’”

In October, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities created a set of vaccine allocation principles for the disabled community, to advocate for non-discriminatory value assessments in vaccine allocation prioritization. This also includes simple language access to vaccine information, and the prioritization of residents and staff in all long term care settings. The committee addresses health disparities impacting disabled people across age, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and primary language parameters. To further hold medical institutions accountable, critical health care workers and residents of long-term care facilities who have received the first phase of Covid-19 vaccines are also informing their communities about the vaccination process on Twitter with the hashtag, #IGotTheShot, thereby ensuring pertinent information and care are accessible to the most vulnerable. 

Natalie Crystal Doggett

About the Author: Natalie Crystal Doggett is a fellow with The Loreen Arbus Accessibility is Fundamental Program, an inaugural fellowship created to train women with disabilities as professional journalists so that they may write, research and report on the most crucial issues impacting the disabilities community.

January 11th 2021, 11:45 am

And the Sign Read: JESUS 2020


I am not a religious person. I’m not even a Christian, but as I watched the storming of the US Capitol yesterday on live television, there was one rioter holding up a large sign that caught my attention more than any of the others. 

It read: JESUS 2020

Since no one named Jesus was a candidate in the 2020 Presidential election, I can only assume that the purpose of this sign was to equate Jesus Christ with Donald Trump, since some of Trump’s most die-hard fans have attempted to convincingly compare the two, including his son, Eric, who recently declared that his dad “literally saved Christianity.”

But, again, although I am not a Christian, I have read a few things about Jesus Christ, particularly that he advised his disciples to heal the sick, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons without payment, and even stated: “Freely you have received: freely give.”  (Matthew 10:8)

Clearly, he is considered a person who manifests caring, kindness and compassion so, even more clearly, he would not have supported the actions of yesterday where violence, chaos and disruption were employed in an attempt to destroy freedom and democracy.

The fact that a comparison of the two men was even made defies logic, but logic tends to fly out the window when anger and rage overtake common sense, as was the case with yesterday’s failed coup.

Many women, including myself, have recently expressed, mostly in private, that living under the Trump presidency was very much like being in a domestic violence situation, particularly if we’ve been in one before, as I have. I was a child then, the only daughter of a violently abusive father living under his complete authoritarian control. While Trump couldn’t physically hurt me, as my father did, many of the same painful emotions were again triggered, like feeling depressed, powerless and even hopeless by an insecure and hostile hyper-masculine male who possessed merciless authority to rule over my life, and of those I loved.

Upon leaving my father’s home decades ago, I promised myself that I would never be in such a vulnerable position again, and never thought I could, as an independent adult. But Trump reminded me very much of my father, exemplified by his rampant racism, misogyny and deep insecurity. Perhaps that is why I fled, fled to Canada, to escape just three months before the election. As a child living in an abusive home, one learns to protect oneself by becoming acutely aware of the slightest sign of impending violence in order to survive. Deep down in my gut, I could not shake the feeling that the Trump presidency would escalate to a level of mass violence before it would end. Many friends who were also survivors of domestic violence confided that they felt the same.

It is actually quite common for the escalation of violence to crest at or near the point of conclusion, so yesterday’s assault is not surprising. “The most dangerous time for a woman is just at the time of escape, because she’s escaping control,” says feminist and activist Gloria Steinem. She also believes that another very “dangerous time is after winning a victory: particularly when there is a majority change in consciousness.” Yesterday’s backlash was therefore bound to occur due to the Democratic party’s victory over Donald Trump in the November presidential election, coupled with its success fewer than 24 hours before the failed coup inside the Capitol when both Democratic challengers in Georgia won their senate seats to two hotly contested campaigns, eliminating Republican majority control of the Senate.

And just as we would never ask a domestic violence survivor to reconsider her decision to flee despite the increasing threat to her safety, we would not expect any political leader to succumb to hostile threats by a small minority of citizens to defeat democracy.

And, I suspect, that’s what Jesus Christ would have wanted as well.

Lori Sokol, PhD., is the Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief of Women’s eNews. She is also the author of She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World (She Writes Press, 2020)

January 6th 2021, 8:09 pm

As Online Gender-Based Violence Booms, Governments Drag Their Feet


Strange men came to the place where Kang Yu-jin (names are pseudonyms) worked, looking for her after her ex-boyfriend impersonated her on social media, posting sexual images and saying she wanted to find men to have sex with.

Lee Ye-rin’s boss gave her a clock as a present. Sometime later, she looked up the model and discovered it was a spy cam that had been streaming inside her bedroom to his phone for weeks.

Oh Soo-jin was a student short on cash when she took a job as a nude model with a contract that stated that none of the photos would ever be shared. They were posted and sold on the internet anyway.

All three women are survivors of a growing wave of online gender-based violence that governments and companies are failing to tackle effectively. Yu-jin, Ye-rin, and Soo-jin are from South Korea, where Human Rights Watch has documented how a combination of rapid technological advances and deep gender inequality is accelerating the spread online of gender-based violence. 

But the internet and technology are global—as is misogyny—and the problem of online gender-based violence is a global one. Helplines in Pakistan and the UK have had sharp increases in calls this year. Politicians have been targeted by leaked sexual images in countries including FranceGeorgiaIndia and the US. The United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women wrote in 2018 that the need to protect women’s rights “has now spread to the digital space of social media…. New forms of violence have also developed, such as the non-consensual distribution of intimate contents …obtained with or without consent, with the purpose of shaming, stigmatizing or harming the victim.”

Of course, there is nothing new about gender-based violence, or about governments failing to take it seriously. As technology and the internet flourished, spreading into all aspects of our lives—especially during the Covid-19 pandemic—we could have anticipated that it would create new opportunities for perpetrators of violence, most targeted against women. 

Governments, predictably, have been slow to respond. The South Korean government, and some others including AustraliaBelgiumBrazilCanadaGermanyJapanPakistanSouth Africa, and the UK—have taken different steps toward trying to curb online gender-based violence, but major gaps remain in most countries, leaving many survivors feeling helpless.

Government and law enforcement officials—most of whom are men—often seem to fundamentally misunderstand the severity of online gender-based violence and see it as something minor that “only” happens online. This misconstrues both how online gender-based violence is often linked to other forms of violence, and perpetuates the notion of an online/offline dichotomy that is no longer relevant in a world where our phones track our movements, and our transactions and communication increasingly happen online. 

Perpetrators of online gender-based violence in South Korea usually avoid jail time. One survivor told us she was so frustrated by the police refusal to register her complaint that she asked an officer, “Do you want to act only if I get physical or material damage from this?”  “Yes,” he replied.

The impact of online gender-based violence is devastating, and sometimes deadly. If an image has appeared online once, anyone who viewed it could have captured it, and anyone who captured it can repost it—at any time, for the rest of the survivor’s life. 

Survivors often find themselves searching online constantly for new attacks. After the men came to Yu-jin’s job, she quit work, fled her home, and kept searching  for new posts. “For two months I think that’s all I did for the whole day,” she said. “And while I did this I really wanted to die—I wanted to jump in front of a car or train.” The father of a woman who died by suicide after being secretly filmed by a colleague said, “She worried: ‘What if someone has seen it?’ Every time she got a phone call.”

All governments need to act to meet international legal obligations to promote gender equality and protect people from violence.

Companies also have an obligation to help. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011 state that “The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises…[a]void causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts” and “[s]eek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services.”

Challenging the entrenched gender inequity that persists in almost every country and fuels online gender-based violence requires more than services or arrests—it requires deep cultural change through steps like comprehensive sexuality education for all children covering consent, gender equity, and responsible digital citizenship. It also requires significant cultural change within technology companies where products are too often designed by men who fail to consider and guard against how they can be used to perpetrate gender-based violence.

The growing role of the internet in our lives has highlighted how urgent it is to end abusive attitudes toward women, and how far we still have to go in this struggle.

Author Healther Barr is interim co-director of women’s rights at Human Rights Watch.

December 17th 2020, 9:42 pm

Making College More Accessible Post-COVID: How Virtual Classrooms Can Help Autistic Students


As the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncontained and continues to spread around the world, millions of college students have been forced to attend classes remotely. While they have struggled to adapt to this new mode of learning, the format can provide unique upsides for autistic students that can be adopted post-pandemic to make college more accessible. 

Many of the difficulties autistic college students face may not be obvious to ‘neurotypicals’, or people whose neurocognitive functioning falls within the dominant societal standards of “normal.” Most notable of them is that neurotypicals aren’t suppressing their unique neurology and tendencies to fit in, something autistic people employ to varying degrees — better known as masking or camouflaging.

“It’s kind of living your life with flow charts in your head. You can never just do what’s normal,” says Morénike Giwa Onaiwu, an autistic advocate, college professor, and PhD candidate. “Neurotypical people want to think that everyone thinks and behaves the way they do, and if you’re different, something is wrong.” 

A common example of masking is the suppression of stimming, or repetitive actions and/or body movements. Everyone stims ; playing with one’s own hair, compulsively clicking a pen, and nail-biting are all forms of stimming. For autistic people, however, one of stimming’s primary functions is self-regulation, which is necessary for navigating an overwhelming world. Unfortunately, some of ways many autistic people stim, such as hand-flapping, fidgeting, and body-rocking, are highly stigmatized. As Maverick*, an undergraduate student at the University of Kentucky, explained, “I knew, [before I realized I was autistic between fifth and sixth grade], my urge to stim would alienate them from any future partners, friends, or work I had.” Like Maverick, Caralynn, an undergraduate student in Boston, had a similar experience growing up, and learned to mask well before she was diagnosed with autism at 13. 

Masking is particularly prevalent among autistic females, who mask far more than do autistic males. It’s something Dr. Amy Edwards, the director of the Drexel Autism Support Program (DASP), often witnesses. “Girls have this nature to fit in, kind of like a lizard or a chameleon can change their skins, whereas a boy is going to outwardly behave negatively to get attention.” 

That also partly explains why females are far less likely to be diagnosed with autism – by successfully mimicking their neurotypical peers, they remain undiagnosed and hence suffer in silence, since they don’t meet the standard criteria for autism that has been historically defined by how autistic males act and think. This was true for Giwa Onaiwu, who displayed many autistic traits as a child, but was not diagnosed until she was much older. “I didn’t like Thomas the Train, I wasn’t a programmer and I didn’t have savant skills ….some of the things that autistic people are supposed to be good at – programming, STEM – didn’t apply to me at all.” 

Further, the current autism research has limitations, since it typically excludes nonbinary, trans, and other autistics who don’t adhere to a binary gender identity, despite the fact that transgender and gender diverse people are up to six times more likely to be autistic. How one’s race affects masking is yet another under-researched, yet critical topic. For example, when autistics of color, especially Black autistics, interact with police, they can be falsely perceived as dangerous due to systemic racism. Coupled with their autistic behaviors that are often misunderstood by police, masking decreases the chances of the conflict escalating into police brutality. 

Even if masking can make life easier, having to constantly pretend to be someone else can prove exhausting. Before Helen Rottier, an autistic graduate student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, learned she was autistic during college, her mental health significantly suffered. She now studies and researches education access for disabled and neurodivergent college students, and masking comes up frequently in her work, even though it is never a specific focus. “A lot of students share [their experiences] about masking, especially when they have to give presentations, or they have to lead discussion for the class, and this impacts them in terms of [their] energy later in the day, and [in their] mood.” 

Oddly enough, however, virtual learning provides some opportunities for autistics who forego masking because it’s more accessible and less draining. “Some of them have relaxed [and] they’re not masking as much. Others love the fact they can turn off their camera, and don’t worry about stimming. I think it just depends on the student,” Edwards says. Previously, students had to worry about all of the things leading up to just getting to class; like getting ready to leave the dorm, having to get to class on time, and possibly bumping into someone who causes anxiety, without not knowing what to say, and so on. 

Of course, virtual learning amidst a pandemic is very different from virtual learning in normal times. The sudden switch to virtual learning has significantly disrupted autistic students’ routines, and the pandemic has worsened anxiety and depression among autistic people who are already four times more likely to have depression compared to non-autistic people. And for those who returned home, the social lives they had worked very hard to build at college has suffered. 

Universities, which had previously not been doing enough to accommodate disabled students despite the Americans with Disabilities Act requiring higher education to provide equal access, have still not made virtual learning accessible. Platforms like Zoom have been criticized for inaccessibility, since Zoom currently only offers closed captioning for paid Zoom Pro members. Virtual proctoring software used to prevent cheating can harm disabled students, since living as a disabled person may cause the software to incorrectly label them as suspicious. And, most importantly, since autistic people are not a monolith, what works for one autistic person may not work for another. 

Despite these flaws, people with disabilities are worried about what will happen to virtual learning once the pandemic is under control, especially since they previously requested remote learning options for years. “It’s telling to me that people have been asking for these types of accommodations forever, and everyone said it was too complicated and expensive, and then when they need it, they can do it all the sudden. It shouldn’t have taken an emergency for people to train their staff on how to [use] these tools. That’s something that you need to have

just as a human being,” Giwu Onaiwu says, adding that the responsibility should not be on the student to fight for accommodations they are legally entitled to. “There’s something deeply ironic about the fact that these online venues have a profound ability to add so much access, but so much of this potential is ignored,” Maverick continued.  

Yet making college more accessible to autistic people wouldn’t just help them, but everyone, as is the case with a framework called universal design, which creates an environment that can be accessed, understood and used by anyone regardless of their age, size, or disability. For example, on the first day of class, Giwu Onaiwu emphasized to her students that tools such as text to voice software aren’t just for disabled students, but can help nondisabled students who are auditory learners or need to multitask. Rottier also enthusiastically supports universal design, and notes accommodations such as lecture recordings would have been incredibly helpful for students like her who deal with chronic pain. Caralynn also suggested that the normalization of more breaks and activities that allow for more processing time would be helpful for more than just autistic students. 

Beyond these universal benefits, the pandemic presents an opportunity for neurotypicals to better understand the challenges faced by autistic people. In April, autistic writer Maxfield Sparrow argued that neurotypicals regularly using video streaming platforms like Zoom are getting a taste of the social fatigue autistic people experience, since the extra work necessitated and subsequent exhaustion from Zoom meetings is somewhat similar to what autistic people often have to endure during in-person interactions. 

These are all important issues for neurotypicals to ponder, since more people are being diagnosed than ever before due to the increasing understanding of autism. 

* This is a pseudonym

Katrina Janco

About the Author: Katrina Janco is a fellow with The Loreen Arbus Accessibility is Fundamental Program, an inaugural fellowship created to train women with disabilities as professional journalists so that they may write, research and report on the most crucial issues impacting the disabilities community.

December 15th 2020, 2:05 pm

What Sean Connery’s Death Taught Us About Donald Trump’s Life


When the first and most iconic Bond, James Bond, died on October 31st, most published tributes to Sean Connery discreetly danced around his public assertions that abusing women was “acceptable.” For this famous secret agent, he represented the fantasy of so many men who could only dream of summoning glamorous women with the mere raise of an eyebrow, and of the countless women who yearned to be as beautiful and sought-after as a glamorous ‘Bond girl.’

Perhaps that is why so many had chosen not to only forget but also forgive this iconic hero’s misogynistic statements as mere folly or ‘locker room talk,’ choosing to instead accept, unwaveringly, Connery’s explanation years later that, “They were taken the wrong way.”

Similarly, as our country prepares for the inauguration of its new US President next month, Joe Biden Jr., we are also left to grapple with the significant increase in the number of votes Donald Trump received in this year’s election (over 10 million more than in 2016), even after witnessing his numerous public displays of demeaning, insulting and crude behavior toward women over the past four years. Political pundits, elected Democrats and a majority of American citizens, alike, are trying to understand how Trump’s abhorrent behavior did not result in an electoral landslide against his reelection bid. I suspect that we may only need to compare the many reactions to Sean Connery’s death, which occurred just four days before this year’s Presidential election, to arrive at a viable conclusion.

For those who have forgotten, whether willfully or not, here’s a brief reminder of some of Connery’s quotes. In his 1965 interview with Playboy, he said, “I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman.” In a 1987 interview with Barbara Walters, he elaborated: “I haven’t changed my opinion…I think it’s absolutely right.” And in a 1993 interview with Vanity Fair, he not only reasserted his approval, but projected all blame onto the victim: “That’s what they’re looking for, the ultimate confrontation—they want a smack.” 

Yet, upon Connery’s death, much of the mainstream media all but ignored these statements, echoed by a number of celebrity Twitter reactions honoring his life not only onscreen, but off:

Hugh Jackman @RealHughJackman: “I grew up idolizing #SeanConnery. A legend on screen, and off. Rest In Peace.”

Charles V Payne @cvpayne: “So sad to hear the news of the passing of Sean Connery. It may not be pc {politically correct} but he personified a man’s man.”

Stephen King @StephenKing: “Sean Connery in his first starring role, as a washed-up boxer. He was a fine actor and by most accounts a good guy.”

Honored as “a man’s man,” and “a good guy,” these tributes excused Connery’s admitted violence toward women. But these reactions are not atypical, which is what brings me back to where I began, comparing Sean Connery’s death to Donald Trump’s life.  

One need only compare 007’s heralded success in the film Goldfinger, where he forcibly holds down and kisses the chauvinistically named Pussy Galore in a barn, to the even more memorable ‘Grab Them By The Pussy,’ video where Trump brags about his ability to do what he wants to women because he is “famous.” It seems that there must be something wondrous about a man who is able to charm his way out of every entanglement, without ever getting caught…if he’s a white man, that is. It is therefore not a surprise that a majority of white voters voted for Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 elections.

Despite the one obvious difference (007 being a man of fiction and Trump not), the same ultramasculine cravings hold true, where charm and fantasy distort reality, and where abuse and violence become acceptable because, well, who wants to defame a hero who has the gall and the gadgets to represent the guilty pleasures of so many men, which includes disposing of women at a moment’s notice.

But it doesn’t stop there. These fantastical men also fit the model of the imagined masculine heroic archetype, which too many fathers believe is necessary for the gender development of their young sons. And, as for some women, the appeal of these abusive men is perhaps best explained by Edward Hogan, author of ‘Exceeding the Thresold – Why Women Prefer Bad Boys: “Male dominance, the overarching quality encompassing the physical attractiveness and possession of resources that defines a bad boy, has been linked to higher perceived attractiveness and appeal.”

But what happens when the powerful presentation of a real-life person built on excessive indulgence blurs the lines between true vs. false, fantasy vs. reality, fact vs. fiction? 

Answer: It can amass a cult-like following who choose to remain blind to that person’s true failings, even at the expense of their own livelihoods and the safety of their loved ones.

Just as “in four decades of James Bond films … women are depicted enjoying rape,” 007 remains a cultural icon, Trump’s supporters are continuing to willfully ignore the 26 accusations of “unwanted sexual contact” and 43 instances of “inappropriate behavior,” as well as one accusation of the felony crime of rape. Here, just as in many of the James Bond films, these women are excused, discarded and, even, mocked.

Further, even if a wave of destruction follows them leaving devastation in their wake, much like the Coronavirus that has thus far killed over 300,000 Americans due, in large part, to Trump’s ineptitude, their fans believe that it must be for the greater good, because he is a representation of their fantastical fulfillment

And if there is still any doubt, one need only watch what Trump, himself, did during the recent G7 meeting where world leaders gathered to discuss issues of international importance, when he excused himself to tweet out birthday wishes to Sean Connery. And, only a few days later when, upon learning of Connery’s death, he tweeted: “Sean was a great actor and an even greater man.” 

Perhaps that is why, now that Trump will be leaving the White House on January 20, 2021, I feel that I, too, am finally leaving, after four terrifying years, of what can only be described as an abusive relationship.

Lori Sokol, PhD., is the Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief of Women’s eNews. She is also the author of She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World (She Writes Press, 2020)

December 15th 2020, 2:05 pm

Send a Kamala Harris, RBG or AOC Action Figure for the Holidays!!


Want to support Truth in Women’s Journalism and receive a Feminist Action Figure in the process?

For a minimum donation of $100, you can select one of the 3 actions figures below (VP Kamala Harris, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). For a minimum donation of $250, you will receive all three!!

Further, if you place your order by Friday, Dec. 4th, a percentage of every order will go to the Holy Apostles Soup Kitchen, the largest soup kitchen New York City. 

6″ Tall. Stands on any flat surface and can be posed for any occasion. Ages 3+

6″ Tall.  Ages 14+

6″ Tall. Stands on any flat surface and can be posed for any occasion.
Ages 14+

Just send an email to with your Action Figure selection(s) and shipping address. You will then receive an email confirmation with a payment form.

What better Gift to Give for the Holidays, while supporting Truth in Journalism and Feeding the Homeless!!

December 1st 2020, 10:18 am

Seeking Gender Justice and Peace? Include Men


“Millions of women are living in fear, with long-term consequences for families and communities, and for all our efforts for peace and security, human rights and sustainable development,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres recently said in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Further, as physical and structural violence against women increase globally, it may be hard to make a case for investing in projects targeting men and boys.

But with patriarchal norms standing in the way of women’s empowerment, we must absolutely focus on changing attitudes among men and boys towards gender equality, and crucially, when it comes to pursuing the women, peace and security agenda.

The landmark UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS), adopted on October 31, 2000, seeks to address the disproportionate impact of conflict on women and girls and to recognize the under-valued role of women in conflict prevention and peace building. Yet 20 years later, implementing this resolution remains profoundly challenging.

One of the major roadblocks has been deeply ingrained gender norms, or traditional ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman, coupled with cultural and political conservatism – giving rise to both gender inequality and conflict in many societies. 

For their part, conflict and crises themselves often give rise to more rigid gender norms and stereotypes that men, women, and those of other gender identities are expected to fulfil.

Conservative socio-political norms are deeply embedded in typically male dominated decision-making institutions at national and international levels, as well as within global governance institutions. Women who operate in these spaces struggle to be heard and experience pushback when trying to promote a women’s rights agenda. This has significant implications for the women, peace and security agenda. 

The emphasis given to women’s rights within institutions of global governance is dwindling, with many arguing that backsliding on WPS commitments and progress is not just possible, but likely.

The impact of patriarchal gender norms is also evident at the community level. Patriarchal values of male family members can mean that women are actively either discouraged or blocked from accessing women empowerment programs, or have to get permission from their husband or father. Where women do participate, they can face stigma or even violence. Gender norms also often result in men being socially, culturally and politically conditioned to engage in physical violence in both the private and public spheres.

In the Sahel, for example, a strong incentive for men to join extremist groups stems from the notion that a ‘real man’ should protect and provide for his family. As one community member told us: “Anyone who refuses to fight to protect the community shouldn’t be seen as a man: he is a coward.”

Implementing the women, peace and security agenda therefore requires addressing deeply entrenched gender norms across different levels of society, in a way that gives men and women viable alternatives to violence. It also requires addressing community-level norms and expectations that justify the subjugation of women.

And yet, comprehensive engagement with men and boys is still largely missing from the agenda itself. Only two UNSC resolutions explicitly mention men and boys (one notes that men and boys can be enlisted as partners in the prevention of sexual and gender-based violence, while also recognising that men and boys can also be victims, while the other reiterates the importance of engaging men and boys in promoting women’s participation in conflict prevention and peacebuilding). 

Thankfully, plenty of evidence does exist on why engaging with masculinities is good for women, peace and security. Peace activists have been working with men for many years, particularly in highly patriarchal and conservative societies. 

In Afghanistan, women peacebuilding organizations have not only been working with male champions but also with conservative mullahs, which has led to the acceptance of these programmes in local communities, and therefore made it easier for women to participate.

In Tajikistan, the Zindagii Shoista (‘Living with dignity’) project by International Alert and local partners aims to protect at-risk women from the possibility of violence, by bringing the whole family together, including in-laws, to resolve conflicts and  improve the role and lives of the wives and daughters within the family. Moreover, by fostering an idea of financial independence, Tajik women are now seen as valued members of society, in turn helping individual men within the family context, and communities at large, to change their attitudes  towards violence against women and girls.

In the Great Lakes region of Africa, involving men in positive masculinities projects has also improved relations between men and women, at home and in the public sphere. In a project seeking to improve conditions for women cross-border traders and therefore fostering more peace in this region, the involvement of men (officials, border guards, husbands) has been crucial. Changes in attitudes of spouses regarding their wives being the primary bread winners improved the situation of women both at home and in society. “Before the project I had a bad perception of my wife and her business. I now understand that she works hard for our benefit. I am proud of my wife,” said Philippe, a farmer, who took part in the project. 

Without minimizing the role of men in conflict and violence perpetration, men should be seen as agents of positive change. Support for gender equality and women’s agency in conflict should reach out specifically to a range of integral allies and resistors alike, including men and boys. 

In doing so, agencies must be careful to ensure this does not divert hard-won support and money from women organizations working tirelessly on gender equality, or reinforce the unequal power of men and boys in already deeply patriarchal societies.

Simply put, if we don’t change men’s attitudes, then peacebuilding and gender equality cannot succeed. We must work together – NGOs, governments, policymakers and donors – to achieve this.

About the Author: Ndeye Sow is the Head of Gender at International Alert.

November 29th 2020, 9:15 am

Heeding The Call


No one spoke at first.  I heard machines beeping in the background.  Oh geez, I realized, I’ve reached someone in a hospital room. This was my 74th call for the Joe Biden campaign. 

I live in Pennsylvania so I volunteered for Biden. I had to do something. I was too nervous to just passively marinate in my extreme worry as the critical day grew nearer.  

So a week before the election, I sat through live internet training with a few thousand other volunteers from all over the country. We would be calling Democrats across the U.S. to get out the vote (GOTV).  It was simple enough: follow a script, provide info on their voting options/local polling stations, engage about the issues if anyone was on the fence (??!!), and BE KIND. Volunteer monitors would be available in real time if we encountered any problems. It was comforting that the campaign seemed so organized, efficient, and well-staffed.

But I would require more than kindness to navigate this experience.

My first day we were all assigned to call PA Democrats.  Almost everyone I reached hung up immediately – without saying a word – as soon as they realized it was a campaign call.  A few folks listened patiently and said they would be voting for Biden (thank you!).  We discussed their “voting plan” (everyone had a plan).  One woman said if she got one more call from the Biden people she was going to vote for Trump just to spite us.  Oddly I took this as an encouraging sign.

The next day’s calls – this time to Florida – started out the same.  Hang up after hang up. A few solid Biden voters. And then – call #74.

“Hello?” the man in the hospital room said. “Can you hold on for a second?”

“Sure” I answered.

“Honey, how are you feeling?  Can I get you anything?” he asked away from the phone.

“I’m sorry,” I said, “I think I’ve reached you at a bad time – I’m just calling from the Biden campaign – we’ll try to connect another day”.

“No I’m here, sorry…my wife’s in labor – it’s our first kid – we’ve been here since yesterday morning and it’s slow going. But I want to talk to you – your group called the other day and we didn’t get to finish our conversation.  Hold on…”

“Can I get you ice chips?  I’ll get you some ice chips in a minute” he said to his wife.

He talked to a passing nurse and asked her about some medication. I tried to tell him really, this is not important, we’ll call back another time.  He kept returning to the phone “Are you still there?  Thanks for holding on, I want to talk to you…”

Then, suddenly, his wife is screaming. The sound does not build from slow rhythmic moans of discomfort. She had been silent.  It bursts out in an explosion of primal pain.  His wife’s anguish goes from 0 to 100 in less than 5 seconds.

My heart is racing.  I’ve never had a baby.  What is happening?  I thought labor unfolded slowly.  None of this sounds good to me.  I’ve never heard a human make these noises. I don’t know what to do.

“Oh my god oh my god – honey what’s WRONG? What do I do what do I do?  I’m not ready for this – what do I do?? I’m going to faint. I’m going to throw up”, he cried.

I think I said “get the doctor!”, (much of this blurry to me now). I know I said “I’m going to hang up – don’t worry – it will be fine – you’ll do great!  

“Are you still there?  DON’T HANG UP!” he said. 

I hear yelling in the background.  The doctor enters the room and there’s the sound of chaotic activity, machines peeling wildly between the screams.

“This is bad” the doctor says.

“What do you mean BAD?  WHAT IS HAPPENING???” the man yells. 

“The baby’s breech. It’s coming now.  The shoulders are stuck.”

“What do you mean STUCK?? WHAT IS HAPPENING?? OH MY GOD!!!”, the man explodes.

My heart is POUNDING.  The wife’s screams get more soul-curdling.  I say to the husband – “HANG IN THERE – you’re doing great – deep breaths – you’re doing great”.  He keeps asking me to stay on the phone, almost like he needs me but I don’t know how to help him. I should NOT be a part of this.  It’s all happening SO FAST – no more than a few minutes have passed since the auto-dailer connected me to this man.  

I am so scared for them. What if the baby dies???

After lots of confusion and scary noises, suddenly there’s a new kind of wailing: the robust cries of a newborn.  

“Congratulations – you have a baby girl – come cut the cord!” the doctor says, sounding joyous and relieved.  

That’s how I feel too.  Shaking and teary and my heart racing and omg the humanity.

The man is cutting the cord. No longer concerned with the phone.  No longer asking me to please hold on.  I am exhilarated, holding my head in my hands and smiling in a way that’s not quite a smile. I say “Congratulations. You did great!!” but he’s not listening.  He’s living in this moment. I hang up.

I am gobsmacked. Breathing quickly, my hands shaking.  WTF just happened?

I call some friends (ironically, as I am not a phone person).  But I have to share what I just experienced.  This improbable encounter. It’s a great story and everyone is amazed and thinks it sounds like it would make for a fun local TV news segment…

After I calm down (a little) I contact the Biden campaign volunteer monitors.  I need to tell them my story too. I want to get the name and address of the man I talked to (it disappeared from my screen when I hung up the call).  I want to send him and his wife a note of congratulations and well wishes. 

The first folks I message are amazed -what a story! But they can’t help me get the guy’s information. I try another campaign channel and tell the story to yet another campaign monitor.

“I’m so sorry to tell you this, but it sounds like you were a victim of a RoboKiller Answer Bot” she texts me.

My brain scrambles. My heart starts to pound again. Her reply makes no sense to me.

She explains that “RoboKiller” is a service people purchase to intercepts calls made from automatic dialing systems (like campaigns and fundraisers use to connect people). I’ve never heard of it.  As an added feature, subscribers can choose their own “Answer Bot” – elaborate recordings featuring multiple actors, some of them designed to draw you into insanely emotional situations.  They are remarkably realistic, expensively produced and very clever.  “Some answer bots are actually pretty violent, scenarios where people are being mugged or attacked. Don’t feel badly. We’ve all been fooled by them more than once”, she assures me.

What what what?

My mind races back to the call. It’s not possible.  Like the climax of “The Sixth Sense” I replay the conversation in my head, scene by scene.  Didn’t he respond to me? We had a back and forth over a few minutes. Didn’t he ask me to stay on the line??? But he kept getting interrupted, distracted by the chaos – so maybe he didn’t respond to me? I could not comprehend it.

Still shaking, I did some Googling.  Confirmed the existence of “RoboKiller” and the “Answer Bot” feature.  There are actually several companies that provide this special service. I even found a listing online for a “delivery room chaos” answer bot.

The company promises: “…hilarious pre-recorded audio messages designed to…trick unsolicited callers into thinking they’re speaking with a real person… Our Answer Bots keep these bad hombres on the phone, while you go about your day.”

And as a bonus, subscribers to the service can listen to the recorded call later – for laughs!  Listen to all the stressed-out, humiliated campaign volunteers getting punked!  “Hilarious, entertaining, and just the right amount of vengeful. Answer Bot recordings are too good not to share!” their website boasts.

What could be more fun?

I get it that calls from fundraisers and campaigns can be annoying. And we’ve all run across funny answering machine messages that sounded like a live person. These answer bots are something else entirely.

It was a complete mind F#*!*. The swing from a few intense minutes of connecting during a pinnacle human experience to realizing I was the target of an elaborate set up designed to keep me panicking on the phone for as long as possible felt like emotional whiplash. 

I’m not a “snowflake”, but the cruelty seemed gratuitous. Cruelty seems like sport these days.

I had no idea I was so credulous (no doubts now).

I had no idea people could work so creatively to traumatize a stranger (they can; you can even build a business from it!)

I am glad Joe Biden won.

About the Author: Teresa Stack is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Boston Globe, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Los Angeles Times and other outlets.  From 1998-2016 she was president of The Nation magazine, running the company’s business operations. Today she works from her home in Pennsylvania, doing freelance writing work and directing The Nation’s progressive educational travel program.  She is a producer of the soon-to-be-released short documentary, The Road to Justice, which follows the transformational journey of a group of middle school kids from Chicago and older Nation readers as they tour the south, meeting unsung heroes of the 60s Civil Rights movement.

November 22nd 2020, 9:33 pm

If Police Training Can’t Protect Disabled Black Women, What Will?


“We are all too aware of the frequent news stories about the mentally ill who come up against law enforcement, instead of mental health professionals, and end up dead,” wrote Deborah Danner, who was schizophrenic, in a personal essay on January 28, 2012. Four years later, on October 18, 2016, New York Police sergeant Hugh Barry fatally shot her two times in the torso

Danner had included in her essay a “wish list” of demands in response to “the plight of others like [her]”: police brutality against people with mental illness or other disabilities. “Teaching law enforcement how to deal with the mentally ill in crisis so as to prevent another “Gompers” incident,” said Danner, referring to the 1984 NYPD killing of Eleanor Bumpurs. “They used deadly force to subdue her because they were not trained sufficiently in how to engage the mentally ill in crisis. This was not an isolated incident.”

Since Danner’s death in 2016, approximately 4,658 people have been killed by the police. The percentages of those of marginalized identities are staggering. As of 2020, Black people comprised approximately 28 percent of those killed by police, despite encompassing only 13 percent of the US population. Further, Black women comprise 13 percent of the female population, yet account for 20 percent of the women shot and killed, and 28 percent of the unarmed deaths, according to the Washington Post. Nearly 250 women have been fatally shot by police since 2015, and approximately 13 of those women were Black women with reported mental illness. For disabled Black women, systemic racism, misogynoir, and ableism all appear to contribute to their negative interactions with law enforcement. 

According to Kimberle Crenshaw, professor of law at UCLA and Columbia Law School, who coined the term Intersectionality, she describes how structures of power overlap and intersect within social identities like race, gender, and disability.  “Sometimes we fail to see specific contours in women’s contexts because they just don’t fit our prototypical vision,” said Crenshaw in a 2016 address to the Omega Women’s Leadership Center. “Where the prototype doesn’t fit, the issue doesn’t get included.” This logic is particularly applied in the specific experiences of disabled Black women and women of color, particularly during the Trump era, which she labels an  “intersectional erasure.”

“The odds that Black women and women of color who are, or are perceived, to be in a mental health crisis will experience violence, arrest, or involuntary commitment are compounded by perceptions of mental instability based on gender, gender nonconformity, and sexuality,” writes police misconduct attorney Andrea Ritchie in Invisible No More, Police Violence Against Black Women and Women of Color

Azza Altiraifi, a Black Disabled advocate, observes that disability is criminalized because non-normative behavior considered to be threatening to the oppressive status quo is criminalized. In effect, ableism reinforces the system of criminalization. “So black and brown people are impacted by ableism,” Altiraifi said, “even if they themselves are not disabled, don’t identify as disabled, and are not part of the community in terms of their personal identification.”

Additionally, “Disorderly action” is perceived by law enforcement as indicative of a person with disabilities, a presumption which stems from ableism and affects non-disabled people as well. For example, Dyma Loving, a non-disabled Black woman was violently arrested by former detective Alejandro Giraldo, who threatened to have her involuntarily committed to a mental health institution under Florida’s Baker Act, after she called Miami-Dade police to report a white neighbor who had pointed a gun at her and her friend in May 2019. 

Video footage from police body cameras and a cell phone showed Giraldo telling Loving to ”chill out” and to “stop screaming” as she repeatedly asked another officer at the scene to charge her phone so she could make a call to her sick daughter. Giraldo can be heard in the video describing Loving’s raised, distressed tone of voice as “acting disorderly.”

Recent calls for reforming police training have surged, particularly in response to the murder of Breonna Taylor by police. Research on current models of policing training in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom show that control or defensive techniques are not taught in tandem with other sensorimotor skills, nor other skills like communication. This method of training is called a “block-and-silo” approach, according to the Force Science Institute. “For instance, cuffing would be taught separately from take-down techniques, and neither would be integrated with de-escalation,” reported FSI. “It is the type of instruction which accomplishes teaching objectives but not learning objectives. It increases the learner’s knowledge about what rules should be followed and when, but at some point later when learners attempt to carry out the techniques in a dynamic or realistic encounter, they are incapable.” In 2019, CBS News collected data from more than 150 police departments about their training practices in racial bias training. In Louisville, Kentucky, where Taylor was killed in her apartment by police just one year after the study, the department reported to CBS that implicit racial bias training was mandated for four hours once per year since 2015. De-escalation training had been mandated for 16 hours once per year since 2018. 

The ‘block-and-silo” approach to police training calls into question a lack of integrational training on gender orientation, disabilities, and racism. The US Department of Justice reports that state and local law enforcement training subjects devoted to “mental illness”, “cultural diversity/human relations”, and “victim response” were each taught for differing periods of time. For example, 10 hours of training were devoted to “mental illness,” and 12 hours were devoted to “cultural diversity/human relations.” Only five hours were devoted to “victim response” training. It is unclear whether these subjects were taught in a “block-and-silo” approach, or cooperatively about the ways ableism, racial and gender bias can play a role when responding to a disabled woman of color in crisis. 

Following the death of George Floyd, Emily Iland, program developer of Experience Autism, wrote: “The obvious starting point is training the police about autism and other disabilities…I discovered, however, that while training the police is absolutely necessary, it isn’t enough.”

Iland points out the public assumption that police are supposed to “solve all our problems,” including mental health emergencies involving disabled people. “It’s better to call a crisis center, a behavioral specialist,” Iland said. “Because a disability-related meltdown is not usually a crime, calling the police on someone with autism and having a meltdown is criminalizing disability.”

There are a number of mental health professionals who have experience with the disabled community who believe the development of alternative emergency contacts are crucial. Jennifer Sarrett, a lecturer at Emory University’s Center for the Study of Human Health, works with intellectually and developmentally disabled people within the criminal justice system. She believes that social workers must be brought in to assist people suffering from mental health issues, and points out that even spontaneous encounters with neighborhood police could pose a possible threat to their lives. “I think that can greatly reduce some of the harm done, but that doesn’t eliminate it all because officers are still going to interact with disabled folks, even without those calls.” said Sarrett. For example, police have regular interaction with homeless disabled people, since it is estimated that nearly one quarter of disabled people face homelessness. Therefore, what may be perceived as criminal action by onlookers and law enforcement are actually acts of survival (ie. loitering, public urination, and begging on the streets). 

Kerima Çevik, an activist and mother of a son who is autistic and non-speaking, wants to completely mitigate encounters with police to prevent potential violence. She believes that when police train in risk management, they are enforcing the idea that someone who needs help in crisis is instead a safety risk to police officers. “Police should be the last resort,” says Çevik. She also believes that they should not be present in spaces where their intervention is not necessary, like crisis response. “In other words, we should never—,” Çevik pauses. “I shouldn’t have to call the police if my son is having a meltdown. When I get up in the morning, I say ‘Thank God he’s not dead,’ and ‘Thank God I’m not dead.”

In response to the specific harm Black people with disabilities are experiencing, organizations like the Abolition and Disability Justice Coalition call for the funding and expansion of programs that “provide resources and training in meditation, restitution, and accountability practices and processes” which demands a dismantling of the prison-industrial complex in its entirety. This requires rejecting reforms such as those that replace policing and criminalization with mandatory social or health services. “Mandatory social and health services are no less damaging than our systems of policing and cages,” ADJC writes. “In these contexts, people who are neurodivergent and/or living with disabilities are systematically abused and prevented from making decisions about their own lives.” 

Additionally, the BYP100 Action Fund has launched a national campaign called She Safe, We Safe to increase safe interventions in gender-based violence that do not rely on contact with the police, while reallocating funding from the police to “community-determined programs that address gender-based violence in Black communities.”

These grassroots organizations, amongst numerous others, are mobilizing for transformative justice for disabled Black women and gender non-conforming Black people being disproportionately targeted  by police, particularly in the face of a recent Trump administration executive order to end all federal worker training on racial bias involving critical race theory and white privilege, claiming that these are the two ideologies driving division while perpetuating “anti-American propaganda.”

In response to the September executive order, Cevik believes that the Trump administration’s order drives further division by reinforcing racial bias. “While the true impact of such an executive order is contingent on the actual effectiveness of the training presently offered, and what systemic changes were occurring in concurrence with the training to actually result in attitudinal change,” Cevik continued, “the public relations and culture war attempts have been building for four years.”

Natalie Crystal Doggett

About the Author: Natalie Crystal Doggett is a fellow with The Loreen Arbus Accessibility is Fundamental Program, an inaugural fellowship created to train women with disabilities as professional journalists so that they may write, research and report on the most crucial issues impacting the disabilities community.

November 18th 2020, 10:58 am

Is Justice Gender-blind?


Lisa Montgomery is about to be federally executed on December 8th for having committed a truly grim and heinous crime – killing a young mother and cutting her unborn baby from the womb in order to claim the child as her own. She did so in a psychotic episode.

Between 1976 and 2016, sixteen American women (including Karla Faye TuckerWanda Jean AllenKimberly McCarthy) were executed. These women mainly killed one, sometimes two people; in only two cases did they kill multiple victims.

During the same approximate time period seventeen American male killers—men who killed anywhere from 14–100 women, mainly prostitutes—were overall given sentences much less severe. Only five (29%) were executed: the rest were allowed to live out their lives in prison. This includes Robert HansenArthur Shawcross, the Green River Killer, and The Grim Sleeper. Juries, for any number of reasons, did not vote to execute them or were not given that choice to make.

Oh, what a clear and terrifying measure of how cheap women’s lives are! Prostituted and sexually terrorized women are disposable throwaways who remain invisible to us both in life and in death. They are shown little mercy while alive, and are totally forgotten after they’ve been murdered. Rarely do we even learn their names. When finally apprehended (after many years), too many of their killers get to live out their natural lives.

This may appear as if I’m arguing for the death penalty. I am not. Paradoxically, this is just one more reason to oppose legal executions. The death sentence is not fairly, justly, or evenly applied across both race and gender. In addition, poor suspects are never represented as well as the wealthy are.

Like other executed and jailed women, Aileen Carol Wuornos, about whom I write in my new book, Requiem for a Female Serial Killer, and Lisa Montgomery, lived their entire lives in war zones. As Sandra Babcock, of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide writes: “Lisa’s life reads like the script of a horror movie.” Her alcoholic mother both terrorized, punished, and beat her during childhood, and prostituted her when she was eleven years old. Older men, first a live-in stepfather, then Johns, penetrated Lisa “anally, orally, and vaginally, one after the other” when she was a teenager. Lisa clearly developed “a complex post-traumatic stress disorder.”

A human being does not easily recover from torture. Most are forever after unnaturally “vigilant” and paranoid and survive only in disassociated states. Many turn to drugs and alcohol to keep them disassociated from their painful histories.

Wuornos was also savagely beaten, death-threatened, raped and impregnated when she was fourteen, thrown out of her dysfunctional home afterwards and “survived” by selling sex. Like Montgomery, Wuornos was also born with profound cognitive and neurological limitations. By the time she was fifteen years old, Wuornos was selling sex for food, beer, music, and lodging. Like all prostitutes, Wuornos was repeatedly raped (actually she was being paid to be raped), beaten, gang-raped, robbed, tortured and nearly killed. In my opinion, she did kill in self-defense that first time. Thereafter, something changed. I write about that in Requiem.

Women are less violent than men but when a woman is violent, she is seen as even more dangerous than a man, as unnatural, and she is shown as little mercy at trial as in her life. For example, Wuornos’ jury needed only one hour and 31 minutes to find her guilty and one hour and 48 minutes to sentence her to death. Serial killer Ted Bundy’s jury (and he killed nearly100 women), took seven hours to find him guilty and seven and a half hours to sentence him to death.

Women are routinely given greater sentences than men are for committing the same crime. Battered women who finally save their own lives are usually given life sentences without parole. Killing even a violent husband is still, at some level, seen as committing patricide/regicide and the woman must be severely punished as an example to other women.

Most sexually tortured and traumatized girls and women die slowly and anonymously. Some fight back, some defend their lives, some jump right out of their minds.

Lisa Montgomery did. Can We, the People, find it in our hearts to show her a measure of mercy? Can We, the People, allow her to live the rest of her life in prison?

Justice is not justice when it is not tempered by mercy.

About the author: Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D., is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at City University of New York and author of the new book Requiem for a Female Serial Killer. Dr. Chesler is a co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology, The National Women’s Health Network, and The International Committee for the (Original) Women of the Wall. Dr. Chesler wrote the landmark feminist classic Women and MadnessThe New Anti-Semitism,Woman’s Inhumanity to WomanAn American Bride in KabulA Family Conspiracy: Honor Killing, and a memoir: A Politically Incorrect Feminist.

November 15th 2020, 6:25 pm

Abortion Without Borders: Standing with Polish Women


Protesters holding signs during a rally in Poland on October 27th, 2020. Photograph: Kasia Strek
Have you seen those extraordinary photos? The women of Poland, thousands and thousands of them, pouring into the streets, disrupting business as usual and denouncing the government’s new ban on abortion. They carried symbols of red thunderbolts, umbrellas and wire coal hangers – hangers! A universal symbol of dangerous, illegal abortions which they refused to accept.

      I immediately flashed back to the action I had led decades earlier in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC in 1989, surging across Fifth Avenue with hundreds more to the Cathedral steps. I held high a six-foot replica of a wire hanger, chanting with the many others, “Not the Church, not the State, Women will Decide our Fate!”  Two of our crew stood before the massive bronze doors and held up a huge Proclamation which began, “On behalf of the women of New York City and their sisters throughout the country and out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, we stand here today…”

Merle Hoffman raises her trademark hanger outside St. Patricks Cathedral in New York in 1989. This was the first pro-choice civil disobedience action in history.

This action was inspired by then Cardinal O’Connor’s active support for anti-abortion blockades of clinics. It was the first pro-choice civil disobedience action, an historic event that could not be ignored by the media. The New York Times quoted me as saying, “Women’s rights are in a state of emergency,” and the Philadelphia Enquirer stated the action marked “an important strategic change in the movement.” Oh, how I want to be there in Poland with these fearless and inspiring women, storming into the streets and challenging government and religious institutions. Marching and chanting, full of revolutionary rectitude!

      Unfortunately, it wasn’t possible to travel to Poland directly due to the Coronavirus, but I  needed to do something. I contacted a feminist academic and writer in Warsaw involved in the protests. I was asked to write a letter of support from American Feminists that could be widely disseminated and published in a major newspaper. So I did, and Phyllis Chesler, Gloria Steinem, Frances Kissling, Naomi Wolf and others soon signed on. (See the letter, below.) It was published earlier this week in both Polish and English in the women’s extra to Poland’s largest daily news outlet, GAZETA WYBORCZA and was shared widely on social media by The Women’s Strike (the leading organization behind the demonstrations) as well as by local women’s groups. (Read article here.)

Women hold up wire coat hangers as part of recent massive demonstrations in Poland, protesting abortion ban by Polish government. Photo: NURPHOTO/ZUMA PRESS 

Just as I am now inspired by the courage of the Polish women, so was I inspired to travel to Russia and assist in developing women’s health services there when I heard the story of one woman who came to Choices Women’s Medical Center for her 36th abortion. I was also inspired by attacks on women’s clinics to organize the St. Patrick’s action, and I have been inspired to carry on this work at Choices – with my wonderful staff – by the memory of holding the hand of the first patient who stepped through our doors nearly 50 years ago. It’s always the women’s stories, the women’s needs and women’s bravery.

      The good news from Poland today is that the courage and persistence of Polish women have forced the government to pause and step back from implementing its all but total, viciously cruel ban, even forbidding abortions where the fetus has severe abnormalities. The fight is not over, but we are confident the women of Poland will continue to inspire the rest of us. 
Letter of Support:
November 4th, 2020

To the Great Women of Poland,

The world is in awe of your principled activism and is filled with admiration for your courage and commitment. American Feminists stand with you. We salute and support you with love and pride.

You have marched by the thousands in response to the October 22nd Tribunal ruling which denied abortion even in cases of fetal abnormality in what has been called the largest demonstration in the country since the fall of communism.

Ignoring threats of prosecution, violence from the Right, and the dangers posed by a surging Coronavirus, while displaying symbols of Red Thunderbolts, Hangers and Umbrellas, your resistance intensifies daily. You have challenged formerly “untouchable” institutions and are a stellar example of what people everywhere need to do in the fight against oppression and for women’s freedom.

Julia Przylebska, President of the Tribunal, has stated that allowing abortions in cases of fetal abnormality legalizes “eugenics” and because the Polish Constitution guarantees a right to life, terminating a pregnancy based on the health of the fetus amounts to “a directly forbidden form of discrimination.” This latest ruling imposes a near total ban in Poland that already has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe.

You have had the courage to say no to this egregious diminishment of women’s humanity and moral agency.

Legal abortion is an integral core of women’s health and is the necessary condition for women’s freedom. We all know that nothing stops abortion – no law, no government, no religious authority. Making abortion illegal only makes it dangerous and deadly.

You demand legalization of abortion in the name of all your daughters, mothers, sisters, and grandmothers who alone and in pain lost their lives in back alleys or on dirty kitchen tables for their right to choose.

Women of Poland-We stand with you and attest that Women’s Rights are Human Rights.

Women are full moral agents with the right and ability to choose when and whether or not they will be mothers.

Abortion is a choice made by each individual for profound personal reasons that no man nor state should judge or control. 

The right to make reproductive choices is women’s legacy throughout history and belongs to every woman regardless of age, class, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference.

Abortion is a life-affirming act chosen within the context of women’s realities, women’s lives, and women’s sexuality.
Abortion is often the most moral choice in a world that frequently denies healthcare, housing, education, and economic survival to women.

Women’s rights remain in a state of emergency. If not now, when? If not you–then who?

We stand with you in solidarity. 

Choices Women’s Medical Center

Author,Co-Founder, National Women’s Health Network, Association of Women in Psychology

Activist and Author


Executive Director/Editor-in-Chief, Women’s eNews

ape Survivors Advocate

Editor-in-Chief, The Root

Board Chair, ERA Fund for Women’s Equality;

Board Chair, Women Moving Millions

President ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

Recipient Chair of the inaugural Ruth Bader Ginsburg Professor of Law

Associate Professor, Hutchins Center for African and African American Research
Harvard University

Board Chair, Our Bodies, Ourselves, on behalf of the Board and Founders

Member of the Board of Directors of the LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York, Equality NY and the National Transgender Bar Association     

BAHAR JALALI                  
Founder of the First Women and Gender Studies Program in Afghanistan

Matrimonial Lawyer

President, The Center for Health, Ethics and Social Policy
Washington, DC

Executive Director & Publisher, Feminist Press   
City University of New York

Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard University (part-time)

Executive Director, Equality Campaign


De Paul University College of Law

President & CEO, New York Women’s Foundation

Professor of Japanese Studies
Harvard University

President, Sy Syms Foundation
Recent Chair of the Women’s Equality Fund

Founder of Renaissance House, a retreat for writers on social issues

Professor of Women and Gender Studies,
Arizona State University

Author, Screenwriter, Playwright

CEO at Civically Re-Engaged Women (Crew)

Candidate for Manhattan District Attorney

Feminist and Zionist activist, author.

Author, anthropologist


Sculptor, Founding President of

Author, Professor of Languages, Literatures and Culture
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Dottir Press

Attorney at law
Brooklyn, NY

DePaul Universtiy
College of Law

Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies
University of Haifa

Author and Wise Woman

International Human Rights Activist, UK

Novelist, poet


Project Kesher

Director, Suppressed Histories Archives


University of Maryland

Co-editor of


Choreographer, dancer.


Feminist Musician


Pacifica Radio WBAI





Psychologist and Author, “The Battered Woman”

About the author: Merle Hoffman is the Founder, President and CEO of Choices Women’s Medical Center.

November 12th 2020, 6:12 pm

Run and Get an IUD or Implant Now…and Tell a Friend!


What you need to know about SCOTUS, the Affordable Care Act and its effects on birth control access

What you need to know about birth control in 2020:

If you have a uterus and are of reproductive age, you might want to consider getting an IUD or implant now. Why? Because on Nov 10th, the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) began hearing arguments in California v. Texas, which could end up with the ACA (Affordable Care Act) being rendered unconstitutional. 

How does that relate to birth control access? Under the ACA, all FDA approved methods of birth control for those with uteri are required to be covered for “free,” meaning that there is no copay and no deductible. However, if the SCOTUS strikes down the ACA, then this could end.

The ACA birth control mandate has saved women and their families millions of dollars. It is estimated that in the first year the ACA birth control mandate was in effect, it saved women $1.4 billion. “The average pill user saved $254.91 per year.” Before the ACA, out-of-pocket expenses for birth control accounted for 30-44% of women’s out-of-pocket health care spending. After the ACA, women could spend that money on rent, food, etc. By increasing access to birth control, we decrease abortion and unplanned pregnancies, resulting in better economic opportunities and education for women and their families. 

If you are on the birth control pill, patch, or ring, know that in 17 states you can get a year’s supply of birth control at a time, so consider getting as much birth control as you can now. By law, these states require insurances to provide a year’s supply of birth control pills at a time: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Contact your prescriber to write a year’s supply. Let your provider know “it’s the law” in your state. (You can ask for 13 or 17 packs of pills, 13 rings, or 39 or 52 patches.)

If you have any problems getting a year’s supply because your insurance refuses, call your insurance and say “it’s the law.” If that doesn’t work, then contact, a project of the National Women’s Law Center. They have sample scripts to argue with your insurance companies and letters that you can write. 

If you have a uterus and are of reproductive age, get some prescription emergency contraception now. Again, the ACA covers it with no copay and no deductible, so it’s “free.” Prescription emergency contraception (Ella) works better at every time point and for BMIs of 26-35 when compared to Plan B and its generics. If you have a BMI of 26 or greater, know that Plan B and its generics probably won’t work, so please CHECK your BMI

What can you do if you support those with uteri having access to “free” (no copay, no deductible) birth control?

Tell SCOTUS: #KeepTheACA #SaveTheACA. Chief Justice John Roberts is known to be receptive to public opinion and does not want to go down in history as a bad Chief Justice. So PROTEST, get on social media, and make it clear: The ACA benefits the public, and we want it to stay.

Tell insurance companies and State Government Officials: It is fiscally smart and morally right to cover birth control. So even if the ACA is overturned, there is nothing stopping insurance companies from providing birth control with no copay, no deductible, and there is nothing stopping politicians and elected officials from passing laws mandating coverage for “free.” It is far cheaper to cover birth control than to pay for an unplanned pregnancy. It costs $800 for an abortion, $10,000 for a vaginal delivery, and $40,000 for a C-section. That does NOT include the pre- and postnatal care, well-child visits, ultrasounds, lab tests, etc. For every $1 spent by the government on birth control, it saves $7 on healthcare expenses. 

Kudos to the 29 states and Washington, D.C that mandate birth control coverage. Kudos to the 16 states and Washington, D.C. that have passed laws to keep the birth control mandate in place even if the ACA is reversed. Check for your state here

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and permanent contraception/sterilization is expensive but effective.

An IUD/implant could cost $1300, so get an IUD or implant NOW if you are considering it. If you are thinking about permanent contraception, a tubal ligation can cost up to $6000, whereas a vasectomy is only $1000 and far less invasive and more effective. 

Per Contraceptive Technology 2018, the chart below provides statistics of the typical failure rates of these options:

Failure RateDuration
19-20 mcg IUD with hormone (Liletta, Mirena)1/10005-7 yrs
Implant1/10003-5 yrs
Vasectomy *1.5/1000forever
17.5 mcg IUD with hormone (Kyleena)2/10005 yrs
14 mcg of IUD with hormone (Skyla)4/10003 yrs
Tubal Ligation5/1000forever
Copper IUD8/100010-12 yrs

*Not covered by the ACA but covered by Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington.

To learn more about these methods, click here.

The hormonal IUDs result in lighter (70% of users) or no periods (30%). The copper IUD causes more cramps and more blood loss but is a good option if you can’t use anything with hormones (ie. you have heart disease, blood clot disorder, etc. Discuss with your doctor first.).

What’s new in birth control?

There’s a new birth control vaginal ring, patch, and progestin-only pill.

The new vaginal ring is Annovera, which carries a new progesterone segesterone and a very low dose of estrogen (13 mcg per day). The benefit of the new progesterone segesterone is that it does not have androgenic side effects like acne, blood lipid effects, hairiness, etc.

This method may not be best for those under 30 years old, however. The concern is that this estrogen level may negatively impact women who are under that age. A pediatric endocrinologist, pediatric adolescent gynecologist, and adolescent medicine doctors at Stanford recommend at least 30 mcg of estrogen for birth control pills, because research has shown that lower levels result in lower bone mineral density. 

Annovera is placed intravaginally for 21 days then removed and out of the body for one week (during which time the user will experience a withdrawal bleed). It has not been tested for continuous use (skipping periods).

The cost without insurance is about $2000 and the cost with insurance and under the ACA should be “free” (no copay, no deductible).

You might want to try the one-month ring (NuvaRing, EluRyng) to see if you like a vaginal ring before trying Annovera.

The new birth control patch is called TWIRLA, which contains levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol. A woman uses one patch a week for three weeks, and then during the 4th week no patch is needed (during which time, a withdrawal bleed occurs). 

Of note: If your BMI is 25-30, it might not work as well. And If your BMI is 30 or greater, the manufacturer does not recommend you use it because:

1. It doesn’t work as well 

2. It puts you at higher risk for a blood clot. 

The concern about the patch is that previous studies have shown that the risk of developing a blood clot [venous thromboembolism (VTE)] is twice as likely on the patch than on standard birth control pills. This is thought to be due to the fact that the hormone goes through the skin and skips having to go through the stomach. 

The benefit of this patch is that it is slightly lower in estrogen (30 mcg vs. the Xulane patch at 35 mcg). However, users will most likely still experience higher levels in the blood than with birth control pills. The major side effect noticed is breast tenderness compared to birth control pills, but this was of similar levels to those on the birth control pills after the 1st month. 

There is a also new progesterone-only pill (POP): Slynd. The benefit to this pill is that it has a much more forgiving window of effectiveness. For most POPs, if you are three hours late taking it, you need to abstain from heterosexual intercourse or use a backup for the next few days and use emergency contraception if you have had heterosexual intercourse in the previous three days. However, Slynd has a 24-hour dosing window, like the “regular” birth control pills, which contain estrogen and progesterone. The major drawback of Slynd is cost: $193-$268 per month vs. regular birth control pills at $15 per month or other POPs at $8-$30 per month. Also, the progesterone in Slynd is drospirenone, which is not good for anyone with kidney issues. Generally, I like to make sure the patient can drink eight glasses of water a day because it might have a diuretic effect which may result in headaches if the patient doesn’t drink enough water.

For further information about the birth-control options available, visit Pandia Health.

Dr. Sophia Yen is Co-Founder and CEO of Pandia Health, the only #WomenFounded, #WomenLed, #DoctorLed birth control delivery company.

November 11th 2020, 6:02 pm

Friday is National Birthday Control Day, yet Barriers to Birth Control Access Persist


Birth control is essential healthcare, whether it’s used to prevent pregnancy, reduce menstrual migraines, or help control medical conditions like endometriosis. Yet many people who need it face stubborn barriers to access — and the COVID pandemic has strengthened those barriers while creating new ones. When shelter-in-place orders began in the spring, people in need of birth control turned to telehealth to access it in a safe and convenient way.

While the pandemic has emphasized how challenging it can be to access birth control, even before this year many people couldn’t access contraception conveniently and affordably, or (in some cases) not at all. More than 19 million women in the US are in need of publicly funded birth control and live in contraceptive deserts, an area where women in need lack access to a health center that offers the full range of contraceptive methods. Further, approximately 1.5 million women live in a county without a single health center offering the full range of methods.

Whether a woman is facing financial, geographic, or logistical barriers, or safety concerns related to COVID, telehealth can be a solution, and it doesn’t stop with birth control. Telehealth is especially helpful for accessing care that may have stigma associated with it. This year our company has witnessed over 120% increase in home STI testing services, a nearly 200% increase in herpes treatment requests, and a 300% increase in requests for emergency contraception.

To address COVID-related gaps in care for college-age people, a new College Health Hub was launched, providing students with information on sexuality and sexual health from medical experts and sex educators.

Beyond the ability to access medication and tests, telehealth services can also offer something that’s also crucial, especially this year: The ability for patients and medical providers to connect at their convenience, and on their terms.

Fundamentally, telehealth empowers patients, giving them access to birth control and other essential care without requiring them to jump through hoops to get the required services they need.

Varsha Rao is the CEO of Nurx, a digital health company providing convenient and affordable access for sensitive health needs. With over 300,000 patients across the country, Nurx is the leading online provider for birth control. Prior to Nurx, Rao served as COO of Clover Health and Head of Global Operations at Airbnb.

November 11th 2020, 8:12 am

Thinking of Not Voting? Think Again, please…


I know it doesn’t seem as though a far-away country liberating itself from 25 years of war and chaos would have anything to do with present day the United States, but what happened there should be both our warning and our inspiration — and a testament to the power women have to swing an election, no matter what the odds.

In 1997, Liberia was under the control of a warlord named Charles Taylor. In the country’s “transition to democracy,” he ran for president promising peace while terrorizing the population into voting for him.  He used campaign slogans like “He killed my ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him.”  While there was a woman on the ballot — who was not a warlord — Liberia’s women either stayed home entirely, or voted for Taylor, as their husbands had dictated. Charles Taylor won by 75% of the vote, and soon after plunged the country into another four-plus years of civil war, destroying what was left of the country.

But this time, building on a grassroots women’s movement that led to a peace agreement and Charles Taylor’s exile in 2003, a massive effort targeting women led them to become 50.1% of registered voters, according to the Carter Center. While women overwhelmingly supported Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, believing “a vote for the woman is a vote for peace,” it would take every woman showing up and voting for Ellen, as everyone called her, to be victorious. To prevent authoritarian tactics delegitimizing the result, they didn’t just need a majority….they needed a landslide. 

But a lot of factors very familiar to American voters were stacked against them, such as poll access. A third of the country’s population had been displaced, including a quarter million living as refugees in neighboring countries who were required to make the long, dangerous journey to Liberia to vote. Further, culture and tradition went against supporting a woman leader, and local laws required women to obey their husbands.  Men, overwhelmingly, supported her opponent, George Weah, an inexperienced, uneducated (and anti-intellectual), soccer star whose campaign included scare tactics such as the slogan, “No Weah, No Peace.”

The biggest wildcard was whether women would, as they had previously done, permit the temptation to let the exhaustion, trauma, and confusion of living under an authoritarian leader result in inaction — a reminder that voting is, ultimately, an individual act, outside the reach of mass movements.

A woman I traveled with to Liberia for the election, who had been living in a refugee camp in Sierra Leone, summed it up this way:  “The last election, I voted for Charles Taylor the way my husband told me to. Most of my friends did not vote at all. Then Charles Taylor’s men raped and killed my daughter in front of me and stole my little boy to fight. This time, if I follow my heart and vote for the woman, maybe she still won’t win. But I know she can’t win without me.” 

In the face of all odds, she, along with thousands of her countrywomen, found a way to chose empowerment over despair, hoping enough others would too, and change the course of history. They registered other women while selling vegetables in the markets in IDP camps. And many, as we had, crammed themselves by the dozens into cars flooding with gasoline to undertake an uncomfortable and dangerous journey back to Liberia. “So,” the woman concluded, “I have come to save my country.”

And it paid off. Ellen won by 59%, largely due to women. So overwhelming was the landslide that George Weah, who initially, without evidence, filed charges of election fraud, backed down peacefully and accepted the results. Liberia had elected Africa’s first woman president. Peace had won.

This is what must happen here.

As it was with Liberia in 2007, our previous presidential election was largely decided by (white suburban) women who chose fear and anxiety and promises made by a self-proclaimed “strongman.”  His election was also won by the millions who stayed home.

This election will be won by women too. We know the tide of public opinion among women has shifted away from Trump and authoritarianism, but for that shift to play out in the voting booth requires an act of faith — combined with individual woman claiming their power. If it helps to remember that the women of post-war Liberia, against insurmountable odds, were able to choose empowerment over apathy, fear, and despair, our election, too, will become an earthquake that shakes the world.

About the Author: Rachel Leventhal is a documentary journalist focusing on stories about women and the environment.  She is the founder of Women’s P2P Network, an organization that leverages technology to help women connect and organize across borders.  Their current project is developing tools to support women globally who are running for political office.  Rachel was in West Africa in 2005 writing about  and photographing women involved in the peace movement.

November 4th 2020, 1:41 pm

Don’t Miss: Black Women, Wealth & Homeownership


VIRTUAL EVENT! @WealthWednesdays, @AngelaYee and @Stacey Tisdale are bringing you a special edition of #RealEstateReset!.  We are celebrating black women and aiming to make more of them homeowners with special guest host @GloriaSteinem! Who ‘takes us to school’ on the role black women played in all women’s rights!. Experts also discuss: How to navigate your career on the road to homeownership; Why more black women are using online mortgage lenders, and more!  The show airs October 28th at 12pm on the @Breakfastclubam YouTube!  Click to sign up for the countdown clock and to watch!

November 4th 2020, 1:41 pm

Will the Kamala Harris Candidacy Increase the Women’s Vote?


On August 11, 2020, Joe Biden announced the selection of the first woman of color, Kamala Harris, as his Vice-Presidential candidate.

“Kamala, as you all know is smart, she’s tough, she’s experienced, she’s a proven fighter for the backbone of this country, the middle class, for all those who are struggling to get into the middle class,” Biden said, just before introducing her. “Kamala knows how to govern. She knows how to make the hard calls. She’s ready to do this job on Day One and we’re both ready to get to work, rebuilding this nation and building it better,” he continued. “One of the reasons I chose Kamala is because we both believe that we can define America simply in one word, possibilities. Possibilities. Let me say it again, possibilities. That’s America. That’s what sets this nation apart, is that everyone, everyone, the ability for everyone, and we mean everyone, to go as far and dream as big as hard work and their God-given ability will take them.” 

Yet when considering the success of any female political candidate, we need to talk about ‘likeability,’ because this is the issue that, regardless of how experienced and accomplished a woman is, it will affects her chance of being elected, as was the case with Hillary’s Clinton’s 2016 presidential run.

According to the PEW Research Center, Clinton captured 54% of the women’s vote and Trump 39%; Clinton captured 45% of the white women vote, and Trump 47%, and Clinton captured a much higher percentage of the younger voters compared to Trump. But 4 out of 10 eligible voters did not vote, which helped to hand Trump the election. 

So this begs the question. Will Kamala Harris’s candidacy impel more people to go to the polls in favor of a Democratic ticket on November 3rd?

Among the non-voters in 2016, the PEW Research Center’s findings show that they were younger, less educated, lower income, and non-white. It is speculated that Harris, being a woman of color, may be able to capture the non-white vote. If Harris can bring to the polls both the non-white and white women nonvoters of 2016, this could be the determining factor in who wins the 2020 presidency.

In the past few weeks, Trump has been feverishly trying to woo white suburban women, but it has not proven successful. According to an Oct. 26th article in the New York Times, “The white suburban voters the president needs to carve a path to victory have turned away from him, for deeply personal reasons”. 

The traditional demographics of being white, female, suburban has changed. For example, an increasing number of successful suburban white women in the United States do not have children. According to a study by the New York-based think tank the Center for Work-Life Policy, “43 percent of college-educated women between the ages of 33 and 46 are childless. Whether they call themselves “childless,” “childfree,” “childless-by-choice” or even just “still on the fence,” a significant number of New York women in their 30s and 40s are taking a pass on motherhood.”

Kamala Harris is a prime example of a woman who prioritized a professional career over the traditional suburban lifestyle. Harris does not have kids of her own, choosing to instead parent her stepchildren (who lovingly call her “Momala”), making her life choices more relatable to today’s white suburban woman.

Further, Trump’s track record as president is not helping his plight. In a recent NPR/PBS poll, 66% of suburban women said they disapproved of Trump’s performance as president overall, and 58% said they strongly disapproved. 

Additionally, the increasing US case count and death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the recent Black Lives Matter protests over police brutality cases, may further encourage people to vote for change. “When people see their own rights, the rights of their family, and the rights of their friends and neighbors being attacked, it inspires them to push for change,” says Heidi Sieck, Co-Founder & CEO of #VoterProChoice. “I do think that young people are eager for a change, and that the Biden-Harris ticket is the only choice available that would allow us to realize that change. Roughly 51% of Millennials voted in the 2016 election, and given the recent activation of millions over the mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis as well as this year’s social justice uprisings, we can only hope for a higher turnout in this election.”

About the writer: Simone Soublet, a communications and journalism studies student at Loyola Marymount University, is a 2020 fellow in the Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program* at Women’s eNews, funded by the Sy Syms Foundation. The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program at Women’s eNews fellowship supports editorial and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program

The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence program at Women’s eNews was launched in 2014 with support from the Sy Syms Foundation. The fellowship provides support and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

“For a democracy to flourish all voices must be heard.” says Marcy Syms, a founding Trustee and President of the Sy Syms Foundation. “Through its investigative reporting Women’s eNews gets at the essence of good journalism. The Sy Syms Foundation is proud of this collaboration to support today’s newest women journalists.”

As part of its mission to create social change for women and girls through investigative reporting, Women’s eNews helps foster, train, and support the career development of new journalists with a focus on social justice and women’s rights.

November 4th 2020, 1:41 pm

Female Philanthropy: The Time Is Now


The idea to launch  a website dedicated to women in philanthropy first came to Kiersten Marek in 2016, when Hillary Clinton was anticipated to win the presidential election and become the United State’s first woman president. When she launched it the following  year, it felt even more pertinent. 

“I really thought, ‘Wow, she’s going to get elected, and there’s going to be this massive realigning of government and social strategy about gender equality,’” said Marek, founder and editor-in-chief of Philanthropy Women. “But that didn’t happen, and instead we immediately saw regressions as soon as Donald Trump came into office.”

After a few years working at the online news site Inside Philanthropy, Marek, a therapist and social worker based in Rhode Island, recognized the need for a space to promote and support feminist philanthropy. 

“I noticed that there was this archetype of this feminist giver that was really extraordinary that no one really knew about, except for a very small circle of other donors,” she said. “I thought, ‘This is so bad.’ It really speaks to the fact that women don’t promote their own accomplishments, and I’m going to rectify this by filling this space myself.” 

In that respect, Philanthropy Women is a positive space, highlighting the important work being done to benefit women and girls and to push for gender equality. But it also shows the other, more devastating side, in which organizations have had to pull back their funding in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis and this nail-biting political season. It’s a huge blow to an already struggling cause — only 1.6% of funds from non-profits in the U.S. goes to programs supporting women and girls, and just 0.5% goes toward women and girls of color, according to the Ms. Foundation.

The shocking numbers have led women-run organizations like Women Moving Millions (WMM) to step up their efforts. “Our concern is the progress we’ve made toward gender equality is at risk and COVID will have a backsliding effect for women and girls around the world,” said Sarah Haacke Byrd, executive director. “They need our support more than ever — job losses, domestic violence, unpaid care and young women out of school are increasing. This is an important time to take our work to the next level.”

The result is WMM’a newest campaign, Give Bold, Get Equal, which has committed to raise $100 million in new funding for women and girls through 2022. Today, it has already generated $70 million in commitments from its members, who primarily invest in organizations that focus on economic security, violence against women, education and health.

Sapphira Goradia, Women Moving Millions board member, said the campaign speaks volumes — but its focus is nothing new. “The need for resources to help women and girls has been around forever,” said Goradia, who is also the executive director of the Vijay and Marie Goradia Foundation. “We [as women] have our own power — why not own that and work together in collaboration to move the needle? We are building off the shoulders of women.”

It also says a lot about how women have risen in the philanthropy world, and how they’re increasingly in a position to give. “In the last decade, women have continued to gain a tremendous amount of wealth — $72 trillion globally,” Byrd explained. “With increased wealth and leadership comes the power and responsibility to do something in this moment.”

Donna Hall, executive director of the Women Donors Network, echoed this timeline, adding that she feels the concept of philanthropy is changing. While ultra-wealthy women like MacKenzie Scott and Melinda Gates are setting the stage for women of equal standing, it’s now time to think about how to reach everyone else to emphasize putting money into the system. “Women who are now earning their own money are not considered super-wealthy, but they are engaged in their activism and giving money in ways that they haven’t before,” said Hall, whose organization is based in San Francisco. “I think we have a huge untapped market of women who are earning solid salaries and want to be educated and want to be activated and are looking for opportunities. And if you look at the assets that women are projected to inherit in the next 30 years or so, it’s just a phenomenal amount of money.” 

Hall added that  she would love to see women’s funds established and financially secure throughout the country, calling the percentage of philanthropic dollars going to women and girls — a reminder: 1.6% and only 0.5% for women of color — was “so appallingly low.” Several, like the Women’s Funding Network and The Women’s Fund in Texas, have been around for about 40 years. “A lot of the women’s funds are struggling in this year and the last couple years to really stay afloat, which is just a very sad commentary on the priorities that we give to the needs of women and girls in all sectors of our society,” she said. “That’s been discouraging to me.”

“I think they need more help in this time, but they need a lot of help all the time,” Hall continued. “There’s still a lot of prejudice against women and girls, there’s a need to really invest in education and training and leadership developments for women at all stages of life, there’s a big need for mentoring. There’s just a big need for resources, a big accumulation of resources.”

Hall took the helm of the Women Donors Network in 2002. She said the biggest difference now, 18 years later, is that women are more activated and willing to spend money to give power to those who should have it. That’s highlighted in the Women Donors Network’s grant-making model: It tends to give general operating money, turning the people on the ground into decision-makers about what to do and how to do it. “There’s a total disequilibrium in this country right now, and we want to try to address that in the way we do out business,” she said. 

Yet, Philanthropy Women’s Kiersten Marek wonders if people are simply burning out funding gender equality. “It’s just hard. There are only 1.6%, so you feel so isolated and alienated most of the time,” she said. “You’re such a minority in this field and your message is so relevant, and yet people are not picking it up.”

Despite losing donors herself, she’s not giving up. She has a knowledge database of more than 675 gender-equality funders. She also knows there’s never been a better time to talk about women’s leadership (“The science proves it,” she says, pointing to how female leaders around the world were generally more successful in handling the pandemic). She feels hope knowing that if Joe Biden takes office, Kamala Harris “will make sure that this agenda doesn’t die.”

“I think that where women are really growing is in their understanding of their own capacities now,” Marek said. “They’re really starting to look at more ambitious strategies and different ways of putting their money into the culture of promoting gender equality.”

About the writer: Alyssa Fisher, who recently earned her undergraduate degree in Journalism at the University of Florida, is a 2020 fellow in the Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program* at Women’s eNews, funded by the Sy Syms Foundation. The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program at Women’s eNews fellowship supports editorial and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program

The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence program at Women’s eNews was launched in 2014 with support from the Sy Syms Foundation. The fellowship provides support and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

“For a democracy to flourish all voices must be heard.” says Marcy Syms, a founding Trustee and President of the Sy Syms Foundation. “Through its investigative reporting Women’s eNews gets at the essence of good journalism. The Sy Syms Foundation is proud of this collaboration to support today’s newest women journalists.”

As part of its mission to create social change for women and girls through investigative reporting, Women’s eNews helps foster, train, and support the career development of new journalists with a focus on social justice and women’s rights.

November 4th 2020, 1:41 pm

Tonight: Celebrating 21 Leaders for the 21st Century!


New Registrations are being accepted until 3pm (EST) today!

October 25th 2020, 12:56 pm

Disabilities and the Workforce: A Community Too Long Overlooked


It has been well documented that marginalized communities face wage and employment discrimination. A significant wage gap exists between women and men, and people of color experience unfair employment practices. But did you know that members of the disabilities community also experience a significant amount of discrimination? Since October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month, this is a a perfect time to shed light on barriers people with disabilities face when it comes to employment practices and, in particular, accessible employment.

 Twenty five percent of Americans have a disability, and experience twice the unemployment rate than those without disabilities. For disabled women and for disabled women of color, the rates of unemployment are even more staggering. Too often, the stigma associated with disabled employees is that they cannot be as productive as nondisabled employees. Although this may be true for some, this is not true for all. To better understand the challenges the disability community faces, it is therefore important to expose a number of myths.

Yes, being disabled is expensive, especially when no insurance coverage is available. Mobility devices, medical equipment, medication, doctors’ visits, and other costs related to being disabled can mount and quickly put a person, even an employed person, into debt. Disabled people therefore need insurance that works for them and will pay for the care they need in order to live, but Medicaid, one of the few available options, comes with several obstacles. One obstacle is that, depending on the state a person resides, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is required in order to receive Medicaid. SSI validates a person’s disability status, and therefore ensures the need for Medicaid. Yet SSI recipients are subject to many strict and limiting rules. For example, in order to receive SSI, an individual has to prove inability to work, and even if approved, SSI only pays a maximum of $783/month, which is not enough for most individuals to live on. Another caveat is that SSI recipients cannot have more than $2,000 in their bank account or in total assets at one time. In addition, an SSI recipient’s earned income is not allowed to exceed that of the maximum SSI payment.

This creates a huge dilemma for people with disabilities. While healthcare is often too costly without Medicaid assistance, receiving Medicaid prevents disabled people from getting a job because their earnings may be too high to qualify, while they can only possess a small amount of savings. These are major reasons why some disabled people who are able to work full time choose to only work part time; they fear losing their healthcare. Yet, working part time often prevents the employee from receiving employer-paid health benefits, making people more dependent on Medicaid. This also forces many disabled people to live with their families or friends, which in turn can inhibit their ability to become independent.

In addition to healthcare challenges, people with disabilities often encounter barriers to employment in the form of discrimination. Many job descriptions require the ability to lift and carry a minimum amount of weight, even if doing so is not actually a part of the job. This immediately discriminates against many people, especially those who are disabled, who cannot fulfill this requirement. Further, disabled people often wrestle the decision of whether or not to disclose their disability when applying for a job. Although a person is not legally required to disclose a disability on a job application, visibly disabled people are not able to conceal it. Kaycee Marshall, a fashion designer in a wheelchair, says she has faced roadblocks when applying to jobs and internships in her field. “I was so excited to get an internship for a luxury designer in New York. After I had already accepted the job, they noticed my Gmail picture showed me in a wheelchair and informed me that I wouldn’t be able to take the position because ‘[their studio] is up a flight of stairs.’” Kaycee recalls. “I’m not sure how true this is, but I was devastated. I didn’t disclose my disability at the internship and I then removed the picture from my email. I will never know how many rejections I received based on my disability alone.”

Once a disabled person becomes employed, other challenges may arise. Due to waiver 14© under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers like Goodwill and Opportunity Village are legally able to pay disabled employees less than minimum wage. Employers are allowed to “prove” to the Department of Labor that they should be able to pay their employees less than minimum wage and can do so by showing that the employee’s production rate is lower than the average nondisabled worker. This Act lends itself to ableist and capitalistic standards, standards that are not in place for nondisabled people.

Within the workplace, accommodations for disabled employees are often challenging, but they don’t need to be. A study conducted by the Job Accommodation Network found that “60% of workplace accommodations can be made for free, while the remaining cost is only $500 per employee, on average.”. For example, Andreana Franco, a higher education program coordinator with two autoimmune diseases, has to drive an hour to and from work on a daily basis. Her disability makes it difficult for her to concentrate and affects her energy levels, which make the long drives nearly impossible. Andreana also receives infusion treatments once a month, forcing her to take 3-5 days off from work each time. Although she has asked her employer if she could work from home, her request has been denied, claiming that her job is impossible to do from home. That is, until COVID-19 forced her employer to grant her request.

The COVID-19 pandemic has now required many employers to invoke some important accommodations, like working from home, that disabled people have been requesting for decades. It has also, in turn, opened employers’ eyes to the important need to provide accommodations for people with disabilities, particularly as an increasing number are becoming disabled due to the pandemic.

Since disabled people live in a world that wasn’t built for them, they have had to develop skills, such as adapting and problem solving; skills that are incredible assets and are typically sought after in the workplace. Further, hiring disabled people creates a more diverse and inclusive work environment, and inclusive companies have been shown to be “twice as likely to have higher total shareholder returns than their peers, on average” according to recent research conducted by Accenture. In addition, it was found that companies hiring disabled people saw “…28% higher revenue, double the net income and 30% higher economic profit margins over the four-year period we analyzed, on average.” Further, staff turnover rates for more inclusive companies are as much as 30% lower than those that are not.

Yet, still, beyond all of these benefits, perhaps the most important reason of all to hire people with disabilities is the right thing to do. 

Employers looking to increase the number of their employees who are disabled, and disabled people who are looking to work with employers that are already embracing the disability community, can find resources here.

Cheyenne Leonard is a fellow with The Loreen Arbus Accessibility is Fundamental Program, an inaugural fellowship created to train women with disabilities as professional journalists so that they may write, research and report on the most crucial issues impacting the disabilities community.

October 20th 2020, 4:59 pm

World Leaders Should Champion Gender Equality


Women’s rights, including the right to live free from violence or to make decisions about their own bodies, are in the crosshairs of reactionary forces in a way they haven’t been for decades. These attacks are coming from all sides, whether in countries with autocratic rule or established democracies like the United States.

On October 1, world leaders at this year’s virtual United Nations General Assembly have a chance to recognize and help neutralize this threat during a high-level event on gender equality and empowering women and girls. 

The landmark 1995 Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women reinforced “women’s rights as human rights” and created  a strong vision and blueprint for action. On its 25th anniversary, taking stock of progress made and challenges ahead is a mixed exercise, both inspiring and grim. 

It’s inspiring because movements for gender equality have shattered norms, introduced rights-respecting legislation around the world, and in many areas significantly shifted access to education, health, jobs, and individual freedoms for women, girls, and gender-nonconforming people. For example, the number of out-of-school girls dropped by 79 millionbetween 1998 and 2018, and 155 countries currently have laws addressing domestic violence

In other areas, there has been significant progress, but simply too slow or not enough. For example, global maternal mortality dropped by 38 percent between 2000 and 2017. Yet the goal is to eliminate preventable  maternal deaths – and most are preventable. The inequities in access to health care are stark across national borders, for women and girls living amid armed conflict, and across race, ethnicity, and class. Women’s and girls’ rights to access and claim property, including to matrimonial property or inheritance, still lag behind. 

Women’s representation in positions of economic and political power has advanced at a glacial rate. The gender gap in labor force participation has stagnated at 31 percent over the past 20 years. In 2019, women held just 25 percent of parliamentary (lower-house) seats and 21 percent of ministerial positions globally. In a stark and symbolic example,  47 male speakers took the floor in the opening days of this year’s UN General Assembly before the first woman, President Zuzana Caputova of Slovakia, spoke.

The road ahead feels grim because as activists for gender equality, we face not only the hard work of moving forward, but pushing back against powerful attempts to roll back women’s and girls’ rights. Disturbingly, if governments sat down together today to chart out a new platform on women’s rights, it is unlikely they could agree on one as progressive as what was negotiated 25 years ago. 

Margaret Atwood’s haunting tale of reproductive servitude in The Handmaid’s Tale looks less like fiction than shades of reality. Real-world examples include horrific accounts of bride trafficking in China and attempts to effectively eliminate access to safe and legal abortions in the United States. Fifty-eight countries have signed a US-drafted joint statement ostensibly supporting the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  While it looks innocent enough on the surface, the goal of the US statement is actually quite sinister.

 It seeks to promote the Trump administration’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, a regressive exercise attempting to undermine the universality of all human rights. In particular, it seeks to downgrade the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and the rights of women and girls, including access to reproductive health services. The list of countries essentially endorsing the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine rights includes those with abysmal or worsening track records on women’s rights–Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Poland, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. 

Activists are under attack. Male politicians make an astounding number of sexist, demeaning remarks about women leaders and gender equality. Women human rights defenders face increasing threats to their physical and online security, and their ability to organize and finance gender equality work.

Gender-based violence continues  in the home, workplace, communities, and conflicts to subjugate women, girls, and gender-nonconforming individuals while reinforcing patriarchal structures and privilege. Governments often fail to protect lesbian, bisexual, queer, and transgender women from violence, whether domestic violencepolice violence, or community violenceOne in three women worldwide have experienced sexual violence or domestic violence in their lifetime, and as many as 38 percent of women murdered were killed by an intimate partner. Despite numerous resolutions and commitments to “women, peace, and security,” prevention and response to gender-based violence in conflict remains woefully weak.

The Covid-19 pandemic has further altered the landscape for achieving the goals set out in Beijing and in the UN Sustainable Development Goals on gender equality. Women make up 70 percent of front-line health workers, and often in the most precarious and unprotected roles — home health aides, cleaning staff, community health workers, and nursing home staff. Caregiving falls disproportionately to women and girls, straining participation in education and employment. Reports of domestic violence have increased during lockdowns in many countries, while services such as shelters and psychosocial – mental health –or legal support remain woefully under-resourced. Services that do exist often are not accessible to or do not consider the specific requirements of older women or women with disabilities.

What has worked, and where should advocates of gender equality invest? The greatest hope comes from the diverse movements that have exposed gender injustice and fought for change. Despite concerted political opposition, sexual and reproductive rights advocates have successfully liberalized abortion laws in dozens of countries. Domestic workers have mobilized at national and global levels to expose labor and other abuses, push for and win international standards, and translate them into national reforms. The #MeToo movement transformed public debate about sexual violence and has launched sustained momentum to shift social norms, support survivors, and demand accountability. 

What should governments do? They need to recognize that women’s rights are not secondary but integral to addressing the Covid-19 pandemic, looming economic recession, armed conflict, elections, and climate change. Addressing the gender impact of these issues, promoting women’s leadership, and backing up commitments with real economic resources and political will at all levels are essential.

The 25th anniversary of the Beijing conference could have been a celebration of progress made instead of a somber assessment of current and future dangers. Governments meeting October 1 can give us reason for hope by committing to new and measurable concrete actions, backed with dedicated resources and timelines to expedite progress on gender equality. The time to stand for gender equality is now.


Nisha Varia is the women’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch

September 30th 2020, 4:46 pm

Just 1 Month Remaining to Attend our ’21 Leaders for the 21st Century’ Awards Gala


Exactly one month from today, on Monday, October 26th, Women’s eNews will honor this year’s ’21 Leaders for the 21st Century!’

And since it is a Virtual Gala, you can attend from anywhere in the world!

Further, in honor of our 20th Anniversary this year, Women’s eNews is providing all ticket holders with the choice of a complimentary registration for one of the following workshops, to be taught by experienced media professionals:

*Create your own Blog!

*Launch your own Podcast!

*Become a published Op-Ed Writer!

Please Join Us in Honoring these Fearless and Inspiring Leaders, and learn how to get your voice out there as well, by registering below:

(All purchases are tax-deductible)

September 27th 2020, 8:00 pm

From the Executive Director: My Mother and RBG — The Class of 1950


            They were both born in 1933, less than two months apart. They both grew up in Brooklyn, New York, no more than one mile away. And they were both in the same graduating class at James Madison High School (1950).

            I first learned that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and my mother shared the same alma mater and graduation year only five months ago. Just when I thought I couldn’t learn anything new about my mother’s life in the sixty years I’ve known her, I was shocked, really, that she had omitted this one fascinating detail. But there she was, as my mother pointed to a blurry black and white photo of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (also nicknamed ‘Kiki’), a member of the graduating class in her high school yearbook.

James Madison High School Yearbook (1950)

            Since I initially wrote off this discovery as not much more than a novel piece of trivia to share with other family members at future family gatherings, I had barely thought about it since. That is, until Friday, September 18th.  

            When RBG died that day, and for the next day and the day after that, I read, watched and listened to tribute after tribute gripping the airwaves and social media outlets honoring Ginburg’s legacy. I then began to consider the daunting amount of courage it must have taken to embark on her own career, let alone one in the extremely male-dominated field of law, particularly at that time. It was glaring, in fact, since I viewed my mother as quite the opposite, choosing the much more sheltered, safe and secure role of housewife and mother, even though she longed to be on the stage, as a singer and actress, in addition to having a family.

            I found it fascinating comparing the two – now seventy years later – about the choices each of them had made. One taking the traditional and familiar path, while the other the more risky road less travelled.

            I therefore spent the last seven days going back seven decades, rummaging through old photos, letters, and newspaper clippings attempting to immerse myself in a time ten years before I was born. What must it have been like to be a teenager in America then, and in Brooklyn in particular, for a seventeen-year-old girl contemplating her future post high school graduation? I felt inspired by RBG’s choice, but disappointed by my mother’s.

            I learned that Brooklyn provided the ideal depiction of ‘Americanism’ at that time. A melting pot of recently arrived immigrants, the newsstands reflected that diversity where, in addition to The New York Times and the Daily News, other newspapers were published in a myriad of languages (among them the Italian Il Progresso, the Yiddish Forward, the Irish Echo in Gaelic, and others).

Yet for many, diversity was far more limiting than it was accepting. Public racism was rampant. Laws existed prohibiting interracial marriage, and it wasn’t until just three years earlier, in 1947, that Jackie Robinson became the first African American player in the major leagues. 

For women, there were very strict gender roles, which mainly consisted of preparing meals, doing the dishes and laundry and taking care of the children, all while being the ‘ideal wife.’ They were continually cautioned to ‘keep an attractive appearance’ for their husband and keep him happy, to prevent him from leaving. These gender roles became even more prominent following the end of WWII, which ushered in a new age of prosperity, where men would be the sole provider, contributing to their feelings of male superiority. The labor force was comprised of a staggering male to female ratio of 5 to 2, and wives were responsible for their husbands’ professional careers. It’s no wonder that television shows like Father Knows Best, which portrayed rigid gender roles for women and men, were so popular. Essentially, marriage was the main goal for girls, and family life was their major aspiration and the manifestation of a ‘perfect existence.’

            For RBG, viewing the imperfections of this existence may be what induced her to envision an alternate future for herself, along with a little help from her mom. “My mother told me to be a lady. And for her, that meant be your own person, be independent,” Ginsburg often recounted. She also anticipated the challenges she would face as a young woman planning to attend law school at that time. “The study of law was unusual for women of my generation,” she once said. “For most girls growing up in the ‘40s, the most important degree was not your BA but your MRS.”

Still, she did not allow any of these challenges stop her. “She understood exactly what kind of change she wanted to make –and be—in the world because she had experienced it so personally,” said Katherine Franke, Columbia Law School professor and Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, who was a part of a symposium in 2013 in honor of Justice Ginsburg. 

         Yes, RBG was a radical, in essence, just by being herself.

       Believing that “a gender line helps to keep women not on a pedestal, but in a cage,” RBG spoke about the importance of fathers’ involvement in childrearing to lessen the load on mothers: “Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation,” she once said

         She also made it clear to her male colleagues on the court, when they appeared indifferent about a girl’s strip search by school administrators, that they would have responded differently had they ever been “a 13-year-old girl.” “Every woman of my vintage knows what sexual harassment is, although we didn’t have a name for it,” Ginsburg also said.

Clearly, for women, like my mother, who earned the degree of MRS instead of ESQ, MD or PhD, RBG knew of the importance to speaking, defending and supporting them as well. Unlike I, who viewed them as very different, she did not at all. “One lives not just for oneself but for one’s community,” RGB recently said, when responding to a question about her legacy.

So, just as Kate McKinnon once coined in her hilarious impersonation of RBG on Saturday Night Live by ending with the line, “You’ve been Gins-burned,” I would like to say, in RBG’s honor, “Yes, RBG, I have been Gins-burned, and both I, and my mother, thank you for it!’

September 25th 2020, 12:26 pm

Populism and Women’s Lives


            In July, The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Trump administration regulation that allows employers with religious or moral objections to contraception to limit women’s access to birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act. 

            This was yet another win for populism, though the decision was rarely covered in this light.

         As a wave of populism intensifies across the globe, and democracy recedes, women’s rights are in danger of being rolled back. “Democracy won the 20th century,” writes critic Andrew Rawnsley in the Guardian. “The hubristic mistake was to think that this trend was so powerful that it could not be reversed.” Freedom House, a think tank that conducts an annual audit of global freedom, reports that “the fundamentals of democracy are under attack around the world.”

         Those most often targeted for attack are those who most recently won legal rights; women are a prime example. In the U.S., the Trump administration is moving swiftly against women’s reproductive rights. The European Women’s Lobby reports that far-right extremist parties are gaining power and taking “concrete steps against equality between women and men.” 

         The patriarchy, the ancient code that cedes to men the control of most of the power and authority in a societyis a formidable foe. Women’s lives, research finds,  are shaped by what Laura Bierema of the University of Georgia calls life’s hidden curriculum, that teaches girls and women “subordination to the dominant patriarchal system of power.” She says, “Lessons learned include gender roles, a devaluing of women, silence and invisibility, submission to male power, and acceptance of role contradictions. Girls and boys, women and men learn these power relations throughout their lives. [They] are so ingrained in the culture that they are practically invisible, neither questioned nor challenged by most people. “

         At a time when populism is on the rise, patriarchy flourishes, and today, democratic countries have been outnumbered by those becoming less so. Andrew Rawnsley observes that democracy is “more fragile, vulnerable and contingent” than we supposed. “The arc of history is not irreversibly bent in favor of freedom. The case for it has to be renewed and reinvigorated for each generation.” If it is not, the hard-won rights of women could be a major casualty.” Further, according to The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report 2020: “This year’s report highlights the growing urgency for action. At the present rate of change, it will take nearly a century to achieve parity, a timeline we simply cannot accept in today’s globalized world, especially among younger generations who hold increasingly progressive views of gender equality.”

         But perhaps even more ominous than falling behind in economic areas, women are being urged to abandon feminism to return to their traditional status as the second sex, retreating to home and hearth and being subservient to men. Shelina Janmohamed, author of Generation M: Young Muslims Changing the World, writes,We should be most concerned about the prevailing social and political mood. In some circles, the empowerment of women is seen as an existential threat to men. Populism has swept into power on the back of a largely male desire to return to how things used to be, born of an aggrieved sense of being “left behind.” 

         Politicians like Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. Viktor Orbán of Hungary, Recep Tayyip of Turkey, Andrzej Duda of Poland  and Donald Trump of the United States have displayed anti-woman sentiments and policies.

         Amanda Marcotte of Salon writes that the past for which many man feel so much nostalgia is at heart patriarchal. “It’s a system that depends on putting women under the direct control of men and extracting unpaid labor from them to keep the system running. It’s a system where men’s freedom is predicated on women’s entrapment, where men can run the world, secure in the knowledge that someone is at home making sure the dishes get done.”

Some men are growing more and more angry over the idea of gender equality. In the US, the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2018 added two male supremacist websites to its list of hate groups, for the first time identifying male supremacy as an explicit ideology of hate. This ideology,  according to the SPLC, represents all women as “genetically inferior, manipulative, and stupid” beings who exist primarily for their “reproductive and sexual functions.”

         ‘It’s why Mr. Trump’s brand of admissions of sexual assault are brushed of as ‘locker room’ talk,’ says Shelina Janmohamed “It’s why Mr. Duterte (the Philippine president ) can joke about rape with little to no comeback.”

         When patriarchy and populism rise together, among the first causalities are women’s hegemony over their own bodies. The Guardian notes that “The attack on reproductive rights has gone hand in hand with damage to the most fundamental right to physical safety. Poland’s President Andrzej is threatening to leave a treaty aimed at preventing violence against women – at a time when the pandemic has seen domestic violence soar worldwide .”

         In the U.S., the Trump administration has launched a global and domestic blitzkrieg on reproductive rights. Trump decreed the Global Gag Rule, which bans organizations that receive U.S. funding from using their own funds to advocate for, share information on, or offer abortion services. At international meetings such as the UN Commission on the Status of Women, the Trump administration has argued for blocking access to sexual and reproductive health—particularly abortion

         Domestically, legislation around domestic violence has been partially gutted. The Trump administration recently changed the definition of violence to include only physical harm. Psychological abuse, coercive control and manipulation – which are now accepted by most medical experts as key to abuse – will no longer be recognized. He also made significant changes to the federal Title X family planning program. Federal funds will no longer be given to family planning providers that offer abortion services.

         Concern about the ways in which populist strongmen are stripping away rights that women have battled for years to gain is growing. In 2019,  a group of 40 women leaders from around the world published a letter warning of the threat. Argentina’s former foreign minister, Susana Malcorra, noted that populist regimes are claiming that that women’s empowerment is a dangerous challenge to male power. She told Reuters, “There are number of places where we see this happening as a trend. And in our view, if we don’t speak up loudly about it, it will be hard to reverse.” 

            Stanford political scientist Anna Gryzmala-Busse says that populism is a political program and has a political solution. She says to women (and to men), “Vote! Vote for politicians and parties who make credible promises, who do not simply want to shut down criticism or who view their opponents as their enemies, and who are committed to the democratic rules of the game. At the same time, we need to understand, not just condemn, why so many voters find populist politicians appealing.”

Silence, in this case, is not golden, especially where women’s hard-won rights are concerned gender awareness. 

September 24th 2020, 9:47 pm

Join Us for our ’21 Leaders for the 21st Century’ Awards Gala, and Celebrate our 20th Anniversary


We hope you will join Women’s eNews in the evening of Monday, Oct. 26th, for our first VIRTUAL GALA as we pay tribute to this year’s ’21 Leaders for the 21st Century’ including Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, NYS Attorney General Letitia James, ACLU President Susan Herman, LGBTQ Activist Edie Windsor (in memoriam), Ms. Foundation for Women CEO & President Teresa Younger, and many other outstanding women of achievement!

And in honor of our 20th Anniversary, Women’s eNews is offering all attendees the choice of being professionally trained in: 1. Creating Your Own Blog, 2. Launching Your Own Podcast, or 3. Writing an Op-Ed that gets Published!

Women’s representation in the media is now more important than ever before! Get your voices heard by registering below:

(All purchases are tax-deductible)

September 13th 2020, 7:43 pm

The Road Ahead for Gender, Racial, and LGBTQ Equality: Activists Share Their Views


What do Gender, Racial and LGBTQ activists believe are the most pressing issues impacting their communities? You’ll find some of the answers here:

Lori Sokol, PhD, Women’s eNews Executive Director, talks about the need for the ERA, how mandatory quarantines are increasing opportunities for fathers to nurture, and how it is now up to women to save the world (with Carol Jenkins, Co-President and CEO of the ERA Coalition and Fund for Women’s Equality).

Executive Director Lori Sokol speaks with Carol Jenkins about Women’s Equality and her new book, She is Me: How Women Will Save The World

Women’s eNews presents the first in a series of panel discussions on the topic of Race Relations in collaboration with The Root, the award-winning African-American news site. (with Danielle Belton, Imara Jones, Mona Sinha, and Marcy Syms)

Watch It Here!

September 3rd 2020, 7:19 pm

Q&A with Nell Merlino, Founder of Count Me In


A powerful force for the advancement of women and girls, Nell Merlino has developed numerous collaborative campaigns and programs that mobilize millions of people to take action. Creator of “Take Our Daughters To Work Day”, she is also the Founder & President of Count Me In. Originally founded in 1999. Count Me In (CMI) was the world’s first online micro lender, pioneering a unique model that combined business pitch competitions, mentoring, education, and access to financing for female entrepreneurs. Today, in response to an increasingly challenging business climate brought on by COVID-19, coupled with protests in support of Black Lives Matter, Count Me In has launched a Revival to support women-owned business in transforming their products, services, and companies to meet the new safety, health and racial justice imperatives.

The following is a Women’s eNews (WeN) Q&A with Nell Merlino:

WeN: Why did you launch Count Me In at this time?

Merlino: In 1999 I founded the Count Me In organization after noticing a gap in the market — a lack of support for women business owners who had already passed the startup phase. While there is certainly nothing wrong with staying small, I felt that more opportunities and resources could help those who wanted to get to the next level. 

As for relaunching it now through Count Me In Revival, I think people recognize that in this moment we have to help each other. As business women we already knew that — it’s why a lot of us started our businesses in the first place. But I think that same creativity and sensibility that we have about our products and services has to be shared throughout the business world.

Today, Count Me In supports women in business in a huge array of industries, from language translation services to companies that provide medical testing to patients, providing financial assistance through contests and grant programs.

WeN: How has this launch been similar/different to the Take Our Daughters to Work Day launch?

Merlino: What is similar is the common theme of helping women or girls who will one day become women, value themselves and be valued by society in the business world.

When I created Take Your Daughters to Work Day in 1993, I really thought about what would happen if every girl got a chance to appreciate what their parents do outside the house. It was seeing what mothers and fathers did outside of the home that was a revelation for a lot of girls. Back then it was not the norm for girls to show up at work with their parents and far fewer women had a role in the business world.

Although there’s still a long way to go, women are rightfully making their mark in the workplace and accepted more than ever not just as employees but as entrepreneurs.  For me what’s different with the launch of Count Me In Revival from Take Your Daughter to Work Day is empowering women to grow bigger and stronger versus trying to give them that initial shot at being seen in any kind of role in the workforce and/or company.

WeN: What do you hope will be gained by the recipients of the Count Me In grants?

Merlino: We are excited to provide nineteen exceptional women entrepreneurs grant money to help them adapt and thrive in the COVID-19 economy.  There has never been a better time for women to lead in business and to support one another. The founders of Smart & Sexy and Curvy Couture who provided the $250,000 in grant money are a great example of showing the power women entrepreneurs hold to help lift one another toward the common goal of success.  Together as a community we have survived and thrived through 9/11 and The Great Recession.  As we face these new obstacles, I have no doubt we will continue to innovate and grow our businesses with the help of community support including through help of the awarded grants.  

WeN: Are there specific areas of focus that your organization is supporting, and why?

Merlino: We focus our efforts on working with women entrepreneurs who own and run small businesses in any and all sectors.  If you take a look at the recent nineteen women who were awarded the grant money, you’ll see a very diverse group of companies covering many different industries.  You’ll notice representation of consulting, legal services, agriculture, manufacturing, retail sales, and many other sectors represented by the awardees as well as others involved in Count Me In Revival.

WeN: What have the results been thus far?

Merlino: The response to the Count Me In Revival was overwhelming with 2200 female-owned businesses expressing interest in applying for grant money.  In the end, 444 businesses submitted applications.  The nineteen grant winners awarded on 7/31/20 are now utilizing their grant money and the CMI Revival Award business, financial and communication coaching to adapt and grow in these challenging times. 

Click here to learn more about Count Me In Revival.

Click here to learn more about Nell Merlino.

September 1st 2020, 8:12 pm

COVID-19: An Opportunistic Attack on Reproductive Health


Entering her 50th year at Choices Women’s Medical Center, founder Merle Hoffman has witnessed a lot. Imagine launching a reproductive health center providing abortions two years before Roe v. Wade legalized it in 1973.

But it’s the COVID-19 pandemic, she says, that has been “one of the most, most challenging times that we’ve faced, I’ve faced.” 

She points to the challenges of navigating through new safety procedures, reduced volume and employee furloughs, but also to the anti-abortion protestors screaming outside her Queens, NY, medical center. They’ve not only maintained their presence throughout the pandemic, but also doubled in numbers, armed with graphic posters but failing to wear Center for Disease Control-recommended face masks. 

“Their attitude is that we’re vulnerable now and women are vulnerable so let’s harass and abuse them verbally even more,” Hoffman says. 

It’s a tactic witnessed around the country. In the early weeks of the pandemic, the governments of several conservative states saw an opportunity to roll back women’s reproductive rights. Women were already proving to be disproportionately affected by the Coronavirus, with financial insecurity and lack of childcare topping the issues, when 12 states deemed abortion a “non-essential” or “elective” procedure. Some governors and attorneys general argued that it would seize the personal protective equipment (PPE) needed by medical professionals in hospitals. Others insisted that the procedure could be delayed.

Their arguments aren’t supported by medical evidence. A statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and six other prominent medical organizations refuted this claim, stressing that “abortion is an essential component of comprehensive health care” and should not be delayed.

“It is also a time-sensitive service for which a delay of several weeks, or in some cases days, may increase the risks or potentially make it completely inaccessible,” the statement read. “The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person’s life, health, and well-being. …community-based and hospital-based clinicians should consider collaboration to ensure abortion access is not compromised during this time.”

However, abortion services in Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas were still for banned for weeks. Arkansas’s ban has yet to be overturned. Unchallenged by her local government, Hoffman never closed Choices. 

“It was immediately decided — I did anyway — that [we are] an essential service,” she says, “and there was no way I was closing down and would be in any way vulnerable to that kind of political playbook.” 

Cindy Pearson, executive director of the National Women’s Health Network, noted that these states have a long history of digging for reasons to ban or limit abortions, calling the non-essential services mandate the latest excuse. 

“It had nothing to do with COVID,” she argues. “I was disgusted at the depth to which they would go to stop women and people who can get pregnant from doing what they know is best for themselves and their families. It’s disgusting to see them use a word like pandemic as an excuse to once again try to restrict abortions.” 

As Americans are urged to stay home to stop the spread of COVID-19, and more medical providers are turning to telemedicine appointments to see and treat patients, there is an option for those seeking abortions that meets today’s restrictions and concerns — so long as politics stay out of it. Rather than go to a clinic for a surgical abortion, a woman choosing to end her pregnancy can get a medical abortion by taking two Food and Drug Administration-approved pills to induce a miscarriage at home. The pills, mifepristone and misoprostol, have been available for 20 years, Pearson adds. 

“It’s an option that’s safe, effective, and we do want more people to know about it,” she explains. “We know why people don’t, in part because it’s kind of hard to get. If something’s not widely available, you’re less likely to know about it.” 

The FDA tied Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) — meant for medications that are unsafe in some way — to mifepristone, one that requires it be administered in person by a specially certified provider, despite being approved to be taken at home. Jamila Perritt, a physician, activist and abortion provider in Washington, D.C., says the restrictions, which depending on the state can include additional state-signed forms, an ultrasound and two visits with a waiting period in between, are not grounded in medical or scientific evidence. Without them, she says she could simply, easily and safely write a prescription and call it into a patient’s local pharmacy. 

“The REMS that are tied to the abortion pill are not grounded in safety but in political ideology,” Perritt said. “It’s an attempt to restrict access to this medication in a way that doesn’t happen with any other medication. It’s singled out and treated differently simply because it’s used to provide abortion services.” 

As states placed limits on travel, business and regular outdoor functions — and in some places, as mentioned, surgical abortions — in the early weeks of the pandemic, the National Women’s Health Network saw a need for change. It started the #MailTheAbortionPill campaign in the first week of April to call on the FDA to not only lift its restrictions now, but also in a post-Coronavirus world, allowing medical professionals to mail the pill. Pregnant people then can “get the pill where they take the pill,” the campaign declares. 

“It’s just crazy to tell people, ‘Stay home, don’t get on a plane, don’t go to work, but get in your car and travel hours each way to pick up a pill you can take at home,’” Pearson said. “That’s why we launched it in a hurry.” 

While the campaign has yet to elicit a response from the FDA, it has helped bring about change in court. Last month, a federal judge in Maryland suspended the in-person requirement for the abortion pill during the pandemic, citing it as a “substantial obstacle” and allowing providers to mail it directly to patients, PBS News Hour reported. Pearson doesn’t take credit for the ruling — the National Women’s Health Network wasn’t a plaintiff in the lawsuit — but she believes their efforts, along with activism by the 21 attorneys general who organized a letter to the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services requesting that the Trump Administration have no involvement in the REMS designation, added to the change in climate, affecting the judge’s decision. 

The ruling was a win, albeit a short-term one, as the mail-in option will only be in place as long as there’s a public health emergency. Abigail Aiken, assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs, is well-versed in the challenges women in Texas, especially in rural cities, seeking a medical abortion already faced before COVID-19, from how expensive it is (it’s not covered by most health insurance plans or Medicaid), to long travel time (96% of cities don’t have abortion providers), to overnight accommodations, to finding childcare. She was curious about the impact of the pandemic, a time when demand for abortion could be increasing due to financial instability, when one might struggle to get to or not even want to go to a clinic due to infection risk, when there were state bans on abortions (a policy move she called an “opportunistic attack on reproductive health”). 

In a study recently published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aiken and a team of researchers found that COVID-19 and its barriers led more people to seek medical abortions outside of the formal healthcare setting, such as clinics and hospitals. Tracking data from Aid Access, an online telemedicine service where people can request and have a consultation for the medication abortion pill, which then gets mailed to them, found a 27% increase in the rate of requests across the US from March 20th to April 11th. 

Requests to Aid Access nearly doubled in states with the most COVID cases and those that tried to restrict abortion. New York, which was the hot spot at the time, saw a 60% increase. Texas, which had banned all abortions for about four weeks, saw a 94% increase; however, there are explicit state laws barring medication abortion by telemedicine. 

What’s so important about these findings, Aiken told Women’s eNews, is knowing that a remote medicine abortion model is possible. Just as dermatology has teleconsults, doctors in a clinic can prescribe the abortion pill and call it into a pharmacy. It’s how the United Kingdom responded to the pandemic — the region overhauled its policies and went fully remote, medical abortions included. 

“We see the demand for these remote services, and yet we don’t have the policy environment that allows us to do it,” she says. “I’m looking ahead and wondering what’s going to happen with the REMS decision, how it’s going to change things. I think we might see changes in some places, but those state-level restrictions are going to have to change.” 

The study’s data only comes from requests, however, and couldn’t hone in on how telemedicine abortions could disproportionately impact people of color and those in poverty, who are already marginalized and struggle to access abortion services.

“This cross between COVID and reproductive healthcare and racial inequity is an intersection that many of us have been living at for a long time and are grappling with for sure,” says Perritt. “My practice and the way that I provide care has always operated at these intersections, understanding that folks who are seeking reproductive health care are doing so in a vacuum. Decisions around whether or not to have a baby, to get pregnant, to have an abortion, or to use contraception are always grounded in the context in which people live. This moment in time, for so many of the folks that I care for in my community, is really a reminder that our lives are super complicated, and the things happening in the world, they shape the way we make decisions about our reproductive health, as well.”

All of these mandates, hoops and barriers are more likely to impact people with fewer resources. But COVID-19 is not the entity to blame for the threats to abortion.

“Certainly the COVID pandemic has exacerbated those things, but it’s important to understand that it didn’t create these barriers,” Perritt says. “The bigger threat to abortion access and clinic sustainability are these legislative practices that restrict care.”

About the writer: Alyssa Fisher, who recently earned her undergraduate degree in Journalism at the University of Florida, is a 2020 fellow in the Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program* at Women’s eNews, funded by the Sy Syms Foundation. The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program at Women’s eNews fellowship supports editorial and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program:

The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence program at Women’s eNews was launched in 2014 with support from the Sy Syms Foundation. The fellowship provides support and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

“For a democracy to flourish all voices must be heard.” says Marcy Syms, a founding Trustee and President of the Sy Syms Foundation. “Through its investigative reporting Women’s eNews gets at the essence of good journalism. The Sy Syms Foundation is proud of this collaboration to support today’s newest women journalists.”

As part of its mission to create social change for women and girls through investigative reporting, Women’s eNews helps foster, train, and support the career development of new journalists with a focus on social justice and women’s rights.

August 23rd 2020, 8:25 pm



With Gloria Steinem, Letitia James, The Chicks, Indigo Girls, Vanessa Williams & more!

August 18th 2020, 6:18 pm

Book of the Week: With or Without You


by Caroline Leavitt

The night before a big break, an aging troubled rocker argues with his longtime lover, the two of them drinking and taking a pill. In the morning he wakes and she doesn’t, going into coma. When she emerges, her personality is radically different, causing huge changes for herself, for him, and for the young doctor caring for her.

Chapter 1 (Excerpt)

Disaster. Everywhere he looked, when he thought of flying, he saw disaster.

His suitcase lay open on the table, a jumble of dark clothing. Hers was on the floor, everything in tight rolls, more than enough for the week she was taking off from her nursing job at the hospital to go with him. He was staring at her the way he would if he didn’t know her, which he’d been doing more and more lately, something that unnerved her so much that she wanted to shake him, point to herself, and say, I’m right here. All you have to do is look.

She took another sip of wine, just to calm herself, maybe to add some heat to her body, to stop the queasiness rolling through her. Outside, it was another freezing February New York City winter, the snow blazing down in sheets against the windows and layering over the sidewalks. There was a blizzard advisory for an accumulation of twelve inches, complete with school closings and warnings for the elderly and the infirm to stay inside. It was the main reason they were here tonight in the apartment. The airports were closed, and their flight to California wouldn’t be rescheduled until tomorrow night at the earliest. The weather was too snowy for them to drive, plus they didn’t have enough time.

Simon’s band was once successful, but that was twenty years ago, when she had first met him and he was just twenty-two himself and his band was riding high with Simon’s megahit song, “Charlatan Eyes.” Simon didn’t even really sing back then; he was just harmony and played bass guitar to the lead singer Rob’s aching wail. Once, Stella had even heard the song as Muzak in an elevator at Macy’s, and while everyone else in the elevator seemed to ignore it, she flushed with pleasure. Over the years, the band still played for decent-sized audiences and recorded a few more albums. A few more songs got some play, and Simon began to sing more of his own songs, but the band didn’t build, the audiences and the stages their manager booked became smaller, and the awards they were all so desperate for never arrived.

Caroline Leavitt  is a New York Times bestselling author of Pictures of You, Is This Tomorrow, and Cruel Beautiful World. With or Without You was also named:
One of Popsugar‘s “Incredible Books of August”
One of Bustle’s Best Books of the Week
One of AARP’s Best Books of August
Publisher’s Weekly Fall Book of Note.

August 13th 2020, 9:27 pm

COVID-19’s Impact on Women of Color: August Update


The COVID-19 pandemic has been claiming countless lives across the United States, regardless of age, race, or social status. Yet people of color have been shown to be disproportionately impacted ever since coronavirus cases and deaths began to surge in mid-March. Now, five months later, not much has changed.


This is particularly problematic for women of color, who often play a crucial role in maintaining the economic stability of their families. According to the Center for American Progress, 67.5% of African American mothers and 41.4% of Latina mothers are the primary breadwinners in their families, compared to only 37% of white mothers. 

“The largest number of single mothers in this country are women of color,” says Mona Sinha, a member of the Board of Directors of Women Moving Millions, a leading non-profit, “They have to make larger investments in their families with much lower income. So, who suffers in this case? It is the mother, the sister, or the daughter in the family who has to make personal sacrifices to make sure everybody else is taken care of.”

To effect future changes and policies, it is important to understand some of the reasons why women of color are being impacted at higher rates by the virus.  

Center for American Progress

The chart above demonstrates that women of color are primarily employed in fields where they are more apt to be exposed to the Coronavirus. For example, essential and domestic workers like nursing assistants, home health care providers, grocery store cashiers, domestic workers, and childcare providers are primarily women of color. Further, threats to their health are compounded by their challenges in attaining health insurance from their employers due to the fields in which they are primarily employed.

“Around healthcare, the impact of COVID is a health issue that showed that the health disparities that existed before just got worse, made people more vulnerable and more susceptible to COVID, and increased the chances of dying from COVID,” says Ana Olivera, President and CEO of The New York Women’s Foundation. “Healthcare has been a long conversation in this country. The best that we could get was health insurance associated with employment. But health insurance needs to be associated with just being alive. This is the time for policies that provide universal health care access. They have to exist.”

Women of color also face inequities regarding their living and working conditions. For example, according to the National League of Cities, low-income women of color are particularly cost-burdened and face higher rates of eviction. Further, occupational segregation has resulted in Black and Latinx people being overrepresented in low-wage jobs, which often cannot be transitioned to remote work despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

“You have so many women who are doing nursing care,” says Seher Khawaja, Senior Attorney for Economic Empowerment at Legal Momentum in New York City. “Those women who have been called to the front lines have been exposing themselves and putting their health at risk. They were already making inadequate pay, but now the risks you’re asking women to take on are substantially higher. They’re exposing their whole families by going to work every day,” Seher continues.

The pandemic has also brought to light the issue of unequal pay, benefits, and support within the trans women of color communities. “The loss of income during COVID and the inability to access government help has deeply impacted trans people disproportionately,” says Imara Jones, creator of TransLash and The Last Sip. “I think there’s been a response from mutual aid societies to assist trans communities in helping them figure out how to get cash, how to get food, and how to get rent assistance to those people directly.”

When it comes to the recently enacted COVID-19 laws (i.e. The Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security CARES ActThe Families First Coronavirus Response ActThe Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act) , too many essential workers, including healthcare providers, emergency responders, grocery store clerks, undocumented immigrants, etc., were excluded from the relief package.  “While it was great to see quick movement on federal legislation to provide what should have already been there; paid sick time, paid emergency, and paid leave to care for family members due to various different COVID related events,” Khawaja says, “What we saw was that it excluded way too many workers who are most vulnerable.”

“If you look at how women of color and, particularly, the trans women of color community, the pandemic has really shone a bright light on the unequal treatment people receive in this country,” Sinha adds.

About the writer: Simone Soublet, a communications and journalism studies student at Loyola Marymount University, is a 2020 fellow in the Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program* at Women’s eNews, funded by the Sy Syms Foundation. The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program at Women’s eNews fellowship supports editorial and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program

The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence program at Women’s eNews was launched in 2014 with support from the Sy Syms Foundation. The fellowship provides support and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

“For a democracy to flourish all voices must be heard.” says Marcy Syms, a founding Trustee and President of the Sy Syms Foundation. “Through its investigative reporting Women’s eNews gets at the essence of good journalism. The Sy Syms Foundation is proud of this collaboration to support today’s newest women journalists.”

As part of its mission to create social change for women and girls through investigative reporting, Women’s eNews helps foster, train, and support the career development of new journalists with a focus on social justice and women’s rights.

August 12th 2020, 10:46 pm

From the Executive Director- She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World


Women’s eNews is thrilled to announce that it’s Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief, Lori Sokol, has published a new book available beginning today, August 11th: She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World

A non-fiction book which is part memoir, Dr. Sokol takes you into the homes, offices and classrooms of 30 courageous and powerful women who are dedicating their work, and their lives, to building communities, saving lives, and sustaining the planet.

From author and activist Gloria Steinem, to groundbreaking sports legend Billie Jean King, to Nobel Peace Prize recipient Leymah Gbowee, you will witness how traits viewed as soft and weak in traditional patriarchal societies, are actually more effective in creating positive change while building peace.

To learn more about her book and all of the inspiring and brave women in it, visit

To buy the book, with the entire purchase price donated to Women’s eNews, please click here.

“Because Lori Sokol tells the truth about her own story — and listens with her heart — thirty diverse women have told her the truth of their lives. ‘She Is Me’ takes us from global to personal.” 

– Gloria Steinem, author & activist

August 10th 2020, 7:09 pm

Book of the Week: Since I Lost My Baby


by Selimah Nemoy

“When I was 17 years old, I was forced to relinquish my newborn baby and told to “just go home and pretend it never happened.” Not likely. Twenty-four years later, I found my daughter and our reunion was broadcast on the Oprah Winfrey Show. This is my coming-of-age memoir of what happened those 24 years since losing her, and the power of soul music that brought me through.” – Selimah Nemoy


Los Angeles, 1967 

For What It’s Worth 

I’d paid my dues, big time, the ultimate price for committing the unpardonable sin. After five months of humiliating incar- ceration, with the stroke of a ballpoint pen I agreed to the life sentence that had been handed down: I was walking out of there alone. 

Early morning fog met me on the landing outside, and the whiff of budding flowers on a weedy Scotch Broom in the alley caught me by surprise. I wondered if it was heralding my free- dom or mourning my loss. My father, shoulders sagging with resignation and relief, went first, carrying my suitcase to the car, where my mother, eyes forward but looking at nothing, was waiting inside with the doors locked. 

I took one look back at the hideous institution from which I was being released. Behind its windows, like dark condemning eyes, were generations of secrets and shame—where the wanton and wayward were imprisoned by wicked old witches who had been born with their ugly gray hair in a bun and never been loved by a man in their whole life. 

Across the street behind a chain link fence, a dirty Chihuahua yapped and barked as, for the last time, I descended the wide concrete steps of the Florence Crittenton Home for Unwed Mothers, a relic of last-century history to which teenage girls like me were banished for the crime of falling in love. 

Halfway down the steps I heard someone call my name. The Director had forgotten to give me her farewell speech: those tired, fake words of wisdom that unimaginative old people hand to young ones as if they were tools or money or the Bible. Standing on the step above me, she put one lizard-like paw on my shoulder. 

“Now dear, you’re only seventeen years old. Your whole life is ahead of you. We’ve taken care of everything.” 

I held my breath, along with the urge to slap her and watch those withered old legs go tumbling down the stairs. 

And then, just like everyone else who had ever inflicted damage on me, she poured on the perma-seal. 

“Just go home and pretend it never happened.”

Click Here for Book Purchase Options

About the Author: Selimah Nemoy is a storyteller, journalist, and author of SINCE I LOST MY BABY: A MEMOIR OF TEMPTATIONS, TROUBLE & TRUTH (OG Press, June 2020). Born in Los Angeles, her coming-of-age journey was shaped by soul music in the 1960s, then by the turbulent, multicultural 1970s in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area.

Selimah served with the (President Bill Clinton) White House Press Corps in 1994, and as the English editor for both an Italian-American and a Japanese-American newspaper. Her play, THE DADDIES, was performed at the Buriel Clay Theatre in San Francisco’s Western Addition, and her short story, GOODBYE, received first place at the Santa Barbara Writers’ Conference. Learn more at

August 6th 2020, 2:38 pm

A Female VP: What’s Ambition Got To Do With It?


It’s convention season, which means it is almost time for Joe Biden to name his VP running mate. Since the announcement that the VP will be a womanvarious names have been floated, each with her own unique selling point: Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Tammy Baldwin, Stacey Abrams, Susan Rice – the list goes on and on.

As names have proliferated, so has the commentary: each woman has been analyzed, scrutinized, and endlessly discussed in this not-so-modern Cinderella story. Who will be given the glass slipper, the rose garden? For now, only Prince Joe the Charming knows. In 2020, only four short years after Hilary Clinton’s electoral college defeat, it is sad that women can still only strive second-best, especially given the tremendous rise in women holding public office since the last election.

Today, 127 women serve in Congress, more than ever before but still less than a quarter of all representatives. The tendency to parade and belittle women is, if not as old as time, at least as old as the ancient Greeks. The story of the Trojan War begins with the Judgement of Paris, a not very impressive shepherd saddled with the task of allocating a golden apple to one of three goddesses. Hera promised him power, Athena wisdom, and Aphrodite the possession of Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world. Paris chose sex, and the rest, as it were, is history: men get to choose between women more powerful than they, in hopes that their choices will empower them right back.

And so it goes: Biden’s allies are already said to be waging a secret campaign against Kamala Harris, on the suspicion that she will be ‘too ambitious’ for the presidency in 2024 to pull her weight this time around. But why shouldn’t she be? Biden is 77, and age alone means there is a real chance his will be a one-term presidency. Even if it weren’t, what Vice-President doesn’t have his—or, someday her—eye on the next rung?  It is female ambition that is frowned upon, women who are seen as taking up more room than they warrant.

How can we break this narrative? Hillary Clinton tried to be more prepared, more approachable, and more experienced, but failed among her fellow white female voters. What can women do to break out of their pre-assigned role, step off the pedestal, and muck in the same arena where political progress is actually made? As a woman voter, here is what I hope for. Whomever Biden ends up picking—and we each have our favorites—I want the ticket to become a genuine partnership, and the chosen VP an ambitious prospect for next time, when she is the presumptive nominee and the party will have had four years to prepare for the inevitable wave of misogyny.

Even more, though, I want this presidency – through the VP selection, cabinet appointments, leadership position and legislative priorities — to be an exercise in public education, making the prospect of the first female president an inevitable and long overdue consequence of all that women have achieved. To do this, the Biden campaign, and the White House, must work to make women’s issues central to the experience of each and every citizen, whatever their gender.

Reproductive rights, maternity leave, pre- and post-natal care, childcare, workplace discrimination, the pay gap, sexual harassment, rape culture, educational attainment – these are all issues that affect every one of us, even if they impact the bodies of only half the population. Framing them as ‘women’s issues’ not only distorts reality, but ignores the vast contribution of women to the fabric of society as mothers, nurses, teachers, social workers, CEOS, lawyers, soldiers, or doctors.

Biden is well on his way: his $775 billion dollar plan to fund universal childcare and elder care  is an ambitious start, and if the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us anything, it is that this country’s economic recovery begins and ends with care duties, and those who shoulder them, who are predominantly women of color. But there is more, much more, to be done. Putting a woman in the VP slot is a good start, but to really change the narrative, it is time for Prince Charming to turn the selection process on its head: Ask not what women can do for you, but what you can do for women. 

Ayelet Haimson Lushkov is an Associate Professor at the University of Texas at Austin and a Public Voices Fellow of the Op-Ed Project.

August 3rd 2020, 5:59 pm

Announcing: The Loreen Arbus Accessibility is Fundamental 2020 Fellows


Women’s eNews is thrilled to announce its selection of The Loreen Arbus Accessibility is Fundamental* Fellows for 2020! This inaugural fellowship has been created to train women with disabilities as professional journalists so that they may write, research and report on the most crucial issues impacting the disabilities community.

Meet the 2020 Fellows

Cheyenne Leonard: “Where society and others may see my disability as a tragedy, I have always seen my disability as an opportunity. My disability has afforded me the opportunity to travel the United States to compete in the Jr. Paralympics in track for 12 years, to change laws in my school district to allow for disabled students to be on their high school track teams, and to be a model and actress bringing diversity and disability representation to the media where it is severely lacking. I have had a lot of opportunities in my life, but being a Latina woman in a wheelchair, I have always had to fight for my rights, my voice, and my place in every room I’ve been in. I have two bachelor’s degrees from UNLV in Psychology and Criminal Justice, but my passion has always been disability and media representation. I never saw disability representation in the media growing up and the few times that I did, it was mostly white and male. Because of that, I want to be and/or create the representation I never had.”

Katrina Janco: “I can’t recall many times in my life where I wasn’t the only autistic female in the room, let alone the only openly disabled person. In this position, I always feel an extreme burden in properly representing my community. One way I have been able to relieve that is by writing about my experiences in this position. Seeing people respond to my writing is the most amazing feeling. It’s why I want to be a journalist. This wasn’t always true. For years, I was in denial about this desire. A major turning point was writing my first feature for 34th Street, the student-run magazine at Penn. I wrote about how, while Penn may lead in autism research, it failed to support autistic students such as myself. It was extremely difficult, especially with having to meet impossible expectations. It won awards and critical acclaim from students, alumni, and most importantly, other autistic people who finally felt seen. I then truly realized my voice’s value and continued to write.”

Natalie Doggett: “I am a rising senior at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study. At Gallatin, I created my own concentration entitled Globalization of Local Media and Community, which concerns the political and cultural functions of journalism and media within grassroots activist organizing. I have honed my academic interests in my work as an aspiring journalist and educator, writing about pop culture and politics for a variety of publications, including: Washington Square News, Embodied Magazine, and SONKU Magazine. In the fall of 2018, I created an interview-series podcast hosted on WNYU 89.1, called Bad Radical Radio. Bad Radical Radio is a free educational resource that features scholars, student activists, and local grassroots organizers discussing social issues affecting people of color, by people of color. As a young Black woman, I am invested in seeking and amplifying news stories that investigate the intersection of race, disability, and gender orientation.”

Loreen Arbus

The Loreen Arbus Accessibility is Fundamental Fellowship with Women’s eNews provides vital employment opportunities for women with disabilities to report on the issues that significantly impact the disabilities community.

Loreen Arbus is the President of The Loreen Arbus Foundation, The Goldenson-Arbus Foundation and Loreen Arbus Productions, Inc. Through these organizations and in her personal endeavors, Ms. Arbus is a tireless advocate for women and girls; a champion for one of the world’s largest minorities, people with disabilities; and is passionate about encouraging equal opportunities in television, film, communications, and the arts.

July 28th 2020, 11:10 pm

In Case You Missed It: The Americans with Disabilities Act – 30th Anniversary


As the nation celebrated the 30th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA30) on July 26, 2020, the 50-member ADA Lead On “Core Production Team” (in front of and behind the camera/keyboard) and 22 ADA Generation bloggers, influencers and signal boosters were focused and determined to set the record straight, and flip the script on educating, entertaining and empowering people with (and without) disabilities with the creation and production of ADA30 Lead On: Celebration of Disability Arts, Culture, Education & Pride. This two hour, 15 minute entertaining, educational and empowering journey chronicled the five titles of the Americans with Disabilities Act, landmark civil rights legislation!

All too often ignored by Hollywood and media employers, ADA30 Lead On Production Team created and presented an all-star ensemble cast of deaf and disabled performers, artists, filmmakers, storytellers, disability leaders, policymakers and key influencers who boldly own this narrative and created this show – meeting weekly for months – all from their own homes, across the country during this pandemic (instead of our original plan at the Kennedy Center) – with Disability Power & Pride.

Because of past erasure from history, it is very important that during this celebration, voices of deaf and disabled talent, ADA Generation bloggers, social media influencers and signal boosters of color from multiply marginalized communities were amplified to make sure that BIPOC voices, contributions, ideas and aspirations are part of this celebration, and of future events.

Appearances included: Danny Woodburn, emcee; Tony Award-winner Ali Stroker; Academy Award-winner Marlee Matlin; Comedian/performers Maysoon Zayid, Geri JewellKathy BuckleyNic Novicki, Nina G., Andy Arias, Shannon DeVidoSelene Luna, and Michael Beers. Check it out on BROADWAY WORLD.

The event was such a success that ADA30 Lead garnered the following results on its Facebook page, thus far:
54,372 people reached (up from 28,671) – organic, not paid
17,806 unique views
10,353 engagements 
2,523 total reactions

ADA30 wants to especially thank Lead Sponsor AT&T for its awesome blog – “The ADA is a beacon for progress that can only happen when determined activists, people like you and me campaign and lobby for change,” said Chief Compliance Officer David Huntley of AT&T, Inc. “At AT&T, we’re committed to the ADA mission and ensuring that we are providing equal employment opportunities to people with disabilities makes us a better company.”

ADA30 also wants to thank AT&T, its Lead Sponsor, Google our Gold Sponsor, plus sponsors: The Ability Center, AT&T, Bus Door Films, Deraney PR, Easterseals Disability Film Challenge, EIN SOF Communications, Exceptional Minds, Foundation for Global Sports Development, Google, Kessler Foundation, Lights! Camera! Access!, michaels.adams., Mid-Atlantic ADA Center, Mitsubishi Electric America Foundation, Mulberry Tree Group, Point 360, PolicyWorks, TransCen, Wells Fargo, and Woman of Her Word.

July 26th 2020, 4:49 pm



When Los Angeles based photographer and former Hollywood stuntwoman Hannah Kozak was nine years old, her mother left Hannah and her family after falling in love with another man. He turned out to be violent. From the age of nine to fourteen, Hannah witnessed him abuse her mother on the weekends she spent with them. In 1974, he beat Hannah’s mother so badly she sustained permanent brain damage. After caring for her for six years, Hannah’s father moved her mother into an assisted living facility at the age of forty-one, where she lived for thirty-five years. She has spent the last five years at a different, much improved facility. She is partially paralyzed on one side and cannot walk on her own, cloth or feed herself.

Hannah had early, fond memories of her mother as a beautiful, passionate, vivacious, fiery Guatemalan Sophia Loren-type brunette who loved to dance the Flamenco. But because her mother left her, she carried tremendous feelings of abandonment and rage towards her mother and ignored her for decades in an attempt to distance herself from her own pain.

Preferring to stare fear in the face than be paralyzed by it, and to further escape from reality, Hannah spent twenty-five years in the film industry as a Hollywood stuntwoman (her dream job since childhood), performing high falls, stair falls, train falls, car hits, bike hits, fights, driving and fire burns. In October of 2004, she broke both of her feet jumping out of a helicopter onto the tallest building in Los Angeles. While recovering from the stunt accident, she experienced a spiritual epiphany. “I realized when I couldn’t walk and was crying in my bedroom, I needed to forgive myself for judging my mother for leaving.” – Hannah Kozak


My mother, circa 1970.

Hannah began photographing her mother in 2009, twenty-nine years after she was forced to spend the rest of her life in a nursing home, as a way to process her feelings towards a mother that she had never truly known. “I hoped by photographing her I could bring closure to an open wound I had my entire life. In the process, I grew to love my mother and discover the power of forgiveness,” Hannah says. He Threw the Last Punch Too Hard is the story of our reconciliation.”

My mother, July 20, 2012 at the first facility.

“I have been deeply invested in photographing my mother for ten years. Her complexity continues to beckon me: I will not avert my eyes from the truth of her condition no matter how difficult it is to see. Someone must be witness to her life. In addition, I want my photographs to make people pause and question the nature of the human condition and assess their own will to live.”

“My mother is my muse. I feel our connection without fear as I create photos meant to take me out of my comfort zone. These photos tell my mother’s story of isolation, loneliness, abuse, connection, compassion, forgiveness, family, humanity, grace, joy and above all, love.”

“My mother is a symbol of perseverance. Even though she suffered permanent disability from domestic violence; she never lost her kindness, belief in love and hope. As my mother’s body deteriorated; her right hand turning in more, her soul flourished. What happened to my mother also fractured my persona yet we both grew from the trauma and she refused to be covered with a veil of pity. She is comfortable in silence and is fully present in the moment. I never planned to show these photos when I made them, but I’ve learned that by sharing myself and my process of healing, that in turn helps others on their path to healing.”

Nursing homes during the pandemic:

The facility where Hannah’s mother lives has been in lockdown for five months. No family members are allowed inside the building to visit their loved ones. Back in March, when the lockdown was initiated, Hannah’s mother became confused and agitated when her daughter stopped coming to see her. To mitigate the situation, Hannah wrangled a compromise with the facility. Since April 22, she has been pre-approved to visit her mother twice a week for 25 minutes behind a gate outside in the blazing sun with the traffic whizzing by. In an NPR story titled “Banned From Nursing Homes, Families See Shocking Decline In Their Loved Ones” (June 9, 2020) NPR correspondent Ina Jaffe writes that “Advocates for residents say it’s time to rethink the outright ban.”

About the Photographer: Hannah Kozak was born to a Polish father and a Guatemalan mother in Los Angeles, California. When she was ten years old, her father, a survivor of eight Nazi forced labor camps, gave her a Kodak Brownie camera. With a camera in hand, she began to explore her fascination with photography. In her twenties, her hustle and fearlessness led her to a twenty-five-year career as a Hollywood stuntwoman where she also would make photos with her camera on sets. Although she continued to photograph over the decades it wasn’t until her forties that she turned full tilt towards personal projects in photography, as a passion, and her desired profession. Photography became a way for her to explore and reveal her internal world. Kozak holds degrees in Liberal Studies with a Spanish concentration (B.A.) and Psychology (M.A.).

“Photography has served as a means for coping with emotional pain and has subconsciously been an effort to transform and heal. My self-portraits are a search for self-knowledge that provide me with a coherent sense of self and are the mirror I never had from my mother. Our relationship was derailed so early in my life. My early mothering experiences were associated with unavailability, loss and rejection. Photography has reworked this relationship and it’s the only arena where I can express my conflicts in the separation of our relationship and use my heart to rework who we can be to each other.” – Hannah Kozak

All the images are copyright © Hannah Kozak from the book He Threw The Last Punch Too Hard published by FotoEvidence. The book is edited by Régina Monfort. For further information, visit: For book purchases, visit

July 23rd 2020, 7:48 pm

Book Excerpt – She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World



“I would say that each of us has only one thing to gain from the feminist movement: Our whole humanity, because gender has wrongly told us that some things are masculine, and some things are feminine . . . which is bullshit.”

—Gloria Steinem, author and activist

When I was five, I wanted to die. I was lying on the plastic- covered living room couch. It was a sixties thing— wrapping couches and chairs entirely in plastic to prevent the furniture below from showing signs of wear. It also blocked any feelings of warmth or comfort emanating from the soft fabric inside.

It was a hot, sweaty summer day. No air conditioners were allowed in the Brooklyn, New York, public housing complex where my parents, my older brother, and I shared a small two-bedroom apartment. One large gray fan stood in the middle of the living room, circulating warm air in one direction. Still, I wrapped my entire body in a blanket. It felt somewhat safer inside a cocoon-like covering; encased, protected. While watching a cartoon on the black-and-white television set a few feet away, I stopped breathing. I did not move or call out for help, however. Finally, peace, I thought. I gently closed my eyes.

The terrorist I lived with was standing no more than ten feet away, in the kitchen. As a father, his temper flared almost daily and spontaneously. My only warning sign was a behavior that was very confusing to others, but for my mother, brother, and me, it was all too familiar. He would stick out his tongue just far enough to protrude outside his mouth, immediately roll it underneath into a ball, and then harshly bite down on it with his upper teeth. Instantaneously, I responded by turning my back to him in hopes of lessening the pain from the physical blows that followed. He always used his right hand, his fist landing mostly on the left side of my head.

My father must have found me lying alone on the couch that day, not breathing. I don’t know how, exactly, since I had fallen unconscious, and reopened my eyes to find him with me in the back seat of a taxi taking us to the closest hospital. I was ultimately diagnosed with bronchial pneumonia, remaining in the hospital for eight days. Once the x-rays showed that the pneumonia cleared my lungs, I returned home . . . to his home. The hospital, which had served as a safe respite, now faded from view.

The blows I suffered from my father were never warranted. Truly, how could any parent hitting a child ever be warranted, since it always has more to do with the abuser than the young and innocent victim? But he always found a reason that made sense only to him, whether it was because I spoke too loudly, cried too deeply, or breathed incorrectly. “Stop breathing with your stomach going in and out instead of up and down, or else you’ll get a fat stomach!” he’d yell. A strong man, a “macho” man, who was compared by many who knew him to Jack LaLanne, the American fitness, exercise, and motivational speaker often referred to as the First Fitness Superhero of the 1960s and ’70s, my father was also named Jack, and often referred to as a “hero” and “legend” by friends and neighbors. He was admired for his ability to run and complete marathons until the age of sixty-five, yet our family superhero was also paralyzed by the most mundane things—unwilling or unable to drive a car, correctly dial a rotary telephone, or properly use a paper clip. These lapses, which reflected basic abilities for most, kept him guarded and scared. His fear of being exposed and humiliated compelled him to control those closest to him by abusing and belittling us, all to help reduce his inner feelings of insecurity and shame.

Patriarchy not only befitted him, it engulfed him, providing the ultimate mask to conceal his failings, while justifying his violent outbursts to keep those closest to him diminished. Females, he believed, were secondary citizens, alive only to serve as his punching bag, his doormat. It was a belief my older brother, Kevin, learned from him all too well. It is not uncommon for physical aggression and antisocial behavior to occur among childhood victims of physical abuse, since they learn to view such behavior as an appropriate means of resolving conflict. So, my brother projected his failures—mounting ones at school and in sports—onto me as well. But he used his left hand as well as his right, pushing me into tables, doors, and chairs; anything with a sharp edge.

My mother sometimes came to my rescue, but only slightly and temporarily. Handing me a handkerchief filled with ice cubes to place over the ensuing swelling appearing just above my eyes, she made me remove it before my father returned home from work. “Don’t let your father see,” she warned me. Her first priority was to protect my brother. This is common for wives of domestic abusers who have internalized their misogyny, protecting the (often male) abuser over the (often female) victim.

Still, my mother did provide me with some hope to have a better life—once I became an adult, that is. In fact, she named me Lori to help ensure I would. My name was meant to bring me luck, but not just any kind of luck, like being born with intelligence, or with a musical, artistic, or athletic talent, or with any other quality that could help me achieve independently in life. No, the only luck my mother could possibly envision for me would come from someone else: a man. Lori was the name of the lead actress in the popular 1950s television series, How to Marry a Millionaire. By naming me Lori, she hoped that I, too, would grow up to marry a wealthy man, since she had not. What she refused to acknowledge, however, was that it wasn’t being married to money that mattered most, but being married to a man who didn’t abide by the patriarchal rules of power and dominance over his wife and children.

The first time I became acutely aware of the extreme gender inequality in our home was when I was seven years old, during the first month of second grade. My teacher recommended to the school principal that I skip second grade and move immediately into third. This would place me in the same grade as my brother. “How would that look?” my father nervously responded, while my mother adamantly refused, warning me, “You’re not going to think you are better than anyone else!” The older I got, the worse it became. Since I didn’t fit neatly into the stereotypical feminine box of playing with dolls, wearing ribbons in my hair, or being “seen and not heard,” I was punished when I brought home good grades at the end of each school year and my brother did not. When I won trophies for my athletic prowess, I was told to hide them. Rather than acting out in protest, however, I hunkered down until I was old enough to move out. And when I finally did, after graduating from college at the early age of twenty, I devoted my career to help- ing others, particularly women and girls who are also experiencing similar feelings of loneliness and isolation living within the strict confines of an abusive patriarchal society. As a passionate writer, I chose to do so as a journalist, where I could reach many more women and girls, through both my observations and my words.

Writing, after all, had always served as my lifeline through- out those traumatic childhood years. My personal journal, which I wrote in daily, was my one trusted friend, a place where I could express my feelings, hopes, and goals secretively and without judgment. Embarking on a career in journalism, I hoped to serve as a live personal journal whom other women could trust to express themselves freely, and without fear.

And that’s what led me to write this book. In interviewing countless highly accomplished women for over three decades, there have been some common threads, recurring qualities and values that each exhibited, regardless of their chosen fields. Whether it was Gloria Steinem, the iconic feminist, author, and human rights activist; Billie Jean King, the women’s tennis cham- pion once ranked best in the world; Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, who turned oppressive insults about her weight into helping others embrace their bodies at whatever size; or Leymah Gbowee, the 2011 Nobel Peace Laureate and Liberian peace activist—each exhibited warmth, compassion, and humility. Yet, these virtues were not exhibited only behind closed doors. They utilized their tools for success to enable countless others to reach their full potential and even, in some cases, save their lives. That brought me to wonder whether other highly accomplished women possessed the same or similar qualities, and how these qualities had proven helpful to empower and save others as well. Further, could these qualities, if put to work on a grander scale, resolve our world’s most crucial challenges, like preventing or ending war, and eradicating climate change, thereby ensuring a safer, healthier, and more peaceful world for future generations? We are currently living in a pivotal time in history, where the fear of losing long-held patriarchal control is causing members of marginalized groups (including women, the LGBTQ community, people of color, and people with disabilities) to be scapegoated and physically attacked. Further, patriarchy’s refusal to accept glaring facts about climate change is threatening our planet’s long-term survival.

In the pages that follow, you will not only be taken inside the private homes, offices, and classrooms of each of these five women who gave rise to this book, but also twenty-five others who have since been interviewed, including authors, actors, filmmakers, philanthropists, and political leaders, to learn how they are successfully dedicating their work, and their lives, for the greater good of all. They will further demonstrate how being able to freely display values that exist in all of us—empathy, modesty, compassion, warmth, and introspection—will not only free us universally, but will also provide us with what may be our very last chance to save the world.

To receive a signed copy of Lori Sokol’s book, please click here (your purchase will be tax-deductible)!!

July 19th 2020, 5:14 pm

Major Corporations Have Their Say on the ERA!


“Gender equality is good for business,” says Maria Vullo, former New York’s Superintendent of Financial Services. “I was pleased to team up with my former colleagues at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP to represent 93 US businesses in an amicus brief in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.”

This is no small feat. The 93 corporations include some of the largest and most influential in the world: Apple, Google, Twitter, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Estee Lauder, and athletic leagues like the NFL and the National Women’s Soccer League. The brief was filed on June 29th.

Referred to as the amici curiae, this diverse group of 93 corporations employ millions of women and men throughout the world. Not only are these firms united in their longstanding support for gender equality, they are also standing with the majority of Americans (80%) in support of the ERA.

Simply put, these firms recognize that eliminating systemic barriers that impede women’s economic and social advancement will result in a more just, vibrant, and productive country. Further, ratifying the ERA sends a powerful message about the nation’s commitment to sex equality—a message amici believe would be transformational for the American economy. 

“What is historic here is that corporate America is saying that they are proudly supportive of gender equality, in the court case that will decide whether the ERA becomes the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution,” Vullo added. “Corporate America is saying the ERA should be – because gender equality is important for the US economy.”

The Equal Rights Amendment has a long history, over 50 years, in fact. First proposed in 1972, its original ratification timeframe was 1979, whereby a minimum of thirty-eight states had to ratify in order for the proposal to be added to the US Constitution. Although the deadline was then extended to 1982, still only 35 states ratified it by then. In recent years, Illinois and Nevada added their support and early this year, in January, Virginia became the 38th state. One month later, the House voted to remove the 1982 deadline, and the bill remains pending before the Republican-controlled Senate. However, the Attorneys General of the States of Virginia, Illinois and Nevada have filed suit against the U.S. Archivist, asserting that the amendment itself contains no deadline and there is no constitutionally imposed time limit for ratification. On this point, corporate America also agrees, by stating that the Archivist’s “inaction obstructed the realization of the People’s will.”

“I think we are in a very interesting and important time right now,” Vullo continues. “People are very focused on equality and social responsibility. Further, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted women and people of color disproportionately in terms of loss of employment, healthcare, childcare and eldercare, and for those who remain employed, a significant percentage of women are essential workers.”

The impact of COVID-19 is specifically referred to in the business brief: ‘The novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic, which has exposed and exacerbated systemic gender inequities in our society, demonstrates now, more than ever, the need for the ERA in the US Constitution.”

What’s next? It’s now up to the courts to decide whether the ERA becomes the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. With so many major corporations serving as signatories to a supporting amicus brief, the hope is that this voice will play a significant role in the conversation. Further, as stated in the brief: ‘Canada, Mexico, and the European Union are not outliers—we are. An overwhelming majority of the world’s constitutions—including virtually all developed nations—contain provisions guaranteeing equal rights or prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.’   

“It’s time to get this done in the US!” Vullo adds.

July 13th 2020, 4:27 pm

An Anniversary in Bosnia, and How Women Got Justice


On July 11, 1995, the horrors of the only European genocide since World War II reached their nadir with the massacre of an estimated 8,000 men and boys at the Bosnian town of Srebrenica. While UN “protectors” watched passively, Serb forces separated these unarmed husbands, fathers, sons and brothers from their female family members, boarded them on buses and drove them off to mass murder and mass graves.  What had previously been unthinkable, especially on European soil, shocked the world in its cold brutality.

Left behind were thousands of women, overwhelmingly the wives of the farmers who worked the land in this agrarian area, for whom the man of the house was its center: The breadwinner who ran the farm and protected the family, whose role formed the core of an economic and social unit.

What is remarkable in the wake of this world-shaking mass murder is how the women, the vast majority of whom were uneducated, stepped forward, demonstrating the kind of resilience that knits together not just families but communities and nations, if only we would tap it. These women, whose story is largely untold, rose to this extraordinary occasion in three notable ways.

First, they demonstrated courage and resilience in returning to the land that the enemy was attempting to take from them. They filled the shoes of their dead husbands and took charge of the farms, mobilizing remaining family members and relying on neighbors to survive and carry on. In some cases, these women became remarkably successful, forming cooperatives to sell produce well beyond their communities.  Berries grow in abundance close to the Drina River that flows nearby.  Blackberries and raspberries are exported internationally and known for their excellence. The women took advantage of grants facilitated by the deeply flawed Dayton Accords that stopped the war and sent their children to school. They strengthened their families by insisting that their children broaden their horizons. Their daughters and sons are now proud doctors and professors all over the world, contributing to society in new ways because the mothers and wives whose husbands were slaughtered in Srebrenica persevered through unspeakable grief and trauma and rebuilt.  

The women went further, into roles even less likely for wives and mothers who had spent most of their lives gathering and preparing food and tending their families. They demanded justice. Unprepared for the work of advocacy, they nevertheless organized and learned on the job, calling for accountability from the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Their voices were heard as Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, regional leader Radovan Karadzic, and military commander Ratko Mladic were arrested and put on trial for war crimes, including – historic for international jurisprudence – the charges of genocide.  Milosevic died in custody before his trial concluded. Mladic and Karadzic are behind bars. The women who testified against these three men demonstrated great courage and composure. Not only were they managing their grief, but by speaking out in an international spotlight they risked being ostracized back home, where the Serbs, who had waged war on their people (Bosniak, traditionally Muslim) were still in control.  

The women also organized to memorialize their murdered men. They advocated for the exhumation, identification and burial of their loved ones into a sacred place in the killing fields. Today the Srebrenica Memorial Center encompasses a large grave site, listing the names of those killed, and includes an outdoor mosque and a memorial room where photographs graphically portray the atrocities and the tireless exhumation efforts. The Center, dedicated in 2003 by US President Bill Clinton, operates against the backdrop of continued denial that the genocide ever happened. Nonetheless, it has attracted more than one million visitors to date. Many come as delegations, including students from all over the world. As with other such sites, the message of the memorial is clear:  Never again.

A few months after the Srebrenica massacre, women from all over the world converged in Beijing for a conference that would become a milestone in the story of women’s rights. There, influenced in part by the experience of the women of Srebrenica and more broadly throughout Bosnia, for the first time the issue of women and war, beyond victimhood, crystalized as an idea that would eventually become policy.  Women wanted a seat at the table, bringing their resilience and advocacy to preventing war, or stopping or recovering from it. Five years later the UN would pass a resolution calling for women’s full involvement in building peace. In time the field known as Women, Peace and Security would be well established in foreign policy.  

The women of Srebrenica played a significant role in reshaping how we think of war and peace. Their legacy is a lasting tribute not only to their own remarkable rebuilding but to the men and boys whose lives are remembered on this anniversary.

Miki Jacevic, who was a student leader from Sarajevo at the time of the Srebrenica genocide, is Vice-Chair of Inclusive Security, founded in 1999 to integrate women’s leadership into peace processes worldwide.

July 9th 2020, 7:35 pm

Women’s eNews Podcast: Women Saving The World


“Giving is the best investment I’ve ever made.” – Suzanne Lerner

Women’s eNews Executive Director Lori Sokol speaks with her guest Suzanne Lerner, co-founder and president of lifestyle and clothing brand Michael Stars. Suzanne is a business leader, activist, and philanthropist who shares her experience and life lessons, builds networks that connect valued resources, and inspires people to seek their purpose, realize their visions, and give back to our world.

Click Here to Listen on iHeart Radio

July 6th 2020, 8:38 pm

Dear Supreme Court: Shouldn’t the ERA Be Next?


In the three minutes before she clicked onto our phone call, Carol Jenkins heard the breaking news: “The Supreme Court decision is out.”

It was an incredible week for social justice. That day, June 15, the Supreme Court ruled that LGBTQ and transgender workers were protected from workplace discrimination.  Simultaneously, hundreds of thousands of people around the country marched through the streets, protesting against racism and police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. The energy was ineffable. But something was missing. 

“Everything was happening,” said Jenkins, co-president and CEO of the ERA Coalition and Fund for Women’s Equality. “We were sending out congratulatory messages. Black and brown people count now! The Supreme Court said LGBTQ people counted now! And then we [at the coalition] looked at each other and said, ‘When exactly will women count?’ We — and Black women especially — are still at the bottom of consideration.” 

Unequal pay and lower paying jobs, unpaid labor at home, workplace discrimination, no equal protection in court —  women’s disparity has been a long-raging issue. And as the Coronavirus pandemic sweeps the United States, it further exposes the holes within its systems, some of which have left women — especially women of color, especially mothers — with additional struggles to navigate. 

These issues have kept the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the conversation. First proposed in 1923, the amendment aims to include women in the United States Constitution; currently, there is nothing written in the historic document that calls for equality based on sex, preventing women and men from legally sharing equal rights. In January 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, and the following month the House of Representatives voted to remove the time limit on its decision to ratify the amendment. The Senate’s decision is still pending.  

While no single law can secure anyone from the impact of a pandemic, having the ERA in place is a crucial longterm step. 

“A huge, important part of the Equal Rights Amendment is that it’s able to lift women’s status in our society,” said Bettina Hager, D.C. director of the ERA Coalition and Fund for Women’s Equality. “If we did have a more equal society, I think there would be different laws around domestic violence, and there would hopefully be laws around healthcare and childcare that would help women.”

Before the pandemic, families were already trying to navigate the childcare system to find high-quality yet affordable care, while juggling school with work demands. Now for some, it’s become a nearly impossible situation. Jessica Mason, senior policy analyst for the National Partnership for Women and Families, recently said the effect on many of her coworkers has exceeded the stress of the virus itself: “Many are looking after their children and acting as home-school teachers while working full time, and others are caring for older relatives and family members who need extra support during this time.”

Mason added, “It has really driven home all the work that we’ve been dedicated to for so long around the impossibility of managing work and family and caregiving without really supportive policies.”

It’s been especially difficult for women, considering that they comprise a large portion of essential workers throughout the pandemic, including 78% of health care workers, according to The New York Times. They also represent the majority of employees who were among the first to be cut, such as retail and housekeeping. 

For too many women, these conflicts are nothing new. Once having children, women historically have been pushed out of the workforce, and for those who remain, many are only able to hold a part-time job. That has taken a toll on women’s income over time, Mason continued, resulting in less savings. And those part-time jobs are often lower quality and less likely to include benefits like paid family leave, paid sick leave or health insurance. Over the last several decades, the United States has made “glacial but measurable steps toward gender equality in some parts of the economy,” she explained, “With men taking more of an interest in equally dividing the caregiving work.” Women still shoulder the bulk of it, however, and with the economy edging toward “reopening” while school and childcare remain in flux, the country is at risk of losing at least a generation of progress for equality.

“One of the data signals that has been most disturbing to me was this spring, Mason continued. “For the first time in almost 40 years, we saw the percentage of adult women who are in the labor force drop below 50%. Geez, we already know that this has pushed people out of the workforce, but the only question is: Is that going to be long term or is it going to be temporary?”

Her uncertainty is universal. In New York City, where one of the Department of Labor’s approaches for reopening schools is to have students in the classroom on alternate days, author Deb Perlman concludes: “In the COVID economy, you’re only allowed a kid OR a job.” 

The National Partnership for Women and Families has been deep in the fight for national paid family leave and paid sick days for many years, beginning with its role in enacting the Family and Medical Leave Act in1993. The original purpose of paid family leave was to allow people to take time off from work due to a medical condition, to care for ill or injured family members, or to give birth. Now childcare has become a necessary factor to consider as well.  

“Previously we had not put childcare in that bucket because we, like so many people, had never anticipated a world where someone would need potentially weeks and weeks and weeks of time over the course of a year away from their jobs to do childcare,” Mason said. “We’re all adjusting on the fly as we deal with the situation.”

For assistance today, Mason recommends looking into the The Families First Coronavirus Response Act, emergency legislation enacted in March that offers workers two weeks of paid sick days. But it has significant, problematic gaps that disproportionately affect women, and women of color in particular, since it allows employers to exclude healthcare workers and first responders. 

“It’s egregious,” she said. “Think of women nurses or women home health aides who are providing that essential care. Those are the last people you want to have going to work sick. So many of them are also parents.” 

Mason speculates that while the COVID-19 crisis further exposes society’s gender and racial disparities, it also draws new awareness to those who haven’t paid mind to these gaps; the way women and people of color are pushed into lower paying jobs with fewer protections and fewer rights; the importance of transforming unpaid care work into paid caregiving; and how essential teachers, healthcare workers and grocery store workers are supported in the workplace. 

The mission to ratify the ERA too, has been around for almost 100 years, yet is now returning to the forefront of the political conversation. 

“It resonates with this new level of conversation that has just burst across intersectional conversation about the Black Lives Matter movement and the importance of racial equity in our economy, in our political system and in our justice system,” Mason said. “It does seem to me that there is an incredible appetite among a large, large part of the public to finally create that society and political system and economy that really reflects the best of our values.”

If true, women’s equality could be next on the docket. As Jenkins said, simply yet staunchly, “The Equal Rights Amendment would be a major force in recognizing our rights.” 

About the writer: Alyssa Fisher, who recently earned her undergraduate degree in Journalism at the University of Florida, is a 2020 fellow in the Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program* at Women’s eNews, funded by the Sy Syms Foundation. The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program at Women’s eNews fellowship supports editorial and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence Program

The Sy Syms Journalistic Excellence program at Women’s eNews was launched in 2014 with support from the Sy Syms Foundation. The fellowship provides support and development opportunities for editorial interns in the pursuit of journalistic excellence.

“For a democracy to flourish all voices must be heard.” says Marcy Syms, a founding Trustee and President of the Sy Syms Foundation. “Through its investigative reporting Women’s eNews gets at the essence of good journalism. The Sy Syms Foundation is proud of this collaboration to support today’s newest women journalists.”

As part of its mission to create social change for women and girls through investigative reporting, Women’s eNews helps foster, train, and support the career development of new journalists with a focus on social justice and women’s rights.

July 1st 2020, 4:52 pm



100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment of Women’s Right to Vote

JULY 23-25, 2020

Empowering and Energizing Women in New York State and Nationally about the Importance of Voting


We will celebrate together the 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment of Women’s Right to Vote following in the footsteps of the NYS suffragists, to be part of affecting change. You will experience visionary insights from our amazing speakers, legacy descendants and inspiration from the voices of the past as well as the next up and coming generation.


A star-studded awareness event with the most incredible prominent female leadership, advocates, entrepreneurs – and inclusive and diverse audience of women as we set the tone for “Energizing the Power of our Vote in 2020!” – making our voices heard during Congressional and Presidential elections this year.

Click Below to View Virtual Event Trailer :

“CREW100 Presents: Suffrage Celebration” from iCampaignNY




About CREW:

Civically Re-Engaged Women (CREW) is incorporated in New York State as a national not-for profit corporation, a 501(c)3 and 501 (c) 4.   CREW provides education and training with a political focus. CREW hosts annual conferences and special events featuring best practices for winning results.  At the conferences, private and public sectors compare playbooks on efficiency, volunteerism, corporate social responsibility, and contemporary progress to prominent societal values and practices. Additionally, CREW offers subcontractor leadership and “branding” services to prominent organizations and institutions and creates original training/programming for a variety of disciplines.

To Learn More and Register, Click Here

June 25th 2020, 11:28 am

A Gift for my Racist Father: A Biracial Nephew


It was October, 2019 when I last visited my father who, at 93 years old, has been living in a nursing home for the past four years. But it was not the ensuing coronavirus pandemic that prevented me from returning. I already knew I wouldn’t see him again– and would never want to– whether I got the apology I sought or not. As he vacillated between clinging to the present and denying the past, I remained vigilant, demanding he apologize for creating a childhood home steeped in strict patriarchal rule, where emotional abuse and physical violence were directed toward his only daughter. I ultimately got that apology, although under some duress, which allowed me to walk away in peace, leaving much of the rage behind in that nursing home room.

Still, as is the case with most people who discriminate, they often don’t project their hatred towards just one group. No, their targets tend to be limitless.

Over the past few weeks, many reminders of his monstrous racial prejudice have come crashing back as I have stood, kneeled, and laid my still body down on the cold concrete with other peaceful protestors in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, which has taken hold of our country in response to the death of George Floyd, the unarmed, black man killed by a white police officer during an arrest in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 25. At a vigil I attended last week in New York City, one of its organizers asked us to think about how we felt during the eight minute, forty-six-second silence we held in tribute to the same length of time Floyd was forced to lay under the pressure of a white officer’s knee until he breathed his last breath. My thoughts traveled immediately back to the rampant racism I experienced in my father’s home. 

His angry, racist rants, a ritual he performed almost daily by blaming black people for his own failings, whether they be educational, professional or financial, reflected his attempt to compensate for his deep seeded insecurities and mounting fragility. Yet under the heading of, Be Careful Who You Hate: It Could Be Someone You Love, I couldn’t think of a better gift to give my father, on this Father’s Day, than to introduce him to the biracial relative he never knew.

Due to the genius of genealogy, I recently learned of, and spoke with, a first cousin I had never known about, only three months ago. Born to my uncle, my father’s youngest brother — a brother whom my father particularly adored — my uncle must have known that he would have been shunned by my father if it were ever discovered that the mother of his child was black.

So my uncle kept it a secret until the day he died, which is now a decade ago. During our call, my cousin told me that he never got to know his father…not really, except for a few brief visits when he was a young child, and years later when he made a surprise visit to his father’s place of employment. Although his father was civil and cordial, he would not respond in kind, and that would be the last time they would ever see each other. 

I am now writing a letter to my father, which he will receive on this Father’s Day, introducing him to the nephew he never knew, and will probably never meet. I will tell my father about the distinct similarities his brother and nephew shared, beneath the skin, which no amount of racism could erase. How they are both the tallest in their families, how they both never smoked cigarettes or drank an ounce of alcohol, and how they both share a partiality for one dessert in particular…cheesecake. But what is most powerful was their mutual love for the game of basketball.  

My father and his four brothers all shared a passion for basketball and, specifically, refereeing. While one even turned pro, it was his youngest brother who enjoyed refereeing high school basketball games in his Brooklyn neighborhood some sixty years ago. Unbeknownst to him, his son also developed a particular fondness for the game, spending years volunteering as a referee in yet another Brooklyn neighborhood, and is still doing so today. 

Speaking of basketball, I plan to end my letter with a quote from one of the most successful and legendary players of all, Michael Jordan, who last week committed $100 million to organizations fighting racism against black people:

“I realize that I’m black, but I like to be viewed as a person, and this is everybody’s wish,” Jordan said.

And that is the wish I am hoping for you too, Dad, beginning with this letter, and on this Father’s Day.

Lori Sokol, PhD, is the Executive Director & Editor-in-Chief of Women’s eNews. Her book, She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World, will be out in August, 2020 (She Writes Press).

June 18th 2020, 9:42 pm

Women’s eNews Podcast: Women Saving the World


“Women often transcend party politics.”

NYS Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul in She is Me: How Women Will Save The World

In our June 10 episode , NYS Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul discusses the State’s successful response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s specific impact on women, and how the ongoing demonstrations in response to the death of George Floyd are embracing social and racial justice in ways that have never been seen before.

Listen to the Entire Podcast by Clicking Here

February 11, 2019 – Albany NY – Lt. Governor Kathy Hochul poses for a portrait and headshot in her office at the State Senate. (Mike Groll/Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo)

NYS Lt. Governor Kathy Hochul is President of the NYS Senate and Chairs the Regional Economic Development Councils and NYS Women’s Suffrage 100th Anniversary Commemoration Commission. She also Co-Chairs the NYS Heroin and Opioid Abuse Task Force and Community College Councils.

June 11th 2020, 4:58 pm

Announcing: The ‘Accessibility is Fundamental’ Fellowships


Women’s eNews is pleased to announce the launch of a new fellowship program that will bring increased attention to the benefits of hiring people with disabilities.

The program, The Loreen Arbus* Accessibility is Fundamental Fellowship, will provide vital employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities to be trained as professional journalists.

Women’s eNews will train two interns with disabilities who self-identify as female to research, interview, write, edit and publish articles about the most crucial issues impacting people with disabilities (particularly women and girls).

Current topics of consideration include: Ableism, employment challenges, sexual harassment, and particular issues amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The two interns will be selected for this 12-month initiative, starting August 1, 2020 and will be trained on a virtual accessible platform like Zoom. Applicants should provide a demonstrated commitment to the field of journalism through their scholastic and/or professional experience.  Review of all applications will be completed by a select panel of judges representing the intersection of journalism and disability communities.

Applications should be submitted online with a deadline of Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 8 pm ET, including a personal statement (maximum of 400 words), a resume, and three letters of reference (personal, academic, and/or professional).  

To qualify, applicants must be under the age of 30 as of the application deadline and can be current undergraduate or graduate students, or have graduated within the past three years (no earlier than 2017).

To request an application, please email

Loreen Arbus

*Loreen Arbus is currently the President of The Loreen Arbus Foundation, The Goldenson-Arbus Foundation and Loreen Arbus Productions, Inc. Through these organizations and in her personal endeavors, Ms. Arbus is a tireless advocate for women and girls; a champion for one of the world’s largest minorities – people with disabilities; and is passionate about encouraging equal opportunities in television, film, communications, and the arts.

June 10th 2020, 8:11 pm

Women’s eNews Podcast: Women Saving The World


“Women have always saved the world by fighting against evil, and by saving families and communities. If we didn’t, the world would have become extinct a long, long time ago.” – Taina Bien-Aimé, in She is Me: How Women Will Save The World

Listen to the entire interview on iHeart Radio by clicking here

Taina Bien-Aimé is the Executive Director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW), one of the oldest international organizations dedicated to ending trafficking in women and girls and commercial sexual exploitation as practices of gender-based violence and discrimination. Prior to this position, Taina was the Executive Director of Women’s City Club of New York, an advocacy organization that helps shape policy in New York. She is also a founding Board member of and later served as the Executive Director of Equality Now (2000-2011), an international human rights organization that works to promote the human rights of women and girls. 

June 8th 2020, 9:12 pm

Book of the Week — No Rules: A Memoir


Every Friday, Women’s eNews is presenting a ‘Book of the Week,’ providing you with a sampling of some of the latest books from some of the finest female writers who will stir your curiosity, feed your intellect, and take you anywhere and everywhere, without leaving the comfort of your own home. We hope you will join us in supporting these highly talented authors!!

This week’s Book of the Week is: No Rules: A Memoir

Chapter 2 1960s

South Windsor, Connecticut

“ I wasn’t always like this.” My mother gulped down tears, her eyes red from crying. She looked at me, then away, the white Mallen streak of her hair falling forward onto her face. She felt around and pushed it back into her hair grip as she looked down at me. At seven, I had seen her cry too many times already, and it always caused me pain.
“I was carefree and happy,” she continued through tears. “I ran everywhere. I used to laugh all the time.”

She took my father’s shirt from the clothesline, folded it, and placed it in the wicker basket next to me. I knew I should be helping her, but I hated going into the basement with her and sorting laundry. It was boring, and there seemed to be no end to it. She almost never asked me or Anne for help, so I didn’t think of helping her until I heard her crying.

“Mother always told me, when you have daughters of your own, they will help you. I had to do everything.” Her crying stopped and she was starting to sound angry. This was a familiar story that she told often. “I had to take care of my baby brother all by myself when I was twelve and Mother had a nervous breakdown. I had to stay home from school, cook for Father, change and wash the diapers, clean the house. No one even thanked me.”

It was as though she wasn’t talking to me anymore, but instead to an invisible person. I took the towel she handed me and folded it as she continued, “Mother said, don’t worry, when you grow up your daughter will help you.” She turned and looked at me in anger. “But you two don’t help me at all. I had to do everything then, and I have to do everything now. When will it be my turn?”

“I would help you if you asked.” I avoided her eyes, feeling ashamed.

Her voice grew louder. “I shouldn’t have to ask. You can see I need help. Someday, when you get married and have children, you will have to do this, so you need to know how.”

I got a bad feeling inside when she said this, thinking how awful that future sounded. Would I cry all the time too?

It wasn’t so bad when Anne and I did jobs together. Then we could talk. But Mummy got mad when we talked. She would com- plain that we were so busy talking, we weren’t getting the work done.

Mummy handed me a blouse of mine from the clothesline and threw the clothespins into the bag she had made from fabric scraps to hold them. I started to fold the blouse in half.

“Not like that. You’ll put a crease down the middle and it will be harder to iron.” She grabbed it from my hands. “Never mind, I will do it myself. You just make more work for me. Take this other basket with the ones I folded already upstairs and put it in the living room. And don’t let those clothes tip over.”

I grabbed the two handles on each end of the wicker laundry basket and headed upstairs, glad to have an excuse to leave.

The only time my mother seemed happy was when she played the piano. Chopin was her favorite composer. Playing his music, she transported herself back to England—where, I was certain, she longed to be, studying piano as she had before the war.

I was still seven when the piano became part of our lives. My parents spent weeks dragging us from one store to the next, searching for one they could afford. My mother insisted she could find more ways to save money to have one, but I couldn’t imagine how. Already she made all our clothes, saved green stamps to buy furnishings, and grocery shopped with a paper and pencil in hand, adding the prices of her purchases to ensure there was enough money in her purse before she got to the register. She even made my father’s boxer shorts and our winter coats, and knit our hats and mittens. When the ice cream truck drove down our street and the other kids ran out to greet him, I knew better than to ask for any. There was no money for such frivolities.

My father reminded us often that we were not poor, however.

“We have a roof over our head and food on the table. There are a lot of people in the world who don’t,” he told us while we were all eating dinner together one night. “In London during the war, I would see families living in the subway and I would give them the care packages my mother sent. They needed those things a lot more than I did. We are very lucky, having what we do.”

I knew my father had grown up in a poor neighborhood of immigrants in Lawrence, Massachusetts, where his parents had worked all their lives in the woolen mills, speaking only Lithu- anian. My father had worked there too before Pearl Harbor was bombed and he was drafted.

He was proud of owning his own house, a dream his VA loan and his job assembling jet engines at Pratt and Whitney Aircrafthad made possible. He hated unions, as he blamed them for causing the mills to close and move out of Lawrence. So when the union at Pratt and Whitney went on strike, he’d risked being injured by crossing the picket lines to work. As a result, he’d earned enough money during the strike for a down payment on the house. Then he’d quit smoking two packs of Camel cigarettes a day so he could afford the mortgage.

The day the piano arrived, I sat beside my mother as she dug out her sheet music from a cracked, worn, brown leather bag that she kept in her steamer trunk with other mysterious treasures from her former life. I was always intrigued by what lay hidden under the trunk’s heavy lid with its clunky, metal buckles.

“Why is this picture of a boat on here?” I asked her, pointing to the partially missing sticker of the bow of a large ship plastered to the side of the trunk. Although I knew the answer from other times I had asked, I loved to hear her repeat the story of her journey to America.

“That’s the ship I came over on from England, the Holland America Line. It was a Dutch ship, see the windmill behind it?They pasted it on the trunk so they would load it on the correct ship. I had to ride out three miles in a tender with my trunk. That made me seasick for the whole six days of sailing.”

“How come you had to ride so far to get on the ship?”

“It was just after the war, and the British weren’t letting Dutch ships land yet. It was difficult getting any ship at all. Theonly reason I got on that ship was because I was getting married to your father, and he was an American soldier. Otherwise, I would have had to wait longer.”

I knew about The War. My parents talked about it often, and even at seven I was keenly aware of the importance it held in my parents’ lives. It had killed Mummy’s oldest brother, the uncle I would never know, the person she’d loved most in her youth. And it had brought my parents together on a train full of troops as they were both returning to their bases, my mother in the British Signal Corps, my father in the American Army Aircorps. They were two people from different worlds who had nothing in common and would never have met otherwise.

After the piano arrived, music filled our house: soft, gentle music; sentimental, romantic music; music that spoke of starry nights and green pastures; music that evoked English gardens and Irish eyes; music that caused my mother to sing instead of cry, and occasionally to sing and cry.

I enjoyed sitting nearby and listening to her play. Once, when she was taking a break after singing one of them, she told me, “When I was in the army, the only piano available was in the local pub. I would play songs and all the soldiers would gather around and sing. We had a lovely time, all of us. We could forget about the war for a while. It was great fun.”

Another time, she was playing a difficult Chopin piece and was getting frustrated, replaying the same section over and over, until she finally stopped, looking defeated. “All I ever wanted to be was a concert pianist, but my piano teacher told me I wasn’t strong enough,” she said. She turned her hands to look at them as she spoke. “He said a woman’s hands aren’t big enough, which is why there are no women concert pianists.” She looked at her hands a moment longer before rising from the piano stool. “Besides, I wanted to get married and have a family, and I couldn’t do that if I was a concert pianist, after all,” she said, looking into my eyes.

You can learn more about the author, Sharon Dukett, by visiting:
Facebook Author Page
Goodreads Author Page

June 4th 2020, 7:38 pm

From the Executive Director: What the Mainstream Media is Not Showing…BUT WE ARE


Women’s eNews was launched in the year 2000 to uphold the values of journalism by seeking the truth and reporting it, acting independently and minimizing harm with accountability and transparency.

This is as true today, twenty years later, as it ever was.

It is for this reason that we believe it is both urgent and crucial to provide you with what much of the mainstream media is not regarding the protests and civil unrest currently taking place in major cities across the US, as a result of the death of George Floyd, an African-American man who died on May 25 while being forcibly restrained by a white Minneapolis police officer.

There is a significant amount of solidarity on display between police officers (mostly white) and protestors (mostly black). Yet, these scenes are rarely being shown to the public, so we are doing so.

The images* below display hope…hope that all types of discrimination, whether based upon race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, will finally come to an end:

Fargo, North Dakota
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Santa Cruz, California
Muskegon, Michigan
Miami, Florida
Camden, New Jersey
Downtown Portland, Oregon

Please join Women’s eNews in solidarity with all those who are stepping up, and speaking out, against discrimination of any kind. For there is only one race — the human race — and we are all in this together. Thank you!

Photo by Eva Mueller

In solidarity,

Lori Sokol, PhD

Executive Director

*These images were first published here.

June 2nd 2020, 3:19 pm

Abuse During the Pandemic: What You Need to Know and Do


Covid-19 has changed everyone’s lives—especially those who find themselves living in an abusive situation. On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. That statistic could be on the increase since this pandemic has elevated the fear of the unknown and generated extraordinary stress and anxiety within families, households, and relationships. Furthermore, I fear fewer victims are seeking help since safer-at-home orders require people to hunker down together at home, sharing space with abusers.

Most individuals are consumed with worrying thoughts that I call the what ifs:

These worrying thoughts can raise stress levels and increase anxiety for anyone but can especially be a trigger for those prone to abusive behaviors. Some individuals who feel they are losing control of their own lives may become more controlling of those closest to them. Stressful situations like the pandemic can cause a rise in unhealthy copying skills such as alcohol and drug abuse. Abusive individuals my find themselves more frustrated, angry, or even rageful. These types of behaviors, fears, and emotions create a ticking time bomb that can devastate a family.

With a rise in domestic abuse and violence, families are more vulnerable than ever. The safety of victims and their children should be a chief concern for our society and prompt us to become more aware and offer support to those in need.

If you, your children, or someone you know is in in a dangerous life-threating situation, take the initiative and call 911. For those not in a life-threatening situation yet dealing with controlling, manipulative, degrading, or intolerable behaviors, it may be time to start planning for a new beginning—one absent of abuse.

As a survivor and through my work with abuse victims over the last decade, I know all too well how hard it is to leave and start over, especially when children are involved. I personally felt trapped in my abusive relationship with my first husband. He controlled and manipulated my life. Not only was I fearful of losing his love, but I was financially dependent on him. He convinced me that no one would ever love me like he did; he told me I was stupid and incapable of do anything right. I lived in a cycle of emotional abuse for nearly ten years.

Abusive people can destroy a victim’s self-worth, manipulate their thoughts and beliefs. Abusers have a way of convincing a victim that they are to blame for the abuser’s poor behaviors. The victim can be manipulated into believing they are the uncaring and controlling person in the relationship. This is why I feel it is important to understand what emotional or psychological abuse looks, sounds, and feels like. Go to to learn more about abuse.

Once a victim understands the abuse and decides to take action, they can transition from victim to survivor. The following steps offer effective ways to break free of an abusive situation:

  1. Get Help
  2. Get Out
  3. Stop the Cycle of Abuse

Get Help – First, it is vital to make a plan. Research options or find an organization for guidance and support. or National Domestic Violence Hotline are organizations that can help survivors. Go to for more information and to find links to these organizations and other resources. Abuse survivors may need a support group, therapist, lawyer, resources, or a safe place to stay.

Get Out – This just might be the hardest thing any survivor will ever do, but it can be done. I believe few relationships that involve abuse can be resolved. The only way to turn an unhealthy relationship into a healthy one requires behavioral modification by the abuser and the victim which involves awareness, reflection, work, learning, and growth as individuals and a unified pair. If both parties in the relationship aren’t willing to do the work, it might be time to move on.

Stop the Cycle of Abuse – Once a survivor decides to face their challenges, it is time to become educated. A survivor must make a choice to invest in their own personal healing. They may need a therapist, guidance, or a self-help book like my book Finding Your Voice: A Path to Recovery for Survivors of Abuse. The best gift a survivor can give to themselves is to heal the pain of their past trauma. As a survivor heals, they can discover their self-worth and regain their self-empowerment. When a survivor gains these two self-beliefs, they will obtain what is needed to break the cycle of abuse in their own lives and have an opportunity for happiness, joy, and healthier relationships.

As a society we can make a difference. In order to stop the cycle of abuse in our society, we must become aware, educated, vocal, and supportive. We must empower victims to become survivors. I believe each individual survivor’s strength and empowerment is the answer to breaking the cycle of abuse. 

About the author: Mannette Morgan is an inspirational speaker, author, and abuse survivor who is on a mission to stop the cycle of abuse in our society. After 30 years of intense self-work, she overcame her past trauma of emotional, sexual, and physical abuse along with powering through the limitations of her learning disability, dyslexia. A life coach certified through the Academy of Solution Focus Training and the American University of NLP, she has emerged as a leading voice among abuse survivors and today inspires others to rise above adversity and strive for a better life. Her incredible story of survival and recovery is documented in the book Finding Your Voice.


May 31st 2020, 7:21 pm

Women Saving the World


An Interview with

Mona Sinha 

Mona Sinha is an advocate for gender equality in business and society. She is the Board Chair of Women Moving Millions, a community of women who fund big and bold ($1 million+) to create a gender equal world. She is a member of the ERA Coalition which seeks to include a constitutional amendment of equality on the basis of sex. She serves on numerous educational and non-profit Boards. She is a trustee emerita of Smith College, where she was Vice Chair of the Board and led the Women for the World campaign that raised $486 million to support women’s education.

May 28th 2020, 7:03 pm

Gaslighting: Front and Center at Press Conferences


Every couple of months, a new caper appears. It’s the lobbyist Jack Burkman and his alt-right sidekick Jacob Wohl trying to smear another high profile person to post a few points for themselves. It always fails; they’ve become a blight on the conspiracy theorist brigade, something I never thought possible. Journalists are actually torn about how to handle this — deciding whether to cover these press conferences to debunk them or ignoring them so that they don’t give more oxygen to the lies. 

There’s a reason to talk about these press conferences: they’re a case study in gaslighting, how to recognize it and how to protect oneself from it. 

Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that makes victims question their own reality, perception, and judgment. Gaslighting makes a target think that she’s the problem when she’s not. It’s dishonest but it’s different from a regular lie. It’s an erosion of reality and a normalization of things that are not true. 

People have become more aware of gaslighting since Donald Trump became president because of his countless misrepresentations and insistence on alternate facts. Before Trump even ran for office I counseled countless clients who were victims of gaslighting behavior, so much so that I had written a book about it: The Gaslight Effect

That’s how I can see it’s an essential tool for Burkman and Wohl. The only way they’re even able to create these staged accusations is that they convince someone to make the false claim, however specious it is. To try to take down former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, they hoodwinked a woman named Carolyne Cass. In an attempt to humiliate then presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren, they snagged a former Marine who misrepresented his military career. For former presidential candidate and Sound Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg, they found another inexperienced young man who was so controlled by the two men in a short period of time that he felt he couldn’t leave their meeting place — Burkman’s home.

From their stories in the press, past victims describe not only being lied to, but also the experience of losing their agency as they go along with plans, not exactly sure of their footing or roles in them.

But the most recent example of Burkman and Wohl’s work — a woman who fabricated about Dr. Anthony Fauci named Diana Andrade —  is the most instructive because we have a transcript of the conversation between the two men and their most recent dupe (I use that word in defense of her) because she recorded a call between the three of them.

The call demonstrates many of the techniques that my clients have experienced being gaslighted. 

For example: “What could be wrong, Diana?” Wohl asks her. “You did a good job, you got paid. What’s the problem? What seems to be the issue? You’re freaking out. You’re texting me late at night. What’s the issue?”

“What’s the problem? What’s your problem?” Burkman continues. “Tell me what the problem is? What’s your problem?”

Rather than addressing her concern, Wohl and Burkman take a turn in the conversation to make it about what’s wrong with Diana even though she knows they are the troubled ones in the trio. 

Her problem, of course, is that she doesn’t want to be involved. But she was, which the duo readily remind her. You “readily volunteered” they tell her. To her clearly justifiable legal and ethical  concerns they diminish her with: “Grow up, for Christ’s sake.” 

I don’t know how you do it, but you find a way to make me go along with your little plans,” Diana says, which is classic gaslightee fatigue. After continuous gaslighting, Diana is worn down. The more people give in to the reality spin, the more likely they are to grant the request they initially declined and the less they are to remain their same, clear-sighted self than they were when they first engaged. 

Ongoing gaslighting results in confusion, an uncomfortable feeling that you just can’t put your finger on, ongoing rumination, alienation from others who would not agree with the gaslighter — and, eventually depression and personality changes, so much so that  friends often don’t recognize the person, and bad dreams may populate their nights. 

We’re kidding ourselves if we don’t think that stopping these two is a women’s issue. Sure, the false allegations against Mayor Buttiiegieg involved two men but 75% of this pair’s antics victimized women. They were either falsely accusing a woman or using a woman to make the false allegations. 

Because gaslighting is a power game, women are far more likely to be victimized by it.

The decision of whether to cover these fraudulent fiascos is a fraught one, for sure; it’s that unimaginable that reporting the truth would come so close to constituting fake news. 

But the more we expose their methods the more people can be aware and not get involved with them; they need a willing accomplice for each ruse. The way to make an otherwise rational person who wouldn’t partake in these games is to undermine their reality to create a new one where these actions are justifiable.

There is a risk that heightening Burkman and Wohl’s profile will negate any effects of exposing the gaslighting they engage in; people are attracted to fame and may just go along with these stunts without having their realities challenged. 

But journalists can’t correct people’s morality. They can provide them with facts. And the story of Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl contains real representations of how effective and insidious gaslighting can be — and recognizing the techniques can help unwitting victims avoid it.

Dr. Robin Stern  is the co-founder and associate director for the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence and an associate research scientist at the Child Study Center at Yale. She’s also the author of The Gaslight Effect, the foremost book on gaslighting. 

May 20th 2020, 10:42 am

Announcing: The Amy Ferris Fellowship To Champion Women Writers


As the world continues to adjust to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Women’s eNews’ is enhancing its commitment to amplifying the voices of women by announcing workshop and training opportunities that will help you learn how to strengthen your own voice, via virtual/online settings, as Women’s eNews has been doing for the past 20 years:

Cape Cod Story Summit Will Celebrate Women’s Voices

“I want all women to use their voices – to be loud and audacious; to be heard, to be recognized, their words seen and read” – Amy Ferris

“I want all women to use their voices — to be loud and audacious; to be heard, to be recognized — their words seen, read, talked about, words that come alive in the world so others can grab hold of those words,” says Amy Ferris in announcing her Fellowship. “I am a huge fan of women telling their stories. Women writers, changing the proverbial game, through our words, our writing, our voices. Our stories matter. Our stories save lives, and change hearts and yes, Goddess yes, shake and rattle and move the universe.”

The Amy Ferris Fellowship will financially enable qualified women writers to be able to attend Cape Cod Story Summits this summer and fall.

To enter, please go to the application form via the link below, fill it out, include a writing sample of 1500 words, and enter. Please note that your personal story is measured at equal weight with your writing sample. Please be thoughtful and expressive in the writing of your personal story. It matters! Within ten days, you will be notified by email or by phone as to whether or not, you have been accepted as a fellow.

The first winner will be announced on June 15, 2020.

As long as you are 18 years of age or older, you may apply. You may not apply if: you have already applied for a scholarship in 2019 or 2020, or you are a graduate of the 2020 Winter Story Summit. If you are a Summiteer who requires additional financial assistance, please reach out to John Gatsos and we will see what might be done.


Amy Ferris is an author, editor, playwright, and screenwriter. Her memoir, Marrying George Clooney, was adapted into an off-Broadway play in 2012 and ran at CAP21 Theater in NYC. She wrote two feature films, Funny Valentines (Julie Dash, Director) and Mr. Wonderful (Anthony Minghella, Director). Amy has contributed to numerous anthologies, edited one anthology, and co-edited another. She serves on the Board of Directors at Peters Valley School of Craft, on the Advisory Board of The Women’s Media Center, and on Faculty at Kauai Writers Conference. In 2015, she co-founded The Milford Readers & Writers Festival along with Sean Strub, Robert Levine and Suzanne Braun Levine. In 2018 , Amy was honored by Women’s eNews as one of its 21 Leaders for the 21st Century for her activism, her passion and her commitment to women’s voices.

May 18th 2020, 9:01 pm

Battling COVID-19: How Women’s Humility Saves Lives


“Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”  Professor Henry Higgins asks in a not-so-veiled sardonic recitative.  The subject—his charge, Eliza Doolittle—is the protagonist of the classic musical ‘My Fair Lady.’ 

Ushering in a fresh waft of today’s Zeitgeist is an article in a recent issue of Harvard Business Review by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic and Cindy Gallop.  The piece is a paean to political leadership, coinciding with how women have taken charge of a dangerous and disruptive pandemic.

The two authors describe the kind of leadership we have seen in victorious heads of state and other political leaders, disproportionately female, battling the disease. 

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen defended her country against the virus in neighboring China with a strategy of early action. Before their first case was confirmed, the Taiwanese government mobilized its Central Epidemic Command Center. Well beyond tactical border closures and aggressive testing, President Tsai ramped up an arsenal of face masks and mandated more than 100 other measures.  The result: her government has held the number of deaths to .03 per 100,000; in the U.S. the rate is more than 750% that. 

As another example, despite a common culture, the Scandinavian experience is especially striking as the four nations led by women—Iceland, Finland, Denmark and Norway—stand in stark contrast to male-governed Sweden. Although Sweden might be faring better than the U.S., its reliance on citizens to “behave like adults” has led to more than three times as many deaths as the other four countries combined. The most powerful woman in Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has spoken plain truth to her people, protecting them with aggressive measures.  As the virus attacked Europe, a graph illustrating mortality rates showed Germany almost flat-lined along the bottom. The hardest-hit EU nations, male-led Italy and Spain, rose up on that same chart like mountainsides.  

Gender differences related to times like these have intrigued some of Harvard’s most prominent scholars. Former assistant secretary of defense Joseph Nye (Soft Power), and world-renowned psychologist Steven Pinker (Our Better Angels) are among them, boldly asserting that the world is safer and more humane where women are in charge. Neither is a gender apologist, and they are joined by other rigorous academics, top military officers, and heads of major corporations in naming one of the world’s worst kept secrets: women tend to be aware of their limitations and less likely overconfident. (Think of the men vying for Supreme Misogynist currently running the US, UK, Italy, and Russia). Less overconfidence means more self-awareness, an openness to learning, and room for inclusion of the most talented despite diverse outlooks and outputs.

The Harvard Business Review authors maintain that women emphasize emotional intelligence along with intellectual prowess. They tend to forge bonds with their constituents as they make difficult decisions. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern guided her country through a protracted lockdown while using her bully pulpit to help children understand that this could be a tough year for the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. The island nation has since “won the battle” against the coronavirus, with no widespread undetected community transmission.

And here at home, one after another woman has put her political career on the line.  San Francisco’s London Breed was among the first US mayors to order her city to shelter in place. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly faced major blow-back as she banned Easter services to maintain social distancing. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan has invited not only the wrath of Donald Trump but also angry protestors he has encouraged as they congregate around the state capitol chanting, “Lock her up. Lock her up.” She told CNN she lost sleep after the president attacked her. Why? Because, she has said, she feared his response could affect the well-being of the people of her state. Nevertheless, she persists. 

In a compelling conversation with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright noted how in this crucible traditional female traits take on new importance. She cited women’s roles as caregivers informing their leadership throughout this crisis. 

There’s no silver lining to indescribable suffering that may disrupt the world order. But in 20 years of working in conflict zones, I’ve seen how chaos can crack open a culture. Who knows the lasting effects when, as a group, women are outperforming a legion of men who are their peers or outrank them.

Ironically, even as they demonstrate greater capacity to deal with COVID-19, what many women possess above all is humility—a quality that informs all others. In contrast to the blustering hubris too often obvious in male leadership, humility makes possible the courage, the vision, the nimbleness, the relatability, and other time-honored female traits that enable good governance, especially in crises. So, in the face of a life-and-death pandemic demanding the best, why can’t a man be more like a woman?

Former US ambassador to Austria Swanee Hunt founded the Women and Public Policy Program at the Harvard Kennedy School, where is she the Eleanor Roosevelt Lecturer.  Her non-profit Inclusive Security has for 20 years advanced women’s leadership in the face of conflict.

May 14th 2020, 9:03 pm

How States Amplify the Panic of the Pandemic for Women Seeking Abortion


What unites opposing opinions on abortion as threads of the same conversation is, ideally at least, a foundation of facts. However, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Texas authorities have introduced false claims as they go back and forth—and back again—on whether or not abortion is allowed during the global crisis.

In an Executive Order on March 22, 2020, Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) called for surgeries that are “not immediately medically necessary” to be postponed until after the coronavirus outbreak. The following day, the state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) clarified in a news release that this interim ban included “routine dermatological, ophthalmological, and dental procedures… or any type of abortion.”

Unlike the sweeping span of surgeries with which they are listed, abortions are time-sensitive and cannot wait until the pandemic has passed, specifically for people in states that already have restrictive timelines on the procedure. 

Other states including Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have added further panic to the pandemic for people who need access to abortion.

For many seeking the procedure in these states, traveling out of state is not an option within reach. Even if people have the means, traveling during the pandemic greatly increases their exposure to COVID-19 while pregnant and particularly susceptible.

State officials are passing these bans under the guise of preserving personal protective equipment for healthcare workers to fight the coronavirus. However, in 2017, medication abortions accounted for 39 percent of all abortions in the US, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Relying on pills alone, this type of abortion does not require any protective equipment and is viable for pregnancies up to 10 weeks.

This is not the first time that state lawmakers have used false claims to limit reproductive rights.

In April and November 2019, the Ohio General Assembly introduced two bills that included a fictitious procedure for ectopic pregnancies. Reading through the headlines, I might have skimmed past these Ohio bills had I not had an ectopic pregnancy two years ago.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus where it develops in healthy pregnancies. The majority of these types of pregnancies implant in a fallopian tube which, unlike the uterus, cannot accommodate the growing embryo. An ectopic pregnancy is inviable and, if left untreated, can cause the fallopian tube to burst, leading to internal bleeding and possible death.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 to 2 percent of all pregnancies in the US are ectopic, yet these pregnancies are responsible for 3 to 4 percent of pregnancy-related deaths.

The two Ohio bills that addressed this type of inviable pregnancy primarily intended to limit access to abortion. Last April, to limit insurance coverage of abortion, Ohio State Representative John Becker (R) sponsored the first of the two, House Bill 182. Women, too, have been active in the fight to restrict access. Ohio State Representatives Candice Keller (R) and Ron Hood (R) co-sponsored the more recent bill, House Bill 413, which introduces “abortion murder.” This bill holds both the physician and the patient liable for murder in the case of an attempted or successful abortion, no matter how far along the pregnancy is or the circumstances, unless “it is highly probable that the pregnant woman will die… before her unborn child is viable.”

According to these bills, when a pregnancy is found to be ectopic, doctors are required to transplant the embryo into the uterus. This description, however, does not illustrate a real procedure; the bills’ authors fabricated an operation.

The Cincinnati Enquirer filed a public records request to gain access to Representative Becker’s emails. Instead of consulting a doctor about the proposed medical procedure, Becker sought line-item edits from Barry Sheets, a lobbyist for the Right to Life Action Coalition of Ohio.

To seek a professional opinion, I interviewed Dr. Erica Oberman, an obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. After learning about this supposed surgery, she stated that, “this procedure absolutely does not exist and there is no room for counseling patients regarding [a] fictional procedure when they have ectopic pregnancies.” It seems that the bills’ sponsors were so eager to ban abortion that they invented a fake procedure. Introducing the incorrect notion that ectopic pregnancies can be saved could postpone urgently needed action and create false hope or guilt for the person who is unable to keep the inviable pregnancy.

State Representative Becker told the Cincinnati Enquirer in December 2019 that he had never researched whether re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy was possible. “I never questioned it or gave it a lot of thought,” he said.

The co-author of Becker’s bill, Barry Sheets, founded the Institute for Principled Policy, an Ohio-based organization with the mission of addressing policy issues “from an historically Biblical perspective.” He stated that he found two studies that merely mentioned re-implantation in scientific journals from 1917 and 1980. From this, the policy consultant with a bachelor’s degree in political science deemed that the procedure was medically sound and proposed that it be written into law.

When I had my ectopic pregnancy, I can’t say I would have signed up for a surgery that had only been reportedly performed twice—once 40 years ago, once over 100 years ago—when I could choose a medically sound alternative. Maybe I’m just overly cautious.

The Catholic Telegraph reported that the 1917 case was found to be poorly documented with insufficient evidence. The 1980 case was found to have falsified its research.

In November 2019, State Representative Keller remarked of her bill that, “the time for regulating evil and compromise is over.”

From Keller’s perspective, allowing people to have the option to seek abortion would promote evil. In order to eliminate evil, she endeavors to deny people the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Her attempted law extends to forcing people to carry to term who would rather choose otherwise, including after surviving sexual abuse or assault.

Whether proselytizing to conquer evil or acting with sheer carelessness, the representatives’ resulting callousness would have potentially endangered the life of anyone in Ohio who becomes pregnant, as well as their doctor.

Neither of the Ohio bills passed into law. Each bill was referred to a committee but did not receive further hearings. But the struggle isn’t over. In the last year alone, Ohio legislators have introduced ten bills that would limit access to abortion.

Even by a millennial’s standards, Representatives Keller and Becker are both very active on Facebook; when I last checked, Keller had posted 11 times in the past 24 hours on her public profile. I reached out to both representatives for comment through multiple channels but did not hear back.

These legislative efforts go far beyond endangering women’s right to choose—these two proposed bills would hinder the only action that could save the life of someone with the same kind of pregnancy that I had.


I understand how these types of laws can affect a person in the midst of a heart wrenching moment. Two Thanksgivings ago, while visiting my family in California, an agony in my abdomen woke me up in the middle of the night. After rushing to the emergency room and receiving my test results, the statistic of the more than 99 percent effectiveness of my birth control, an intrauterine device (IUD), became meaningless. I was pregnant.

Because the pregnancy was ectopic, after a few frantic texts to my boyfriend, I was rushed into emergency surgery.

Being in California and having health insurance, I had access to the procedure I needed. If I did not have insurance, or had I lived in Ohio and had either of the bills been enacted into law, that night at the hospital could have been very different. If House Bill 413, the “abortion murder” bill, had passed, my doctor would have either faced criminal charges or been required by law to attempt a procedure which does not exist. If House Bill 182, limiting insurance for abortions and procedures for ectopic pregnancy, had passed, I wouldn’t have received coverage for the surgery that saved my life.

I had never envisioned what it would be like to become pregnant; IUDs are marketed as among the most successful methods of birth control and I trusted their effectiveness as advertised. But since having my procedure, I have been surprised by how many friends and family members have shared stories of pregnancies or other serious health complications while using IUDs.

My experience with pregnancy loss made an abstract discussion instantly tangible and changed how I think of reproductive rights. I was lucky that I did not have to hesitate before going to the hospital; I knew that California did not have restrictions that would limit my access to healthcare as a woman and that my insurance would cover the care I needed. That is not the case for far too many people.


Among high-income countries, the US has the highest maternal mortality rate, according to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). UNICEF also reported that, while worldwide maternal death rates dropped by more than one-third from 2000 to 2015, outcomes for American mothers got worse.

These nationwide snapshots do not even speak to the discrimination within healthcare in the US. Geographic location, socioeconomic class, and limited access to health insurance are just some of the factors that create inequality in the healthcare system.

Racial discrimination can also keep women of color from getting the critical care that they need. Within the US, the CDC studied maternal mortality from 2011 to 2015 and additionally analyzed data from 2013 to 2017 which committees in 13 states provided. The CDC found that black women were 3.3 times more likely than white women to die related to pregnancy; Native American women were 2.5 times more likely to face pregnancy-related deaths than white women. This discrimination is unacceptable, and times of crisis only exacerbate this injustice.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in particular, women’s healthcare providers, advocacy groups, and activists have been tirelessly defending access to abortion.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa, on behalf of abortion providers, filed a lawsuit on March 30 arguing that the Republican Governor Kim Reynolds’ action to limit access to abortion violated the state’s Constitution. Before the court hearing, the ACLU and the state of Iowa reached an agreement that will allow doctors to determine when an abortion is necessary on a case-by-case basis.

According to the ACLU, more than 42 percent of all Iowa hospital beds are in Catholic hospitals. I interviewed a certified nurse midwife who works in one of these hospitals. She chose to remain nameless.

In reflecting on the ongoing restricted access in several US states, she said that, “it’s generally a very hostile time for women’s health. The data show that with these types of restrictions, people will access care less and have more trouble doing so. Also, people are more reticent to seek care in general.” Those seeking the procedure are not the only ones harmed by abortion bans.

Although many categories of surgeries have been deemed elective during the pandemic, the nurse midwife noted that, “no state has singled out any other procedure that is to be considered elective. State lawmakers would never tell an eye doctor what is or is not considered essential. Abortion is the one procedure that is legislated to this extent even when many professional organizations affirm that this is an essential service of women’s healthcare.”

In Texas, Planned Parenthood, Whole Woman’s Health, and other women’s healthcare providers filed a lawsuit on March 25 against the state in response to the Governor’s Executive Order. Before this case could be heard in court, US District Judge Lee Yeakel in Austin ruled on the Executive Order’s constitutionality to decide if it was to remain in place.

I spoke with Dr. Bernard Rosenfeld, MD, PhD, an OB-GYN in Houston, two hours before Judge Yeakel announced his ruling. Dr. Rosenfeld is on staff at Texas Women’s Hospital and St. Luke’s Medical Center. He also runs Houston Women’s Clinic, one of only 22 abortion clinics in the entire state.

While the Texas Attorney General initially specified that the state’s Executive Order banned “any type of abortion,” abortions require minimal to no protective equipment. Dr. Rosenfeld explained that the Order’s motivations were “completely political with no medical basis whatsoever. We have masks which we’ve always had, and plain rubber gloves. There is no equipment that we have that that the hospital wants.”

Although the OB-GYN expressed that he was optimistic that Judge Yeakel would rule against the Executive Order and restore the ability of Texan clinics to provide abortions, Dr. Rosenfeld sounded somber on the phone. “It’s going to go on and on,” he explained, because “even if the Courts have an injunction, they will file an injunction against the injunction.” Even if Judge Yeakel were to stop the Executive Order, a Court of Appeals could reverse that decision.

With the ban in place, Dr. Rosenfeld said that his clinic had to turn away numerous patients who “were literally crying. We couldn’t see them because of this new law.” Even when the ban was lifted, the clinic was not able to reschedule with its patients because the restriction was reenacted the following day.

The Executive Order was in place from March 22 until March 30 when Judge Yeakel temporarily blocked the ban. In his statement, the Judge wrote that suspending abortion services violates the terms of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that supported the right to abortion as a constitutional right. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects the right to privacy against state action, including the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The 9th Amendment reserves the rights to the people, including the authority to make a decision regarding pregnancy.

Although the case was decided in federal court, Roe v. Wade was initially heard in Texas. Jane Roe, the pseudonym of Norma McCorvey, first filed the lawsuit against then District Attorney of Dallas Henry Wade.

In his ruling, Judge Yeakel wrote that, “patients will suffer serious and irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order” reversing the abortion ban. In other words, under the Executive Order, patients who are denied their constitutional right established by Roe v. Wade will experience harm or trauma. Judge Yeakel also wrote that the substantial injury to clinics and patients seeking abortion would outweigh any damage to the state. Additionally, halting the Order “will not disserve the public interest,” Yeakel wrote.

However, the day after the Judge released his decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Texas to resume its abortion restrictions.

Just over a week later, on April 9, Judge Yeakel issued another temporary restraining order on the Court of Appeals’ decision. Under the new policy, if patients wanted an abortion but risked being too late if they waited until the ban was lifted, they were allowed to get the procedure. And, once again, patients had access to medication abortion—fleetingly.

Two days later, on April 11, the Fifth Circuit judges blocked Judge Yeakel’s order, overturning the medication exemption. But, on April 13, the Fifth Circuit went back on their decision and ruled that medication abortions were allowed. Treatment using pills alone would no longer qualify as a “procedure” and would therefore not deplete the supply of medical and personal protective equipment.

The Executive Order remained in place through April 22, after which restrictions were lifted. Dr. Rosenfeld called the Order “a disaster.”

Using the pandemic as a political guise to ban abortion could cause a number of other disasters. People seeking abortions in states with restrictions could be forced to travel and risk exposure while pregnant and more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Additionally, these bans mean that women living with sexually abusive family members or partners would not have access to terminating pregnancies.

Furthermore, limiting access to abortion often does not actually stop women from getting abortions. In a March 2018 reported entitled, “Induced Abortion,” the Guttmacher Institute found that countries with bans actually have higher rates of abortion than those without restrictions.

The report states that, “The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction.” This increased rate in regions that have limited access is due in large part to unsafe, or illegal, abortions.

The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies an unsafe abortion as “a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both.”

Before Roe v. Wade, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) estimates that each year, 1.2 million women in the US had unsafe abortions.

Dr. Rosenfeld explains that today, “illegal abortion is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality.” Not only do abortion bans disproportionately impact women who already do not have access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, but the bans also motivate unsafe abortions. In 2006, WHO published a paper entitled, “Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic.”

In practice, abortion bans threaten the health of women who seek abortions. In already challenging situations, women must face additional, sometimes insurmountable, obstacles.

During the coronavirus outbreak, while people are already economically strapped and may be stuck at home caring for family members or practicing social distancing, access to comprehensive healthcare is more important than ever.

Whether by choice or necessity, the process of ending a pregnancy can be excruciating; it is not a decision that people take lightly. Regardless, it can be a lifesaving decision. This authority does not force a certain option; having a choice simply gives each person the independence to choose for themselves based on their own beliefs, circumstances, and constitutional rights.

Understanding the meaning of law and policy, whether executive orders or Constitutional Amendments, requires subjective interpretation. However, what must unify the spectrum of perspectives as threads of the same conversation is an underlying foundation of objective science and facts.

While we have reaffirmed the essential role of healthcare workers during the pandemic, we are seeing governors and attorneys general in states such as Texas fail to allow medical professionals to be the experts in their own field. We also saw this same political pursuit from the Ohio lawmakers who falsified medical science and then attempted to write it into law.

This desperation, though, is not new and is part of a persistent pattern. How we act now will inform reproductive rights long after the pandemic. It is critical to confront this willful ignorance and ensure that the discussion on abortion rights is based in truth, guided by the wisdom of medical professionals and those who have lived experience.

I think now of the multitude of individuals who must face further obstacles during this pandemic to fight for the care that they need and overcome the experience of being denied their rights.

My own pregnancy loss shook my sense of grounding and acquainted me with a deep sense of solitude, one that begged relentlessly for rebuilding. Perhaps the silence of sheltering in place will create clarity through the understanding that striving for justice together ensures we are not alone.

May 12th 2020, 7:23 pm

The Concept of “Safe Spaces” under COVID-19


As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the world, legally mandated restrictions promoting public health followed suit. To this day, we continue to be advised to maintain physical distancing, to work from home where possible, or, in some places, not leave our homes at all. These restrictions have inevitably made me think about the concept of safety. On the one hand, staying inside one’s home naturally increases safety in relation to the spread of this life-threatening virus. On the other hand, what about the danger from domestic violence that many people face inside the home? 

Domestic violence is an ongoing global crisis. The World Health Organization estimates that about one-third of all women globally experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner during their lifetime. This is a shocking statistic, worsened when you appreciate that the prevalence of violence is even higher in women’s lives when you account for domestic and family violence perpetrated by other family members. Perhaps unsurprisingly, soon after the first COVID-19 related lockdowns and curfews were implemented, reports about steep increases in domestic violence followed. For example, during February 2020, at the height of the crisis in China, the number of domestic violence reports tripled compared to February 2019. In Kosovo, the Ministry of Justice recorded a one hundred percent increase in domestic violence in one city after the pandemic broke out and a 17% increase in cases overall, compared with the same time period in 2019. 

Domestic and family violence is a crisis for LGBTIQ people, too. In our report “Violence Through the Lens of Lesbian and Bisexual Women and Trans People in Asia,” OutRight established that it is the most common form of violence that LGBTIQ people experience. 

So with the onset of COVID-19 lockdowns, we feared what the impact would be on LGBTIQ people stuck at home or LGBTIQ people having to return to family homes after job loss. We know that LGBTIQ people are disproportionately represented in the informal sector; that we already experience barriers to accessing healthcare; and that there is a history of blaming LGBTIQ people for crises ranging from the Haiti earthquake to Hurricane Katrina or the Ebola outbreak.  And so, we immediately set out to understand how LGBTIQ people globally were affected by this pandemic. 

On May 7th, we released our research findings in a new report, “Vulnerability Amplified: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on LGBTIQ People”.  Our findings confirmed our suspicions and opened our eyes to just how much more vulnerable an already vulnerable section of society becomes during a pandemic. Indeed, domestic and family violence rang loud and clear in the results. The degree to which physical safety is compromised for LGBTIQ people during COVID-19 is evident in nearly every interview we conducted. Interviewees reported either feeling at increased risk themselves or knowing others at increased risk of violence and abuse within their homes due to forced cohabitation with unsupportive, hostile family members or abusive partners. 

We heard about a 24-year old trans woman in the Caribbean, whose mother insisted that she wear men’s clothing and cut her hair while in her mother’s house, “or she will put her out during curfew”, which would mean facing arrest and even greater danger in imprisonment. Raksha in Singapore told us that her organization has received numerous “emergency requests for housing by lesbians who are scared to live at home because of emotional and physical violence from their parents”. Tatiana in Russia also told us that requests for the LGBT shelter in Moscow have grown exponentially in this time. 

What amplifies the vulnerability even further is the fact that the places where LGBTIQ people are most safe are now off-limits, such as LGBTIQ community centers, bars, bookstores, and community events. These spaces have been closed because of COVID-19, and now our research shows that they are struggling to survive under the economic strain resulting from the crisis. Virtual spaces exist, in fact, in ever more creative ways. But for many, even those are impossible to access under the constant presence of unsupportive family members. For example, Catherine Sealys, who supports LGBTIQ people with social services in St. Lucia, told us that, “Some of the persons whom we support through remote therapy have to hide in the closet during counseling, so they are not overheard”. COVID-19 containment measures have taken away the ability of even momentary escape, quite literally pushing LGBTIQ people back into the closet. 

It doesn’t stop there. Access to health and support services after experiencing domestic violence is tricky even without COVID-19. In 68 countries same-sex relations are still criminalized. So-called “conversion therapy” is a reality across the globe, and healthcare providers, including psychologists, are among the top perpetrators of these harmful practices. So seeking help after experiencing domestic violence can lead to secondary victimization or subjection to “conversion therapy”. 

OutRight’s global programming on gender-based violence develops resources and conducts trainings for both service providers and first responders to be LGBTIQ-inclusive. In the Philippines, for example, we have trained thousands of frontline service providers across Quezon City on how to support LGBTIQ victims of family violence. Across the Caribbean, we are training service providers and mental health professionals, ensuring there is some LGBTIQ-inclusive service provision available. But resources like these are by no means widespread and, in the current state of crisis, access to health and supportive services are even more restricted, as even the service providers who have been trained on inclusivity are either closed, overwhelmed, or prioritizing COVID-19 responses. 

COVID-19 will affect every one of us. Those of us in vulnerable groups, such as LGBTIQ people, become even more vulnerable, because while we try to stay safe from the virus, we are exposed to other dangers, especially at home. In response to urgent needs facing LGBTIQ people at this time – made evident in “Vulnerability Amplified” – OutRight launched an emergency fund to support LGBTIQ organizations as they resource their communities amid this global health crisis. We will also use our findings to advocate for governments to ensure inclusivity of LGBTIQ people in their crisis response. At the moment, that inclusion is sorely lacking, and without immediate interventions, LGBTIQ will suffer disproportionate harm from COVID-19. 

Jessica Stern is the Executive Director of OutRight Action International

May 10th 2020, 9:51 pm

Science and Journalism: The Great Divide


In this episode of Women’s eNews Live, Executive Director Lori Sokol speaks with Claudia Dreifus, an American journalist, educator and lecturer, producer of the weekly feature “Conversation with…” in the Science Section of The New York Times, and is known for her interviews with leading figures in world politics and science, particularly emerging women leaders.

Dreifus talks about the need for science education, and how, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, “Much of the Press, like everyone else, is grasping at straws.”

“We are experiencing a golden age in science journalism showing how illiterate people are in science. Otherwise, people would be taking this pandemic more seriously.” – Claudia Dreifus


May 7th 2020, 11:23 pm

Reminder: Please Fill Out The Census!


May 6th 2020, 7:24 pm

On #GivingTuesdayNow – The Coronavirus Unmasks Freedom of the Press


“A healthy society should not have just one voice.”  — Dr. Li Wenliang, persecuted by the Chinese government after warning about the 2020 coronavirus. Dr. Li died on February 7, 2020 at the age of 33.

Sunday was World Press Freedom Day, and it fell as Covid-19 killed more than 240,000 people, sickened at least 3.4 million and disrupted lives around the globe. 

As we mourn our losses, let’s also mark and remember Dr. Li’s words. We need uncensored doctors and scientists who are free to speak, and we need journalists who keep us informed with truth and transparency.

The US must also fight against the type of reporting stifled in China, particularly now as many American officials are trying to bar health experts from informing the public or prevent the media from reporting public health issues.

For women and girls, fair and honest reporting is even more crucial. During this pandemic, violence against women has thus far increased by more than 25% in many countries around the world, some states in the US are trying to temporarily bar women’s right to abortion, and women are experiencing heavier job losses while undertaking increased childcare needs during school closures.

To continue to provide free and fearless reporting on these issues, and others, we are asking you, our readers, to help support Women’s eNews, the only non-profit global news organization providing exclusive coverage on the most crucial issues impacting women and girls around the world.

In honor of our 20th Anniversary this year, will you donate a minimum of $20 (either annually or monthly) to support our work? (A monthly donation will provide you with a copy of the book, ‘She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World’, written by Women’s eNews Executive Director Lori Sokol, PhD., due out in August, 2020.)

Because a healthy society should not, and must not, have just one voice.

May 4th 2020, 8:12 pm



The chilling notion of a “death panel” – a ghoulish cabal empowered to approve or deny life-saving medical treatment – was contrived to scare people away from the Affordable Care Act. At the time, the scenario was unimaginable. In recent weeks, though, the Covid-19 pandemic has made lots of things imaginable, including situations where doctors have to pick and choose which ICU patients got the limited, potentially life-saving, supplies, respirators in particular. Overworked doctors and health workers have become in effect “death panels.” Confronted with multiple desperate patients, they are forced to consider whose chances of survival are statistically higher. It seems horrible but reasonable that if there is only one available respirator, it should go to a previously healthy young person. What happens, though, if the choice is among several young people and one of them can’t walk? Does that disqualify that patient? Is “quality of life” a morally acceptable consideration in this situation?  And if so, what does the phrase mean?

    When I began a series of interviews with women who had cerebral palsy (for a book to be published by the Cerebral Palsy Foundation), I took for granted that everyone would agree their quality of life was diminished by their physical condition. So I set out to focus on the rest of their lives, who they were aside from their disability. I quickly understood that the two are inseparable – their disabilities are their lives. But their lives are more than their disabilities. And their quality of life is diminished less by being “people with disabilities” (their preferred term, rather than “disabled person,” which implies that everything about them is deficient) than by being unwelcome or downright invisible in the world around them. 

    I heard stories of every-day indignities that were imposed by “them,” their able-bodied fellow citizens. That they were news to me confirmed that I hadn’t been paying attention, either. One woman who gets around New York City in a wheelchair, navigating curbs and traffic lights, told me that frequently she gets to the subway at the end of her day and encounters an “out of service” sign at the elevator. I heard about a teacher who wouldn’t bend the rules to accommodate a bright student who couldn’t hold a pencil and wanted to dictate her answers on a test. Or worse, the teacher who didn’t believe it when that student got an A-plus. Or the gynecologist who couldn’t figure out a way to do a pelvic exam on a spastic patient and sent her away. Or his nurses who claimed it wasn’t their job to transfer her from her chair to the examining table. Several reported having been physically and emotionally abused because of their vulnerability. Others described being excluded from events because their crutches slowed them down or their wheelchair didn’t fit in the car that was going there. As a result, loneliness is a common experience. (“Social distancing” only makes things worse.)

    Those were the – often unnecessary –  facts of life, but despite the obstacles and slights, what they wanted to tell me about was the full half of the glass, the quality of their “disabled” lives. Each woman talked about having fun, going to parties, going to college (they could name the very few institutions that were wheelchair accessible and had dorms designed to meet their needs), traveling, enjoying their work, being active in sports and politics, pursuing their dreams. Two of them had been the valedictorian of their class.

    Motherhood, as hard as it was physically, was a special joy to several. Once, that is, they were able to talk a team of doctors into caring for them. They found ingenious solutions to the most ordinary tasks. Since she could not hold her baby and rock her to sleep, one young mother put the infant in her lap and rode her wheelchair around the kitchen. Several were married to men who also had CP and while the obstacles were doubled, so was the joy and ingenuity with which they shared tasks in ways that took advantage of each one’s own capability. Among them were women whose doctors hadn’t even told them they could have children…let alone have sex. 

    With all of the poking and prodding that come with a chronic disease, one bodily function was particularly shrouded in mystery. The pervasive assumption is that a woman in a wheelchair can’t have sex, let alone be the object of sexual interest. I was truly shocked by the stories of medical professionals who were as ill-informed as the public and twice as dismissive.

    A couple of the women I spoke to had speech impediments. For them, working the system is even harder. It means finding alternative ways – they do exist – to communicate with the world.  That takes training, technology, and social skills. But, again, the practicalities are not the worst part. As one woman put it, “The biggest issue with having a speech impediment is when people are impatient with me. If someone gives me an ounce of patience, I give ten ounces. I only get frustrated when a listener doesn’t even try to understand me. Because I am convinced I can make myself understood.” 

    A young woman named Alice Wong had a similar message: Listen to me. In an interview with (4/4) she rejected the assumption that “a ‘good’ ‘healthy’ life is one without disability, pain and suffering. I live with all three and I feel more vital than ever at this point in time, because of my experiences and relationships.” Like all of us, her “quality of Life” is what she knows it is; it can’t – and shouldn’t – be measured by any other criterion.

Suzanne Braun Levine is a writer, editor and nationally recognized authority on women, families, and changing gender roles. She was the first editor of Ms. magazine and the first woman to edit the Columbia Journalism Review. In her recent work Levine has celebrated a new stage of life – Second Adulthood – and she reports on the ongoing changes in women’s lives in her books, in media interviews (including Oprah! Charlie Rose and NPR) and lectures, and in frequent blogs for AARP,, Huff/Post50, and Next/Avenue.

May 2nd 2020, 5:09 pm

Book of the Week: From the Lake House: A Mother’s Odyssey of Loss and Love


From the Lake House: A Mother’s Odyssey of Loss and Love is Kristen’s debut memoir that originated as a series of essays about grief. 

Chapter 1—DOCK 

Lowering myself to my bedroom’s cool tile floor, I leaned against the cornflower blue wall, pulled my knees into my chest, and looked around. A dust bunny, carried by a breeze streaming in through the open window, floated past my ankles and landed in front of two canvas bags. The movers had hauled away furniture and boxes and lamps and plants, and all that was le in my house was my elderly cat cowering in the bathroom. And these bags. 

A jewelry box in one bag housed dangly beaded earrings, silver necklaces, a few pendants, and one string of pearls, a gift from an ex-boyfriend. I’d worn the pearls at cocktail parties and swanky restaurants when I’d lived in Boston, but they’d never left the velvet-lined drawer after moving to Chapel Hill. Though unnecessary and frankly silly, I had safeguarded my modest assortment of trinkets and ornaments from a ride in the moving truck.

A small birch picture frame poked out of the second bag. Behind the glass was a set of tiny footprints, and inching myself closer, I tried looking at them with new eyes, hoping to uncover something different about the pattern on the heels and big toe mounds, or the way the toes were nearly perfectly spaced apart. But I couldn’t. I’d stared at them too often, their image permanently etched in my mind. The frame used to sit on the windowsill beside a pink bowl where I kept two Polaroids, our hospital bracelets, the ultrasound photo, and several seashells I’d fervently gathered for her on a Florida beach after the good-bye. The bowl lay carefully wrapped in the bag, along with a floral hatbox stuffed with condolence cards, one small diaper, and my plum-colored journal filled with letters to her and reflections on how to keep living. 

No way would movers’ hands touch the homage to my daughter. I was carrying it myself. 

“I should get out of here,” I said aloud. “The movers will wonder where I am.” 

Facing the bank of windows, my eyes followed the gently rolling lawn, past the weeping willow and the dogwoods, past the patches of azaleas and hydrangeas, down to the water. I’d been renting this simple basement apartment of a beautiful home that sat on the shoreline of a small lake. It was here where I’d discovered that the outdoors held magic, that birdsongs could uplift, and that amber and golden leaves swirling in circles on a windswept fall morning could astonish with their sun-dappled dance. It was here where I no longer dreaded the swoop of emptiness descending like a fast-moving fog—my breath suddenly shallow, chest tight, body wanting to curl up like a potato bug. I learned to yield to sorrow and retreat to my easy chair, or the patio next to the rose bushes, or the dock where ripples of water weaved through my toes. Part of me longed to extend my lease on the apartment because it was here where I’d stopped spinning. Finally, enfolded in the peaceful solitude of the lake house, I had looked inside myself, cultivated roots, and begun to heal. 

“Are you ready, Max?” 

My voice echoed through the empty rooms. My gray tuxedo cat eyed me from behind the toilet where he’d spent the day. He was still adjusting to life without his beloved brother whom I’d recently buried out back near the gardenias. “It’s okay, little boy.” I rubbed the white patch beneath his chin. “You’ll like the new house.” As I turned to leave, I caught my reflection in the mirror. “And you’ll like it too.” My cheeks were flushed, and shadows under my eyes showed fatigue from a late night of packing. I was forty-three years old and moving into the first place I’d ever bought, a freshly renovated townhouse with a brand-new kitchen and bathrooms and a secluded stone patio lined with crape myrtles. A home all my own. 

I scooped Max into my arms and tucked his head into the crook of my neck. He refused to purr, refused to look at me. “I’m sorry for another move,” I whispered into his downy ear, “but this will be it for a while. Promise.” 

Should he believe me after the cascade of changes and losses? Impulsively relocating to Chapel Hill had not unfolded as I’d expected. Then again, what had I expected? With little forethought, had I really hoped to flee Boston and my broken heart and slide like warm butter into a new and improved romance, an upgraded life in the South? Had I been naïve, desperate, unlucky? Perhaps all three? 

I stood at the dock one last time before placing Max and the canvas bags in my aged Jetta. The air was warm for mid-March, and sunlight skipped along the lake’s surface. A lone woman in a kayak glided by, stroke slow and steady, her red hat a burst of color against the still, pewter water. I watched until she disappeared. A mere two years earlier on a chilly January afternoon, I had moved by myself into this apartment after my life as I’d known it had all but disappeared. Like a busted-up jigsaw puzzle, pieces of it had been scattered about, a few gone missing, and somehow I had to make myself whole again. 

Chapter 2—JASON 

My courtship with Jason had begun five years earlier and not until after we’d moved in together. He’d flown up to Boston, helped me load a truck with everything I owned, two cats included, and we’d driven it all to North Carolina. Three days later, set up in our newly rented Chapel Hill cottage, we celebrated the Fourth of July. I loved the irony of this. Freedom! Jason and I sat side by side in lawn chairs on our front deck, fingers clasped and a beer balancing in each of our laps. No more endless winters, I thought. No more herding fifth graders, no more desperate speculation about what had gone wrong with Brian. 

“Here’s to new beginnings,” I said, raising my bottle to clink Jason’s. 

He leaned in to kiss me, and then we sat back and listened to the booms from distant reworks. Closing my eyes, I breathed in the sweet scent of magnolias wafting up to us from the huge tree beyond the deck. Fist-sized white magnolia blooms are uncommon in New England, as are kudzu-covered pine trees, and coral and periwinkle crape myrtle blossoms. My new landscape seemed like talismans of my new life. 

I’m a planner—careful, systematic. So when I’d told my friends and family that I was leaving my teaching job, my apartment, the city I’d lived in for more than a dozen years for North Carolina, they’d stared at me. What? And when I told them that Jason and I were going to live together, their mouths fell open. He and I had known each other for a whopping six months and, save for a handful of weekend visits, our long-distance history had consisted of phone calls and email. Surely I might want to take things more slowly? But I didn’t. At thirty-eight, slow and steady wasn’t working. 

When I’d met Jason, I was reeling. My ex-boyfriend Brian, a Boston attorney I had been involved with for three years, that blue-eyed, blond-haired, Irish-Catholic, sports-loving family man, the one I was so certain I’d marry and have a kid or two with, had royally dumped me—and on 9/11. I was out of my mind with misery for months, slumped in my apartment amid a constant flow of tears and wine, until at Christmas I crash-landed at my brother’s farmhouse near Chapel Hill, beyond grateful to get out of my bleak head and bitter cold Boston. Who did I happen to meet during my holiday getaway? Jason. An easygoing, boot-wearing, homegrown North Carolinian, staggering from his recent divorce. We were a match made in Rebound Heaven. We grabbed ahold of each other like Velcro and didn’t let go. 

We called our house a nest. It sat on the crest of a shady hill, and we lived on top of each other in the small rooms. That suited us just fine as we settled into the hot summer filled with love and lust and the belief that together we were going to build a great new life. We entwined our legs when lazing on the sofa and locked hands when running errands. Sometimes Jason and I moved the furniture to the side of our living room, turned the stereo up, and danced, his hazel eyes smiling and long, lean limbs swaying against mine. He’d occasionally lift me off the floor and twirl my lithe, petite frame, our laughter as loud as the music, and when he set me back down, he’d brush wisps of my fine hair off my cheeks. 

With a history of general contract work and also all-around handy and creative, Jason had left his decorative concrete business post-divorce to design and construct green, sustainable buildings. That summer he was hard at work on his first house and believed more would follow, the start of a prosperous new business. Before Jason left for the day, off to the countryside with his work crew, I’d start coffee and breakfast. After the last bite of our bagels, we’d kiss good-bye at the kitchen door. 

“See you tonight, sweetie,” he’d say, “and call me if you get lonely.” 

“Okay.” I’d smile back at him, leaning into his chest. “What do you want for dinner? Actually, never mind. I’ll surprise you.” 

And we’d kiss one more time, as if our morning ritual was the most normal thing in the world, as if we’d been doing it our whole lives, and I’d wave to Jason as he drove off. 

Without another year of teaching looming ahead, nothing lay in front of me professionally but a vague notion about finding a new path in education. Not having a clear direction was a strange place for me. Back when I was twenty-three, my decision to teach had hit me with such Road to Damascus clarity that I couldn’t believe I’d wasted my first year out of college without seeing my obvious path. I’d gotten myself into a top graduate program, waitressed my way through a master’s degree, and landed a plum teaching position in one of Massachusetts’s best public schools. For a long time I’d thrived, so attached to my students I couldn’t bear to be out sick. Parents clamored to get their kids into my class, and I had plenty of teacher friends to join for happy hours on Fridays, ski trips in the winter, and beach trips in the summer. I had a good life. 

I floated through my first Chapel Hill summer with boisterous fifth graders, Boston, and Brian behind me. Having no plans of any kind and with some money saved, I felt no pressure to rush a job search. I loved my virtual anonymity in Chapel Hill and savored the rare gift of unstructured time. Sometimes I took long walks through my new neighborhood, shopped for household supplies, or chipped away at more unpacking. I sent emails to my friends back in Boston and wrote in my journal. My poor journal had been the repository of my anger and anguish the previous year, multitudes of entries about Brian. How could he have left? I asked its pages again and again. He doesn’t even explain. Just disappears. Entries about 9/11. All those souls pulverized to ash, I wrote. The terror they must have felt. How many nights had I sat numbly in front of the television, watching the image of the crumbling Twin Towers? My childhood home was less than fifty miles away, across the Sound on Long Island. I had grown up seeing those towers materialize on the horizon as the train I’d take to Manhattan approached the city. Everything is chaos, I had scrawled across my journal’s pages. Brian won’t return my calls. Lower Manhattan’s a graveyard. I don’t want to teach anymore. 

Fast forward to my North Carolina nest. I’m here!!! I wrote with extra exclamation marks. This little house is so sweet. And so is Jason. 

And he was. I’d make the bed in the morning to discover a love note tucked under my pillow. He’d spontaneously grab me around my waist, hold my face in his hands, and tell me that he loved me. He’d offer back rubs, bring home chocolate, and crack me up with his hilarious impressions of North Carolina politicians. 

That summer we found lakes and ponds for swimming on the weekends, ate dinner on the front lawn of the local co-op, and visited my brother out on his farm. We rode our bicycles through nearby wooded trails, dumbfounded one evening after discovering we were lost. Light dwindling, we sheepishly asked directions from a friendly hiker and then laughed at ourselves all the way home. 

One August afternoon, we drove half a day for an impromptu trip to the Outer Banks, found a spit of nearly deserted beach, and pitched a tent. After swimming and languishing until the sun dropped out of view, we sat on beach chairs next to our tent, buried our feet in the sand, ate tuna sandwiches, and drank tepid beer. Jason pulled me onto his lap and we kissed; all I could hear was the sound of the surf and our own breathing. 

“Isn’t this great?” Jason asked. “I know it’s only been a couple of months, but we’re really doing this, aren’t we?” 

“Yeah, we are.” We high-fived each other. “Who would have thought that a northern city girl and a southern country boy would fall in love and do so well together?” 

And we did. Every time we stumbled into a cultural chasm, we simply climbed out and kept going. I didn’t give a second thought to the fact that the novels and authors I read were completely unknown to him. I ignored the fact that he set the radio to country music while I kept switching it back to NPR. That hunting rifle he kept in the shed didn’t represent a clash of lifestyles, did it? Nor did the multiple deer racks his parents proudly displayed in their home? We shared stories of our adolescence, and I found the contrast charming. He’d worn camouflage gear with his dad, waiting up in a tree for an unsuspecting deer to amble by, or cheered at NASCAR races, or dealt weed in the shadows of his high school. I’d played my violin, attended Broadway plays, and kept company with my high school’s nerdy theater crowd. And while I took the higher education route after high school, earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees from preppy New England schools, Jason had gone directly to work, first for his father at a manufacturing plant, and then bouncing from job to job.

On paper we might have been an unlikely couple, but I didn’t care. Sure, I’d spent more time deliberating over the color of a new sofa than I had in choosing to uproot myself and partner with Jason. But his steady stream of affection felt soothing, like good southern molasses, and it brought me back to life. And all the newness of Chapel Hill—the geography, the house, the accents, and the flora—was exactly the balm I needed to release the despair and tumult of my ending with Brian.

Pub Date: JULY 21, 2020, Available for pre-order on: Amazon, Barnes & NobleIndiebound, and Bookshop

Kristen Rademacher lives in Chapel Hill, NC, and works as an Academic Coach at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. With a master’s degree in education and a certification as a life coach, her career in education spans thirty years. When not writing, Kristen loves a long mountain hike, an afternoon lost in a juicy book or podcast, and the company of beloved family and friends. 

April 30th 2020, 5:57 pm

Tune in to Campus ERA Day Tonight!


The 4th Annual Campus ERA Day, an event to raise awareness about the need for women’s equality to be guaranteed by the US Constitution, will take place over ZOOM today, April 27th at 6:00 – 7:30 pm EST.

To join the ERA Coalition for Campus ERA Day for a terrific discussion of the Equal Rights Amendment, please RSVP here or join the night of the event by Zoom or Facebook Live to tune in. It will swing into action with some of the major participants in this year’s big successes: Virginia becoming the 38th and final state needed for ratification–and the House of Representatives dissolving the time limit in the introduction of the ERA. There’s so much more to be done to get our 28th Amendment–and these panelists can tell us how to get there.

*The event is conducted in partnership with the Grove Fellows based at Roosevelt House Institute of Public Policy at Hunter College. ERA Coalition Co-President Jessica Neuwirth, who is also Director of the Human Rights Project at Hunter started ERA Campus Day four years ago–and its DC and Advocacy Director Bettina Hager and Carol Jenkins, Co-President and CEO
of the ERA Coalition are pleased to be Grove Leaders this year, helping the Fellows put on the event. We are now taking students through the Zoom process–students from states like Hawaii, Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina Texas and Iowa who are joining us Monday. We are excited that this year we have many high school students joining the conversation, including panelist Rosie Couture–a high school sophomore–who leads Coalition Lead Organization Generation Ratify, representing some 800 ERA focused students across the country.

April 26th 2020, 10:05 pm

Book of the Week: Private Investigations


Beginning today, and every Friday thereafter, Women’s eNews will select a ‘Book of the Week,’ providing you with a sampling of some of the latest books from some of the finest female writers who will stir your curiosity, feed your intellect, and take you anywhere and everywhere, without leaving the comfort of your own home. We hope you will join us in supporting these highly talented authors!!

This week’s Book of the Week is Private Investigations

by Victoria Zackheim


When it was suggested that I consider a collection of essays written by mystery writers revealing the mysteries of their lives, I couldn’t help but think of my own. Were the life-changing mysteries that had shaped my life shared by the twenty gifted writers in this collection? I quickly discovered that all of us view mystery in very different and personal ways. The mysteries we discover in the course of everyday living are real, imagined, dreamed, even hoped for, feared, and anticipated. A mystery can present itself as an enigma, a solution, a challenge, a surprise. A thing of despair—or something magical. Falling in love—or out of love. Gaining stature and reputation or losing respect. Being innocent—and then not. Marriage and divorce, illness and death, the rise and fall of friendships. The expected and the serendipitous. Situations that hurt us and thrill us. In these stories, you are invited into the private lives of gifted writers, most of them New York Times and international best sellers. You may be a fan, or you may be reading their work for the first time. Their stories, all true, cover the breadth of life experiences, from introspective to mystical, from laugh-out-loud funny to noir. Mysteries, when presented from our very personal perspectives—and all of these certainly are—come in all forms. So what are the secrets, riddles, and wonders of our lives? Do we focus on our joy or grief, highs or lows, something meticulously defined or so amorphous as to seem impossible to fathom? Whatever form these mysteries take, all of us have had our lives shaped by them. They affect who we are and how we live, love, think . . . behave. We can celebrate those riddles, wonders, and secrets, or we can fear them. Perhaps it’s because everything we touch, everything that touches us, has the potential to be a mystery. I felt this when I held my children for the first time. And when I accompanied my daughter to a medical examination and heard the twin heartbeats of my first grandchildren, causing my knees to buckle so that I had to grip the bed rail to stop myself from falling. And when I look into the faces of my son’s children and imagine their futures, their dreams. There are so many mysteries around us. I remember with unusual clarity that moment in 1977 when I saw my father only minutes after his death. He was ten years younger than I am today. Gone too soon, yet his body seemed so peaceful, finally pain-free. I muttered, “This is not my father,” which caused a bit of alarm for my mother and the nurse. I tried to explain that I was looking at the shell that had housed his beautiful spirit but that his curiosity about the world around him and his quick sense of humor felt very much alive. This was my first close experience with death, and it left me confused, mystified. If a mystery is an enigma that we must unravel, then I was confronting a mystery. That same sense returned while I was sitting at my mother’s bedside. When she took her last breath, I knew that she was finally at peace. Nearly ninety, she had become increasingly angry that her last years were so difficult. An artist who could no longer paint, a political activist whose voice had been stilled, she felt locked within the walls of her home. Again, I struggled with the Why? of it. My complicated, brilliant mother. Who she was will always remain a mystery in my life. Mysteries are found in the stories of our lives, some of them challenging believability. Hallie Ephron visits a spiritualist in the hope of understanding her friend’s claims to have spoken with her murdered brother, while Sulari Gentill discovers an uncle whose existence was kept a secret . . . until she stumbles upon a family photograph. We are confronted with mysteries when health is in question. I don’t exercise nearly enough, and one of my mysteries is how and why I remain upright and relatively healthy! Rachel Howzell Hall was living her life balancing writing, family, and career until a new word joined her lexicon: cancer. Caroline Leavitt lost her voice, found no answers from medical specialists, and set out to solve this mystery on her own. 

Many authors pull from their very personal experiences when mapping out the plots of their novels. Connie May Fowler recalls her abuse at the hands of her mother, the social pressures she felt as a childless woman, and a recent illness that was frightening yet reminded her of the kindness of strangers. William Kent Krueger shares how his childhood was defined by the mysteries of his mother’s mental illness—the same woman who became the protagonist of one of his novels. Life teaches us such varied lessons, some of which are cloaked in mystery, such as our quest for truth and how we respond to love and loss. As different as the stories in this collection are, you will discover similarities of the human spirit. For example, similar themes draw us into the varied and always difficult elements of war: survival, challenge, hardship, discovery. How are we affected by war? Do we honor those who fought to defend our rights? Our liberties? Martin Limón reveals the challenges of a young American soldier dropped into the foreign and sometimes mysterious culture of Korea. There are mysteries that we discover as we write or as we adjust to a new place in the world. Ausma Zehanat Khan, an international human rights attorney, explores the mystery of her own origins, while Cara Black’s Paris is so much a part of her being that Inspector Maigret seems to be evident everywhere she goes. As you read these stories—I resist calling them essays, although that is what they are, because that label suggests something impersonal, perhaps even cold, whereas these narratives are rich with warmth and intimacy, sharing and trust—you will hear each author’s voice, share each story, and in many ways feel as if that author is seated beside you and speaking directly to you. What are your personal mysteries? What have you seen, survived, and experienced that has made you who you are today? When you read these stories, you might find yourself nodding, smiling, perhaps discovering tears in your eyes, certainly identifying with so much that the twenty authors share with you. It is my hope that you find elements of yourself and your life in some of these stories and that what you find, what you discover, leads you to a greater understanding of who you are and how important you are—an essential thread in this mysterious tapestry we call life.

A fascinating and unsettling set of essays about what makes writers curious, what makes them investigate.” —JANE SMILEY, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of A Thousand Acres


April 23rd 2020, 8:07 pm

Well, Whaddaya Know? Quid Pro Quo!


‘Quid Pro Quo.’ ‘Give and Take.’ ‘Tit for Tat.’ ‘You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.’ Or perhaps, even more apropos these days, ‘One Hand Washes the Other.’

These are just a few of the more popular expressions being used to gently describe an otherwise dangerous and illegal act, and one which can actually be summed up in just one word: Extortion

Extortion is defined as obtaining something from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power, and it is a felony in all states of the US.  

There are many individuals who have been arrested, and even convicted, for committing this crime, with some of the more well-known cases stemming from the television and entertainment industry.

One case involved Keifer Bonvillain, a former employee of Oprah Winfrey’s production company, who tried to extort $1.5 million from her in 2005 by threatening to reveal secrets about her life. He was arrested and charged with extortion.

David Letterman, the late-night talk show host, revealed in 2009 that he had slept with several women who worked with him. He only admitted this after CBS producer, Robert Halderman, demanded $2 million from Letterman or else threatened to go public with this information. Halderman was later arrested, plead guilty and was sent to prison.

And in 2013, Thomas George Paculis of Newfrield, NY, tried to make a deal with celebrity chef Paula Deen’s attorney to sign a non-disclosure agreement after threatening to go public with damaging information about her. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison.

But perhaps the most infamous example of extortion involved a television celebrity who was actually the perpetrator, rather than the victim, but has still not been arrested or served any jail time.

Enter Donald Trump, former reality television star of The Apprentice, who is now President of the United States, and who was accused in 2019 of holding up military aid to Ukraine unless that government looked into Democratic collusion with that country. The aid was only released after a whistleblower exposed the truth about Trump’s threat. When the US House of Representatives followed-up with a formal investigation, Trump was impeached. Still, Trump denied the allegations, until he admitted it in a November interview on “Fox & Friends.” 

Still, the US Senate acquitted Donald Trump for this federal crime by dismissing all charges.

Yet, as Maya Angelou once said, “When somebody shows you who they are the first time, believe them,” 

This is especially true for Donald Trump.

During the congressional impeachment hearings in December 2019, Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan tried to explain the depth of Donald Trump’s Ukraine extortion by making the following analogy: “Members of Congress should imagine living in a state prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would they think,” she asked, “if their governor requested a meeting with the president to talk about disaster assistance, and he replied, “I would like you to do us a favor”?

Well, Donald Trump is essentially doing just that by capitalizing on a different but even more devastating killer…the Coronavirus. In another example of extortion, Trump said at a recent news conference that he had instructed Vice President Mike Pence, whom he has placed in charge of the coronavirus response, not to call the governors of some democratic states where the pandemic is raging. “Mike, don’t call the governor of Washington. You’re wasting your time with him. Don’t call the woman in Michigan,’” he said, adding, “If they don’t treat you right, I don’t call.” 

Further, Trump has decided to limit the amount of federal assistance provided to New York State, accusing Governor Andrew Cuomo of inflating that state’s death toll.  This is being done while New York prosecutors have subpoenaed eight years of Trump’s tax returns, which he has still refused to provide. Hmmm…

So how about, instead of resorting to illegal threats as a leader, he tries a thoroughly different approach, and a legal one at that.

Honesty is to extortion what good is to evil, what Abel is to Cain, and what Dr. Jekyll is to Mr. Hyde. But one need not look back to the Book of Genesis or read a gothic novella to acknowledge its innate difference, or its proven effectiveness. One just needs to look at a few of the current leaders of other countries, and female leaders in particular. For just under 8,000 miles from the US stands a leader who does not blame others, complain about the media, or shuck responsibility. She speaks the truth, and by doing so she is saving the lives of its citizens and well as minimizing the pandemic’s impact on its economy.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently announced that the country’s battle against coronavirus is winning, following the lowest number of new cases in three weeks. Despite a population close to five million, there have been only 1,431 cases and just 12 deaths thus far. How is she doing it? 

From the very beginning Ardern spoke in simple straight-forward language, asking her country’s citizens to not only stay home, but to also be kind. She made it clear that “we are all in this together,” and gave the country 48 hours to prepare for a strict lockdown citing that although “We currently have 102 cases, so did Italy once.” She also praised residents for mounting a ‘wall of defense’ and suggested the four-week lockdown could be softened in just over a few weeks’ time if social distancing rules were maintained. She made it clear that by everyone working together its citizens could collectively end the crisis. Rather than commanding them, she empowered them.

Not surprisingly, New Zealand isn’t the only woman-led country to successfully minimize COVID-19’s impact. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, declared very early that it was a serious bug that could infect up to 70% of the population. Testing began right from the beginning. There was no denial, no blaming, no paranoia. As a result, Germany’s coronavirus cases and deaths are far below that of other European countries, and the country may soon be able to loosen its restrictions.

In Taiwan, when President Tsai Ing-wen witnessed the first signs of the illness in January, she introduced 124 measures to block the spread, thereby avoiding lockdowns. As of April 15, 2020, the country reported a total of 265 active coronavirus cases and just six deaths, despite its proximity to mainland China. Taiwan is now assisting other countries increasingly affected by the virus by sending 10 million face masks to the US and Europe. 

Further, Finland’s Prime Minister Sanna Marin has an 85% approval rating among her country’s citizens for her ability to protect them from the pandemic. She has done so not by projecting blame, but by taking responsibility, and calling in verified experts, particularly social media influencers, who have been able to ensure fact-based information reached its citizens instantaneously and comprehensively. Influencers with tens of thousands of followers are viewed by Finland as critical to getting honest information circulated and, as a result, the country has recorded only 59 deaths from COVID-19. Further, these influencers provide assistance voluntarily, viewing this as its duty as citizens. 

In yet two other Nordic countries, Iceland Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir has been offering free coronavirus testing to all its citizens, and has developed a comprehensive tracking system that has enabled the country to avoid lock down and keep schools open, while Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg is also calling on experts in the social media space to assist in flattening the coronavirus curve in her country. She is encouraging everyone to use the app Smittestopp, which is designed to track the spread of the virus. It can also be used to alert users when they have been close to someone infected. And, in a uniquely compassionate and empowering move, she spoke directly to her country’s children via television, explaining to them that it was OK to feel scared.

Clearly, traits like honesty, empathy and kindness, which are otherwise viewed in patriarchal societies as feminine, soft and weak, are actually proving stronger and more effective in saving lives, while limiting the economic toll. Just as former US President Barack Obama said at an event on leadership in December 2019, “If women ran every country in the world, there would be a general improvement in living standards and outcomes. They are indisputably better than men…I’m absolutely confident that if, for two years, every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything; living standards and outcomes.” 

Yet unfortunately, due to the Coronavirus’ extensive and rapid spread, we cannot afford to wait that long. With so many countries remaining on lockdown, when will male leaders finally learn from women, and exhibit true strength?

Photo by Eva Mueller

Lori Sokol, PhD, is the Executive Director of Women’s eNews and author of the upcoming book, She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World

April 20th 2020, 7:30 pm

As COVID-19 Reveals American Nursing Shortage, Foreign-Trained Providers Fill Critical Gaps


Just hours before the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic, I faced a classroom of 21 nursing students, each spaced six feet apart. They had come to take an important exam, and before we started, I asked them to pause and reflect on this moment in history.

“You are going through something unprecedented,” I said. “The world is about to see just how much nurses are needed.”

In 2015, after 35 years as a clinical nurse, I became an instructor to help address our country’s critical nursing shortage. Over my career, I’d felt the labor crisis palpably and seen it worsen to a breaking point. Today, 76.4 million Baby Boomers are aging into retirement and cases of chronic disease are skyrocketing. It’s no wonder colleagues are spread too thin, burning out and quitting. But it’s a serious problem. As one of the fastest growing occupations, our field needs an estimated 1.1 million new registered nurses to cover new jobs; it also needs to replace more than half a million nurses who are expected to retire by 2022, according to the American Nurses Association and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough nursing students to keep pace with this escalating demand.

Today, the coronavirus pandemic is pushing our health care system to the brink, but it has also fanned the flames of xenophobia. This reaction misses the crucial fact that talented immigrant health care professionals are vital to our medical establishment. Currently, about 16 percent of registered nurses are foreign born, according to New American Economy. From my experience in the field and as a teacher, I’ve been impressed by their nursing skills, compassion for patients and dedication to our mission of caring for the sick. While some research shows that about one in five nurses leaves within their first year, and one in three leave within two years, I find that immigrant nurses remain steadfast in the field. That’s why it’s so critical that we help them thrive.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear that nurses on the front lines need fortitude. I tell my students often that this work requires sacrifice, and that only the deeply committed should proceed. Perhaps because immigrant nursing students have already overcome so much – leaving home, learning a new language, navigating barriers of culture, policy and more – they’ve developed the resilience required to excel at this demanding work. I’ve taught several immigrant nursing students who were physicians in their home countries but decided to transition to the U.S. nursing industry. These physicians from Russia, Syria and beyond gladly jumped through numerous bureaucratic and financial hoops and worked at whatever level was available – be it a surgical tech or a research assistant – just so they could continue to serve patients as they pursued their nursing degree.

There are also immediate practical reasons why an immigrant nursing force is vital: They can reach these communities with language skills and cultural knowledge that other healthcare professionals may not have. This is especially important when it comes to undocumented communities. We need everyone at risk of infection to come forward, get tested and receive proper treatment, no matter their immigration status. Immigrant nurses have a major role to play in helping to counter this fear and bring vulnerable people out of the shadows. They can show all of us in the field how to best serve these and other vulnerable communities during this pandemic. And when this crisis ends, the United States must create new immigration policies to attract more of these devoted workers because the shortage will continue, and it will worsen.

I hope the coronavirus pandemic helps Americans understand the special role that nurses play in our darkest days, administering life-saving treatments and offering comfort in countless ways. This March, my mother died after months in hospice following a heart attack. Due of the coronavirus, we canceled her funeral service. Only her immediate family buried her. My 91-year-old father, who lives in assisted living and is immunocompromised, was not allowed to stand with us at her burial. He watched from the car as his wife was buried. During this time of grief, he lives in self-quarantine, unable to be with his family when he needs us most.

His only human contact? Nurses. They tend to him. They comfort him. They listen to his stories about his wife. They remind him that they are there for him. 

If COVID-19 teaches us anything, it should be that this fight is not between nations—this fight is humanity versus the virus. And no one has a deeper appreciation of the basic human experience than nurses. We are there when your baby is born, and we are there when you’ve breathed your last breath. We are the ones guiding you through all the pain and joy that life offers. But to do this, America must recognize the crucial role that foreign-born nurses play and the unique talents they bring. We must welcome skilled and healing hands wherever we find them. 

Dawn Davison is a retired registered nurse who previously worked at Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital. She currently teaches as an adjunct clinical nursing instructor at Olivet Nazarene University. She lives in Wheaton, IL.


April 16th 2020, 6:48 pm

The Ovary Office: An Interview with Melissa Mark-Viverito


Melissa Mark-Viverito was first elected to NYC City Council 8th District in 2006 and served for 11 years before being unanimously elected as Speaker from January 2014 to 2017. During her tenure in the Council, Melissa has been a leader in the fight for comprehensive immigration reform, an outspoken advocate for criminal justice reform, and a champion in the housing crisis. Melissa supported policy that was deemed impossible by others including the creation of the first community land trust initiative, the creation of an Independent Commission to close Rikers Island, the production of the first legal fund for unaccompanied minors, and a legal defense fund that ensured all immigrants have access to legal representation during deportation proceedings. She also pushed Albany to provide state funding for NYCHA for the first time in a decade, created the Young Women’s Initiative and founded a citywide contraception fund. Prior to serving as Speaker, Melissa was the founding co-chair of the New York City Council Progressive Caucus and chaired the City Council Committee on Parks and Recreation.

She is now running to represent the Bronx in the United States Congress.

Click here to see the full interview

The Ovary Office is a new Women’s eNews series profiling the women who are running for public office, to counterbalance the patriarchal slant that currently exists in much of the mainstream media. Veteran broadcast journalist Gloria Joseph conducted this interview.

The Ovary Office is the brainchild of Amy Ferris, a highly accomplished author, screenwriter, television writer, and editor. She was also honored by Women’s eNews as one of its 21 Leaders for the 21st Century for 2018. Amy is also known for championing, encouraging, and inspiring women to awaken to their greatness, as only she can, through passion, truth, hope, and humor—along with a heaping side of activism.

April 13th 2020, 2:04 pm

Could a Woman ever become President of the US?


As Elizabeth Warren bowed out of the race for the democratic nomination for the president in 2020, a collective moan was heard among females young and old. The field looked so promising — Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams — all  highly regarded candidates set to break the glass ceiling. But, on March 5, the last of these candidates, Senator Warren, left the field. It is now up to one white male.

Before giving in to despair, we should remember that history has several critical lessons to teach us. First, there are many paths to the presidency and women have made progress along several of those that have in the past led to the presidency.

Vice President

Thirteen VPs went on to the White House. Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush being the most recent two. We have not done anywhere as well on the female side. Only two women have been nominated: Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska by the Republican Party in 2008 and Representative Geraldine A. Ferraro by Democrats in 1984.

         Although we have not yet elected a woman vice president, the consensus is that the next VP will be a female. According to the Action Network, “The one thing that seems to be for sure in this volatile race is if a Democrat wins in November, we would almost certainly have a female vice president. Oddsmakers have flooded the betting markets with several women among the top wagering selections.” 

Among the names most often mentioned are Senators Harris, Klobuchar and Warren, as well as Stacey Abrams, who ran for governor of Alabama in 2018, and Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan.  

As Lisa Lerer and Reid J. Epstein wrote in the New York Times: “Though not quite as barrier-breaking as a female president, electing a woman as vice president would be historic…putting a woman on the ticket could also move the country closer to electing a first female president. If elected, the female vice president could later find herself in a stronger position to win the presidency than any woman in American history.”

Secretary of State  

Another well-worn path to White House is through the office of Secretary of State. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe used this cabinet position as a stepping stone to the presidency. 

In 1997, President Clinton appointed Madeleine Albright as the 64th Secretary of State and the first woman to hold that post. Making her, in her own words, “the highest-ranking woman in American history.” 

Since Albright’s groundbreaking tenure, two other prominent women have filled this esteemed position: Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton. Clinton’s attempt to catapult from this post to the presidency failed in 2016. Still, she was the first woman to become a presidential candidate from a major political party, and she won three million more votes than her republican rival, Trump, who, by virtue of the Electoral College map, became President in 2016. 

The Senate

         While 16 of the nation’s 45 presidents served in the Senate at some point in their public careers, only three—Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama—won their presidential races as incumbent senators. Many others got to the Oval Office, having served previously in the Senate. Truman and Nixon are recent examples. 

The Senate has also been a launch pad for past female presidential hopefuls. In 1964, Senator Margaret Chase Smith ran for president as a Republican. She was the first woman to win election to both the US House and the U.S. Senate. When challenged about her historic run, she said, “I have few illusions and no money, but I’m staying for the finish,” she noted. “When people keep telling you, you can’t do a thing, you kind of like to try.”

         In his last press conference of his presidency in November, 1963, JFK responded to the derision evoked by Smith’s candidacy, saying “‘I would think if I were a Republican candidate, I would not look forward to campaigning against Margaret Chase Smith in New Hampshire, or as a possible candidate for President.’” The gathered reporters laughed heartily. But Kennedy was serious. “I think she is very formidable, if that is the appropriate word to use about a very fine lady,” Kennedy continued. “She is a very formidable political figure.’

In the 2020 race, four women senators declared their candidacy for the Democratic nomination: Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Elisabeth Warren. Clearly this pipeline is filling up. Now that a record number of women are in the Senate, this route may yet produce a female president.

Business Leaders 

         Six male business leaders parlayed their business records into successful runs for the presidency. Our current president, Donald Trump, won fame as a well-known real-estate mogul. Six other 20th-century presidents were business executives — both successful and unsuccessful — before moving into the Oval Office.  

Warren Harding spent 39 years in the newspaper business before being elected in 1920. Herbert Hoover (elected 1928), made his fortune “from owning Burmese silver mines and publishing a leading textbook on mining engineering.” Harry S. Truman, became president in 1945, having first been a mining and oil investor, and then selling men’s clothing in Kansas City.

Jimmy Carter was a successful peanut farmer before being elected in 1976. George H.W. Bush(elected 1988) made his fortune in the oil business. George W. Bush (elected in 2000) followed his father into the oil business. Then he, along with a group of investors, bought the Texas Rangers baseball team. 

Being in business did not necessarily mean being successful in business. “Surprisingly, four presidents who had successful business careers — Hoover, both Bushes and Carter — had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance,” Robert S. McElvaine, history professor at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss., argued in the Washington Post . “The only president since Hoover with business experience under whom the economy did well was the one who was unsuccessful in business: Harry Truman, whose haberdashery shop went bankrupt after two years.”  

Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard CEO, became the first declared female candidate to seek the Republican Party’s nomination in May, 2015. However, current data suggest that this path to the presidency may be available to many more women, even though the road may be rocky.

As of June 1, 2020, ’33 of the companies on Fortune magazine’s ranking of highest-grossing firms will be led by female CEOs for the first time ever,’ notes the website Catalyst. ”Even though this sounds impressive, women still represent just 6.6% of all Fortune 500 CEOs. 

However, the 2020 increase “marks a considerable jump from last year’s total of 24, or 4.8%,” notes CNBC. These top firms include: General Motors, Oracle Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Duke Energy, and IBM. (Ginni Rometty will retire from IBM this spring). This uptick in the number of women holding top positions in major US companies does indeed suggest that there are scores of potential presidential candidates who might use their business credentials to make a run for the White House. One problem, though, is that women CEOs are more likely to be hired as companies are failing, a practice known as “The Glass Cliff.” 

The women in this position often struggle to boost the bottom line, but can’t, because their  companies are a mess. That happened to Carly Fiorina, and it hobbled her presidential run. Even if the  “Glass Cliff” CEO ratchets up her company’s profits, she may not get much credit. “What happens if the woman CEO saves the company?” Forbes asks. “The board will likely continue what is now its traditional management style. Better install a male CEO.”

And female leaders are more likely than male  leaders to get blamed when things go south in their companies; female chief executives get more tough press than male leaders do, reports the Wall Street Journal. Nearly 80% of digital and print media stories about companies in crisis cited the CEO as a source of blame when the company’s leader was a woman, according to an analysis by the Rockefeller Foundation and the research firm Global Strategy. 

While the pipelines are starting to fill, women have yet to break through. As Mary Beard, author and Cambridge University professor, put it in her book, Women & Power, A Manifesto: “Women in power are seen as breaking down barriers, or alternatively as taking something to which they are not quite entitled.” Women with power are scary. Take a look at the internet and you will easily find images of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Obama as frightening witches.

Is the glass half empty or half full?  Maybe a quarter or an eighth full. Progress is coming, but slowly. We may hear “Ms. President” one of these days, but only if women— and their male allies— keep pushing hard.

April 8th 2020, 8:55 pm

Mainstreaming Pimpland in the NYC Subway System


Last February, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) plastered ads throughout New York City’s vast subway system that, unbeknownst to riders, promote prostitution. 

Bright, eye-catching pink and red posters urged New Yorkers to flock to a free pop-up exhibit “celebrating the global sex worker movement.” Activities and talks from March 10-16 would have burbled at the pop-up, had alerts about the deadly COVID-19 pandemic not shut it down a few days after opening. 

At first glance, the advertised event just seemed an innocuous celebration of a marginalized group that suffers in silence and isolation. In most countries, including every US state, people in prostitution are harassed and arrested by the police, shunned by society, incarcerated far too often. Women bought and sold in the few legal brothels in rural Nevada are immune to arrest but suffer stigmatization and exploitation.   

But that’s not the full story behind the pop-up and the movement it promotes. Which is why 14 New York City-based groups, mostly direct service providers, survivor-led groups, and women’s rights organizations, challenged the MTA for accepting advertising that violates its own internal rules prohibiting the promotion of illegal goods and activities, political messages or “sexually oriented business.”

So, what is the story? 

The phrase “sex work “is a euphemism for prostitution. Coined in the late seventies by the sex trade and its supporters to legitimize sexual exploitation as employment, the term is a creative stroke that has changed the way we talk about prostitution. 

The mediaacademiaHollywood, and the self-anointed progressive movement view prostitution exclusively through the lens of personal choice, autonomy and self-identity, not as a phenomenon rooted in histories of misogyny, racism, and colonization.

The sex trade functions like any commercial market, operating on the principles of supply and demand, driven by an incentive for profit. 

The “supply” here comprises the most vulnerable populations on the planet, primarily children and women who have endured childhood sexual violence, inequalities, displacement, foster care, and suffered from an appalling absence of socio-economic choices. 

New York is no exception. Disenfranchised women and girls, as well as trans youth, mostly people of color and overwhelmingly victims of sex trafficking, are fodder for the local sex trade. 

Their profiteers thrive online and off: pimps and traffickers; owners and managers of brothels, illicit massage parlors, strip clubs, escort services, sugar dating websites; and pornographers. These perpetrators generally enjoy impunity for the crimes they perpetuate to procure victims and keep them in check, using a variety of tactics, from vicious coercion to ritualistic violence to debt bondage. 

The invisible pillar of the sex trade, however, are the men who purchase sexual acts with quasi-blanket exemption from accountability. Since the novel coronavirus outbreak, a plethora of news articles are reporting about the decimation of brothelsand other commercial sex establishments and red-light districts. Almost none are talking about the men who create the demand for prostitution that hold the pillars of prostitution on their shoulders and foster sex trafficking.   Do the math: without this demand, the sex trade crumbles. 

The MTA defended the pop-up ad campaign as constitutionally protected free speech, promoting a cultural exhibit, not prostitution. 

Had the MTA conducted any research before accepting these ads, it would have discovered these were false assumptions. They would have recognized that the poster’s red umbrella is the universal logo of the movement to decriminalize the sex trade worldwide. 

The MTA might have found out that former leaders of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects (whose logo includes said red umbrella) were convicted of sex trafficking and are now serving prison sentences in Mexico and Argentina.

Had the MTA logged onto the @sexworkerspopup Instagram account, prominently noted on the colorful posters, it would have quickly seen linked pages with child pornography, which I cannot cite here. 

While the MTA claimed the ads didn’t promote political activities, five minutes of research would have yielded announcementsof talks at the pop-ups by elected officials and political candidates promoting the decriminalization of brothels, sex buying and sex tourism. 

Not to mention, the expensive ad campaign was sponsored by George Soros’ billion-dollar Open Society Foundations, which also endows the global movement to decriminalize, legalize, and deregulate the sex trade.

With this information, the MTA would have understood that celebrating the “sex worker movement” is not about helping those surviving the hell that is prostitution, nor about helping them exit, but about promoting the sex trade itself. Otherwise, this movement, which includes convicted pimps and sexual predators, would never ask governments to greenlight the commercial sex market.

And let’s not forget pornography, which sex trade survivors routinely describe as prostitution on screen. 

The sex trade is shifting further online. Pornhub, the largest digital warehouse of pornographic videos, is taking advantage of the COVID-19 crisis by offering free premium access to its platform, which includes documented rapes and the sex trafficking of children

Individuals can always “choose” to engage in dangerous activities that put their lives at risk and a tiny percentage of those in prostitution claim they entered the sex trade freely, as adults, without any third-party extorting every dollar. The “sex work” movement argues getting paid for sexual acts is simply labor and must be fully decriminalized. 

But the growing movement of survivors, fighting the normalization of the sex trade, is a powerful one. The truths these women (as well as a few men and trans women) share about their lived experiences in prostitution and pornography offer us meaningful solutions to combat the horrors sex buyers, exploiters, and prostitution imposes.

“Prostitution is the only ‘job’ where what you earn declines the longer you remain in it,” said Mickey Meji, advocacy manager at Embrace Dignity and the founder of Kwanele, a survivor-led network in South Africa when I asked her whether claims that prostitution is work like any other is rooted in reality. 

“In all other professions, experience offers you increased regard and higher earnings. Prostitution is the only ‘occupation’ where experience strips one’s dignity,” Meji added.

Will the worst health crisis in modern history end the sex trade or recreate it? 

Will COVID-19 lead states to finally recognize that people prostituted in the multi-billion-dollar sex trade are not only harmed, but also in urgent need of housing, medical assistance, and other services? 

Effective responses to these needs rests on laws and policies, such as those enacted in Sweden and France among other countries, which recognize prostitution as a dangerous system of exploitation steeped in acute discrimination and gender-based violence. 

New York and other U.S. states must pass laws that hold sex buyers and pimps accountable, fund necessary, comprehensive services for people in prostitution, and uphold principles of equality for all—rather than letting the MTA promote Pimpland.

“It seems to me that this pandemic of global consciousness is the right time to explain that body invasion by strangers is the most dangerous ‘job’ on earth — and why prostituted women and children have such a low survival rate physically — without even starting on social and emotional survival,” said author and feminist activist Gloria Steinem on steps needed to change the dominant narrative normalizing the sex trade. “Shouldn’t we seize the moment and get a global commitment recognizing that?” 

Taina Bien-Aimé is the Executive Director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW), one of the oldest international organizations dedicated to ending trafficking in women and girls and commercial sexual exploitation as practices of gender-based violence and discrimination.

April 6th 2020, 12:01 am

“Innocent People Are Going to Die”: The Price of Presidential Narcissism and the Path of Peaceful Re


by LORI SOKOL, PhD, Executive Director, Women’s eNews

(This article originally appeared on Ms. Magazine, and has been republished with permission.)

Just two and a half years ago, the night of the 2016 Presidential election, I stood under the largest glass ceiling in the world in New York’s Jacob Javits Center, anxiously awaiting the arrival of our country’s first female president. 

Standing no more than fifty feet from the podium, I watched the big screen hovering above as Donald Trump was instead named the next president of the United States in what was a surprise to most of the nation.

Instantaneously, I whispered these six words to myself: “Innocent people are going to die.”

At the time, I was expressing concern for marginalized communities: women, people of color, the LGBTQ community, people with disabilities—any group to whom Donald Trump had shown contempt or complete disregard during his campaign. 

Just then, an elderly woman standing immediately to my right said just loud enough for me to hear, “I’m Jewish, I’ll guess I’ll now have to get a gun.”

How ironic, then, that under that very same roof, innocent people are going to die within the next weeks and months. 

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Sunday that the Javits Center will become one of four temporary field hospitals constructed to treat New Yorkers experiencing extreme symptoms traced to the coronavirus. 

(As of Thursday, there are over 37,000 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in New York state, and the number of deaths is almost at 1200—per Johns Hopkins’s Coronavirus Resource Center.)

Gov. Cuomo hopes that 1,000 hospital beds can be accommodated in that sprawling glass building to assist those requiring critical care.

Surely, Donald Trump is not responsible for the start of the coronavirus, itself, nor that it spread to the U.S. from its original source in China. 

But he is responsible for originally claiming that it was a “hoax,” that it is “something that we have tremendous control of,” and, most recently, “Anybody that wants a test can get a test.” 

These are all lies. In fact, Trump told a total of thirty-three lies about the coronavirus crisis in the first two weeks of March.

But what is even more disconcerting, and worrisome, is that the Trump administration was warned about potential threats posed by a novel coronavirus since the early part of January—but those warnings were largely disregarded. 

This reminds me of another massive tragedy that hit New York City, almost two decades ago when another president chose to ignore viable warnings of the large potential loss of lives in the U.S. 

Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S.” is now infamously known as the ominous headline in the CIA’s Presidential Daily Brief which was given to then President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001. Yet, Bush chose to ignore it. 

A redacted copy of the Bin Laden memo.

Just over one month later, on September 11, close to 3,000 innocent people lost their lives during a series of terrorist attacks in the US, and mostly in New York City. 

I compare these two tragedies, and these two presidents, because there are a number of similarities between the two: Both men won the presidency but lost the popular vote; neither was thought by many to possess the intelligence, experience or heart to lead the country; and both exude many of the traits attributed to narcissists, a diagnosis that boils down to extreme selfishness at the expense of others, exacerbated by the inability to consider others’ feelings at all. 

So, as one would expect of a narcissist, George W. Bush stood on the smoking pile of ash at Ground Zero claiming that “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists,” and used this tragedy to target an innocent country, Iraq, in an attempt to bring the country together by claiming they had “weapons of mass destruction”—which were never found. 

He did this, many surmise, to avenge his father. Geroge W. Bush, himself, even alluded to the fact that Saddam “had tried to kill his father” in the aftermath of the Gulf War.  For him, this war—started based upon a lie—was very personal, and didn’t take into account how many innocent lives would be lost in the process.

Bush used used the tragedy of 9/11 to target an innocent country, Iraq, in an attempt to bring the country together by claiming they had “weapons of mass destruction”—which were never found. (

A fellow narcissist, Donald Trump will also seek to use the coronavirus to sew up his own re-election later this year, regardless of the number of innocent lives lost. 

In fact, his tweet earlier this week has already set it in motion: “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF, AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD”—which began a week ago, March 16—”WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!” 

Donald Trump already knows which way he wants the country to go. He is losing patience with the virus, which is severely impacting the economy and threatening his chances of reelection. 

He wants to get workers back into the workforce, to help bring back the economy, and doesn’t care if this only succeeds in spreading the virus and increasing the loss of innocent lives. 

As Vice President Pence signaled yesterday, even those who have been exposed can feel safe and secure by wearing a mask for a minimal length of time.

We must not let this happen. 

The only thing we are sure of is that there is a direct correlation between complete isolation and the reduction of the virus’ transmission—as leaders of other nations have publicly asserted based upon the rise and fall of the number of deaths in their own countries over the past weeks and months. 

So what are Americans to do? 

We only need to have a crash course in history to recall that many of the most iconic acts to alter dangerous governmental actions were accomplished through peaceful resistance. 

Who can forget how a 62-year-old Mohandas Gandhi led a band of 78 volunteers on a 241-mile walk over 24 days to the south of India in 1930, where he picked up a handful of salt—a mineral that was controlled by the British government at the time, in a gesture that started India’s movement toward independence?

Or who can forget Rosa Parks’s decision to refuse to give up her seat to a white man on December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama? Her arrest led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court making segregated seating unconstitutional just one year later.


Or who can forget when 200,000 people gathered at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963 demanding equal rights for African Americans, and where Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his unforgettable “I Have a Dream’ speech advancing equal rights?

While it’s true that the Lincoln Memorial, and all memorials, are now closed in Washington, DC; that busses are continuing to run but with very few, if any, passengers; and that all of the beaches in the U.S. are now closed to pedestrians—there are other ways that the public can resist, and it can be done by remaining behind closed doors. 

Just remember another iconic peaceful protest, where one of the most revered messengers of peace, John Lennon, along with his wife Yoko Ono, held a ‘bed-in’ to display their strict opposition to the Vietnam War in 1969. It was then that Lennon recorded the historic song, “Give Peace A Chance,’ which became the unofficial anthem to ending that war.

In 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono held two week-long “Bed-Ins for Peace,” one at the Hilton Hotel in Amsterdam and one at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal—intended to be nonviolent protests against wars, and experimental tests of new ways to promote peace. (Wikipedia)

With our government recently threatening to phase out self-isolating guidelines to open businesses while COVID-19 cases continue to increase, let’s be like John and Yoko, and Martin, and Rosa, and Mohandas. 

For peaceful resistance is the only defiant act that has ever worked, without losing any innocent lives in the process.

Photo by Eva Mueller

Lori Sokol, PhD, is the Executive Director of Women’s eNews and author of the upcoming book, She Is Me: How Women Will Save The World (She Writes Press, August 2020).

April 1st 2020, 3:30 pm



Women’s eNews would like you thank all of our Honorees, Chairs, and Readers for your patience as we worked on rescheduling our Annual Gala!

We hope to see you there, and in the interim, please stay healthy. We will need you more than ever as we celebrate this year’s ’21 Leaders for the 21st Century’ just one week before the 2020 Presidential Election!

March 30th 2020, 2:40 pm

Covid-19 Restrictions on Birth & Breastfeeding: Disproportionately Harming Black and Native Women


Shaine Garcia was planning for a vaginal delivery of her second child, a son, she wanted to name Grayson. She attended childbirth classes with her partner, Colton. They toured the hospital, planned the one-hour long drive from the Native reservation in Pueblo de Acoma, New Mexico where they live to the hospital in Albuquerque where she planned to deliver. Despite her first C-section with her daughter three years ago, she was confident this time could be the birth experience she wanted. 

But as the Corona virus pandemic widened and hospitals began to increase restrictions on visitors, Garcia and her partner grew anxious about having no support at the hospital, so under severe pressure she decided to have an elective C-section just days before her due date. 

“The knowledge that my support team would be so severely impacted completely coerced me into a decision I did not want to make,” Garcia said. “It would have been a drastically different decision and experience without these limitations on labor and delivery,” she added. 

Like Garcia, so many women and birthing persons are seeing their birth and breastfeeding plans upended by the current spate of drastic policy changes at birthing hospitals across the U.S. 

Doulas, who are recognized as essential health care personnel for birthing persons by several prominent medical organizations, are suddenly being deemed “visitors” by hospital administration and banned from attending births or entering hospitals. Immediately after birth, breastfeeding mothers are being separated from their babies, often without a medical reason. 

And in the most drastic move, two hospital systems in New York City, New York Presbyterian and Mount Sinai Health System, announced this week that no one could be in the hospital with a laboring person—not even a spouse or partner.  That decision affects 21 hospitals in the greater New York City area; no mention of what that means for surrogate or adopting parents. 

Women across the country are panic shopping doulas and midwives for home births and desperately calling birthing centers, overwhelming people and systems that are built on relationship-building during the pregnancy period, not last minute additions. Others are planning to travel across state lines where there may be more birthing center options or available home birth midwives. Mothers, many who didn’t have support to breastfeed or were told it didn’t matter, are now desperately searching for resources on how to re-lactate. All of it is frightening. 

Covid-19 is indeed a global public health crises, but it is rapidly turning into a maternal and infant health catastrophe. 

Let’s be clear, the failure of a timely and effective response from the federal government has dangerous and deadly trickle down impacts. And while it is certainly understandable that we are in unprecedented and uncertain times and the need for an abundance of caution is clear when dealing with a novel virus, the reality and repercussions of hundreds of thousands of women going into birth alone within an already overstretched medical system, that has often failed to honor the bodily autonomy of women, is beyond troubling. Obstetric violence is on the rise and a recent study by the Birthplace Lab found that, overall, one in six women, regardless of race experience mistreatment by healthcare providers during birth, have experienced it.

To make matters worse, Black and Native women stand to lose the most by this unprecedented and perhaps unnecessary suppression of birthing rights.  “Among mothers with low socioeconomic status, 18.7 per cent of white women reported mistreatment compared to 27.2 per cent of women of color. Indigenous women were the most likely to report experiencing at least one form of mistreatment by health-care providers during birth, followed by Black and Hispanic women,” says the Giving Voice to Mothers study. 

The presence of doulas has been proven to improve birth outcomes for black women—who have the greatest risk for perinatal complications and, according to the CDC, are two to three times more likely to die during or after childbirth. In New York City, where doulas are being summarily dismissed, the Black maternal mortality rate is twelve times that of white women. Twelve! 

Black breastfeeding rates are also threatened. Peer-based programs that have helped increase breastfeeding rates among black women—from WIC peer counselors to local breastfeeding “clubs” like those created by the Black Mothers Breastfeeding Association in Detroit—must be shut down due to necessary physical distancing. Birth and breastfeeding research illustrates that Black and Latina women do better with social support, including actively engaging male partners and extended family members, including grandparents. History tells us that when breastfeeding in the black community is disrupted systemically, there are lasting impacts.  

“We know that the peer model, especially those rooted in community and culture, work best for black women,” says Kiddada Green, the founding executive director of BMBFA, whose club model can be licensed for use and is currently being replicated in three states. “Like others, we have quickly transitioned to a virtual model, but the impact of an abrupt suspension of in-person support to sustained breastfeeding rates among black women remains to be seen,” adds Green, a co-founder of Black Breastfeeding Week, who says the club has run without interruption in Detroit for 12 years.  

Physicians who are not properly trained in lactation management are now making broad stroke decisions, unnecessarily separating mothers and infants with no symptoms, while ignoring the World Health Organization’s recent guidelines for breastfeeding with Covid-19 (keep breastfeeding with protection) and disrupting the mother-baby dyad at its most vulnerable and critical time. Earlier this week the WHO announced any interruption of breastfeeding may actually increase the infant’s risk of becoming ill.

It needs to be clearly and repeatedly said that healthcare systems and professionals impeding breastfeeding while people are panic buying infant formula which is increasingly in scarce supply, is dangerous and short-sighted.

“Breastfeeding is the safest most reliable way of feeding infants in an emergency,” says Dr. Melissa Bartick, Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, who has conducted groundbreaking research on breastfeeding’s impact on infant health

“We need to do everything possible to promote and prolong breastfeeding because it will protect infants and because there are shortages of formula in many places. We are nearly at the point of looking to help moms re-lactate who have stopped breastfeeding, especially where formula supplies are very scarce. So anything we can do to keep breastfeeding going is important,” Bartick notes.  

Additionally, no one is talking about the mental well-being and birth trauma of mothers and infants and what we will need to have in place to recover from this. The sudden jolt and surge of anxiety will certainly impact pre-term birth rates, C-section rates will soar and postpartum depression is likely to rise. 

Black mothers and other women of color, who are in the paid workforce at higher rates than white women, often rely on parents and grandparents as caregivers—creating a perfect disastrous storm now as older people are more vulnerable to the virus and need to be isolated, just as financial pressure intensifies as the economy tanks and job losses increase. There is an emotional and physical toll here. 

In my work building IRTH, the first digital platform to identify and address experiences of bias and racism in maternal and infant healthcare, I see and hear from Black women and birthing people of color who write heart-wrenching experiences of being dismissed, that their pain levels are ignored and are receiving general substandard care in hospital systems with normal capacity. I can only imagine how the stresses of the pandemic are exacerbating issues of unconscious bias, stereotypes, control and perceived compliance. Incidences of racism and bias in care will only get worse. 

While this pandemic will end, the trauma will linger—it embeds in our DNA and impacts future generations, including that generations’ birth outcomes. 

Meanwhile, as this pandemic lays bare the many gaping flaws in our healthcare system, we are forced to reckon with the root cause of this present crisis: the medicalization of birth along with the subsequent criminalization of midwives. The fact that women were forced into hospitals to deliver, when birth is not a medical event, is now reaping grave consequences for us all. To be clear, most births do not need to occur in a hospital setting. In fact, in almost every other industrialized nation in the world, women do not give birth with doctors and are not in an official hospital setting at all, unless there are complications or a medical necessity. The question we should be asking now is, why are we? 

At a time when the healthcare system is overly stretched, and the world is already at heightened anxiety, mothers need the people they were relying on to support them through their births. Remember, it was the hospitals who told us and sold us on the idea that home births weren’t “safe” and now that we have become dependent on them—they still make the rules—no matter the impact. 

“What we have right now are a set of bad options, including no legal basis for having someone with you at childbirth and a hospital system that has historically prioritized protecting itself (and avoiding liability) over the needs of women and birthing people,” explains Indra Lusero, a reproductive justice attorney at National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW).  

“During this time, we recommend individuals look for local childbirth educators, doulas, lactation support providers, midwives and doctors offering digital support, information and resources that can reassure, connect, inform and support people,” adds Lusero, who is also founder of the Birth Rights Bar Association.  

We must do better. We need immediate accommodations such as video conferencing with doulas and other “virtual” support and tele-health options (Many doulas and lactation consultants are now offering virtual services).

We must decriminalize midwives immediately, especially home birth midwives, in all states and increase access to community childbirth centers. That should also include using all certifications of midwives to create temporary “birthing centers” in locations outside of the hospital for those who don’t have complications (Dutch midwives have set up birthing rooms in hotels to free up hospitals for only those who need obstetric care). There is so much that can be done. 

Make no mistake, there will be a price to pay. At some point, our lives will return to some variant of normal, albeit different. But the trajectory of birth and breastfeeding outcomes could be dramatically altered and possibly irreparably damaged if we don’t act now. 

For those of us who care about maternal and infant health, intentional restorative work lies ahead—which includes more perinatal mental health awareness and earnest attention to those working outside the systems and structures that have consistently failed all women, and black women in particular. Organizations like the Black Mamas Matter Alliance, the National Association of Professional and Peer Lactation Supporters of Color (NAPPLSC), and the National Association to Advance Black Birth (NAABB), along with events such as Black Breastfeeding Week will need our support like never before, including Latina and Native coalitions, groups and events. The work of legalizing midwives in all states and making birthing centers an option for every woman requires our intense policy and advocacy efforts. Any national, state or local emergency preparedness planning, anywhere, must always include pregnant and birthing people. This should be basic. It must be. 

It will be up to us to ensure that Covid-19 is not calamitous to mothers and babies and that the damage already done is never repeated. 

Kimberly Seals Allers in an award-winning journalist, nationally recognized maternal and infant health advocate and an international public speaker. The former editorial director of the Black Maternal Health Project at Women’s eNews, Kimberly is also founder of The Irth App, a digital rating and review platform that addresses bias in healthcare interaction, and the author of five books, including The Big Letdown—How Medicine Big Business and Feminism Undermine Breastfeeding.Follow her at @iamKSealsAllers on Instagram and Twitter. Learn more at

March 27th 2020, 4:56 pm

Shelter-in-Place: How it Impacts Sexual Violence


As millions of Americans are asked to stay home with “shelter in place orders” and social media is exploding with memes and quips about a “coronial” baby boom very little is thought about how staying at home may increase sexual violence.  The #MeToo movement grew stronger with the Harvey Weinstein verdicts but will the isolation and increased stressors of COVID-19 create a surge in sexual coercion

The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that nearly 20 people every minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States.  Domestic violence also known as intimate partner violence (IPV) can span from physical and sexual abuse to less identified abuses that also center around intimidation and control.  One form of domestic and intimate partner violence that is still largely unknown and under-recognized is called sexual or reproductive coercion (RC).  Masked by the pretense of love, desire, and family; reproductive coercion is a potent powerplay in an abusive and sexually violent relationship.

Reproductive coercion occurs when an abusive intimate partner intends to maintain control in a relationship by using manipulation, guilt, intimidation, threats, acts of violence, or sabotaging contraception attempts in order to pressure a partner to become or remain pregnant.  Other non-violent forms of control such as economic control, social isolation, constantly discussing or negotiating having children, ovulation tracking, insisting on use of invitro fertilization (IVF), and any other behavior that can compromise the reproductive autonomy of an individual is considered abuse.  

According to reports, IPV and reproductive coercion is reported in 1 in 8 teen girls and anywhere from 25% of women on the National Domestic Violence Hotline to 53% of women seen in emergency rooms and family health clinics.  With IPV and RC creating significant physical and psychological effects on victims, and increasing US healthcare costs up to $12.6 billion annually, these abuses are already a public health crisis.

So how do you know if you or someone you love is a victim of IPV and reproductive coercion?  Look for signs of reproductive coercion such as missing or adulterated oral birth control, partner removal of IUD and vaginal contraceptives, tampering with or refusing to use condoms, and any other behavior that compromises the reproductive autonomy of the individual.  Victims also often experience stress-induced physical health effects such as direct injuries, increased incidence of sexually transmitted infections and HIV, long-term pain syndromes, and chronic conditions such as gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, and asthma. Emotional and psychological effects to watch out for include post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, difficulty sleeping, and attempted suicide.

The COVID-19 isolation and “shelter in place” orders may be a door to identifying family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances that are abusers.  Many abusive individuals have personality traits such as being charismatic, successful, charming, and “well-liked” while inwardly having low self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy or powerlessness.  Signs that an individual may have abusive tendencies can include inconsistent moods, hypersensitive or overreactive behaviors, being overly critical or narcissistic, and being controlling, jealous, or manipulative.  Other tools for recognizing abusive behavior include the Reproductive Coercion Self-Quiz, the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence Power and Control Wheel, and the Cycle of Domestic Violence

Reproductive coercion is sexual violence and its survivors deserve a voice especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. To support these unheard survivors, take this time to be more observant and have conversations with loved ones that you may not have had before. Organizations and institutions need more research to thoroughly understand the full impact while physicians, pharmacists, school nurses, healthcare providers and the general public need further awareness. It’s our responsibility to give survivors hope in this difficult time; so speak out to have reproductive consent respected, reproductive autonomy protected, and share that #loveisrespect.

Dr. K. Ashley Garling Pharm.D. is a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy and a UT Austin Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

March 26th 2020, 8:24 am

SHERAPY: Coping with COVID-19


Sherry Amatenstein, LCSW is a NYC-based psychotherapist. In this episode of her podcast, Sherapy – Real Therapy with Sherry Amatenstein, she discusses coping with COVID19 and the STAY at HOME orders, while finding your true self. (This episode includes Sloan Smiloff, Amy Ferris, and Karen Hale):

Sherry portraits

Sherry Amatenstein is the author of The Q&A Dating Book, Love Lessons From Bad Breakups and The Complete Marriage Counselor ( She edited the anthology, How Does That Make You Feel: True Confessions From Both Sides of the Therapy Couch. Before becoming a therapist she spent two years volunteering at a suicide hotline. She was also an interviewer for Steven Spielberg’s USC Shoah, a foundation dedicated to taking audio-visual testimony from Holocaust survivors.

March 24th 2020, 6:30 pm

What to Expect if you are Expecting during the Pandemic


Over the past few days, all of us have been faced with the stark reality of what it means to survive in the midst of a pandemic. While stress levels are understandably through the roof, among the highest are those of expectant parents. As a former labor and delivery nurse, a certified nurse midwife, and a professor at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, I have heard some recurring themes in the questions surrounding pregnancy and delivery during the Covid-19 crisis and can offer some advice. 

First and foremost — don’t panic. Mothers have been having babies since the dawn of time, through wars and famines and natural catastrophes. You have the creative power within you to have formed your perfect little person; you have the power within you to usher her or him safely into the world – even in the middle of a pandemic. 

What we know today about the coronavirus and pregnancy:

Of the case reports coming out from around the world of women who tested positive for the virus, and were ill at the time they gave birth, the babies born to those women have been born healthy, without any signs of infection. The babies have also largely tested negative for the virus.  There has been at least one newborn who tested positive, after being born to a woman who was positive at the time of the birth. 

Pregnant women are assumed to be at a higher risk because pregnancy puts women into an immunocompromised state. That means that the immune system, which is what fights off illness, is purposely suppressed during pregnancy. That said, from what we are hearing, the virus does not seem to be affecting pregnant women as severely as may have been suspected that it would. 

What to expect if giving birth during this time: 

Your provider may stretch your prenatal visits out a little further than you had planned. That’s okay; the traditional schedule of every four weeks up to 28 weeks, every two weeks up to 36 weeks, and weekly after that is really outdated. Research has shown that prenatal visits can actually be scheduled further apart, with no adverse effect on mothers and babies — and with the benefit of enhanced patient satisfaction 

       Many hospitals have implemented a restriction on visitors for all hospital patients in the midst of this health crisis. This is important for the safety of all hospitalized patients, many of whom are at significant risk if exposed to the virus. Though women having babies are healthy upon arrival, it is important to keep vulnerable newborns away from potential visitors who could be infected. One area exceptions have been made is in the labor and delivery units, where visitors may be limited to one support person only. Note that non-hospital employed doulas may well be considered visitors. To be mentally prepared, you may want to check with the facility where you plan on giving birth as to their visitor policy at this point. If you were planning on having a doula at your birth, one good strategy is to have your doula review some of the basic comfort techniques that she/he uses with your partner, so that she/he can have some “tools” in their bag to assist you. 

       If you were planning on an “elective” induction of labor on a given date (meaning a labor induction that is not done for any medical reason), know that depending on the hospital’s census on the labor unit – particularly if they have a heavier patient census of laboring women infected with the virus – elective inductions may need to be put off for some time, or rescheduled to a different day. 

       While many of the babies born to mothers ill with the virus have had no untoward effects, at this point it really isn’t known whether these babies have a higher risk of severe complications. There is still concern that babies may be infected via their mothers after birth. For that reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recommending temporary separation of mothers (who have the confirmed illness) and babies until the mother’s transmission-based precautions are completed. Of course, the CDC notes that this should be done after a discussion of risks and benefits with the baby’s mother.

       Current figures  show that the virus is not transmitted from mother to baby in breastmilk. If mothers test positive for the virus, they can express breastmilk during separation from their baby to establish their milk supply. If a test positive mother and baby are rooming together, mothers should wear a facemask and wash hands well prior to putting baby to breast.

What you can do to help yourself: 

       If you had been planning on attending an in-person childbirth education class that will likely be cancelled (if not already), don’t despair; there are great online options. Rather than risk seeming to endorse any particular one, I recommend just Googling it; you will find a plethora! And don’t forget there are plenty of great books to get you into the mindset. 

       Be flexible… you have planned and looked forward to the big day for months; no doubt about that. That said, birth is a test for the rest of parenthood. Our mind’s eye pictures ourselves in a flowing white gown serenely rocking a cherubic faced angel to sleep while reality ends up with us stumbling around the room at 4am to find a diaper, exhausted after the fifth feeding of the night, wearing the same nightshirt we put on after a shower three (or was it four?) days ago, now nicely primed with the smell of baby poop and spit-up. Parenthood is full of unexpected twists and turns; this is the first of many. 

        Have confidence in your chosen provider to look out for your best interests. I know of home birth practices suddenly being inundated with transfer of care requests from women who are now afraid to give birth in hospitals because of the virus. Although I support home birth for many low risk women, not all who may want to change their care to a home birth practice will be appropriate candidates. Do your homework, make sure it’s right for you, and find a homebirth provider with whom you feel you can mesh. 

       One option I would steer anyone away from is making a plan to give birth at home without the attendance of a qualified midwife or physician (often called “freebirthing”). Labor and birth follow a normal course the vast majority of the time, but every woman needs — and deserves — a qualified birth professional to watch over and guide her through the journey, and to know what to do if problems do arise. 

       If you give birth in a hospital, think about asking for an early discharge home at 24 hours (if 48 hours is the standard where you are). The appropriate candidate for early discharge will have had an uncomplicated labor and birth, be nursing well, and have support at home. Having said that, many women are great candidates to be discharged at 24 hours.

       If you are the partner of someone who is expecting, know that she has enough on her hands just gestating. Be as supportive as you can; if you have to have a meltdown do it – maybe just not in front of her. Reassure her by participating in the labor and birth planning whenever possible; go to any provider appointments that you are able to; read what she is reading about the birthing process, and join in activities like the online childbirth classes. In short, walk as closely as possible next to her as she travels this path. This is scary for everyone, but less so with someone holding your hand through it.  

        Give handwashing its due diligence; it’s a simple message that can’t be said enough. At least 20 seconds (preferably 30) is needed to rid your hands of what may have found a home on them. 

        Keep yourself (and baby, once the little one arrives) out of the limelight. In some cultures, there is a tradition for new mammas and babies to be isolated from visitors for a period of time. That’s not a bad idea in general, and especially in the midst of a pandemic. Thank goodness for instant photos, phones that instantly transmit pictures and videos, and Facetime. Loved ones can track baby’s every move via technology; they can wait to hold baby. Your job as a new parent is to protect your baby… and no better time to start than at birth! 

       Breastfeed, breastfeed…and oh yes, breastfeed! The antibodies (virus and bacteria fighting proteins in your blood) are plentiful in breastmilk. Via breastfeeding you pass those super germ fighting properties along to your baby, enhancing their resilience to illness in a huge way. 

        One more time… don’t panic, parents; you got this!

 Michelle Collins, PhD, is a professor of nursing at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, and a certified nurse-midwife with over 30 years of experience in the field of maternal-child health. She is also a Public Voices Fellow with the OpEd Project.

March 22nd 2020, 3:42 pm

Sex Doesn’t End at 40, and Other Reasons to End Silence About Menopause


         When Gwyneth Paltrow’s Netflix show Goop Lab debuted a few months ago, it garnered plenty of media hate for its pseudoscience and self-promotion. But there’s one important bright spot in the show we should all pay attention to: 90-year-old sex educator Betty Dobson offering advice on sensuality. She’s living proof that sex doesn’t end at menopause—and that’s just one of the powerful lessons our culture needs to learn about post-reproductive years.  Our national silence on menopause has lead to misdiagnoses, mistreatment and needless suffering for millions of women. 

            On average, women live for about 78 years—of that, only about 15 years fall in the peak reproductive period (25-40).  Most women will spend far longer in the post-reproductive years.  And many know almost nothing about what to expect when those years end. We are ignorant because of chronic misinformation and silence. Our mothers did not typically have the tools to help guide us themselves. When I have surveyed women over the years in my practice less than 5% report That their mother or another significant female figure shared information about the menopausal years. 

This shouldn’t be surprising: For most of the 19th and 20th century, women’s body’s and health needs were regarded as less important than men’s.  As researchers at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital reported in 2014, “The science that informs medicine—including the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease—routinely fails to consider the crucial impact of sex and gender”

            As a gynecologist and author of a book on menopause, I’ve been astounded at the mistreatment of women that results from our culture’s silence on menopause. Just a few examples: Recently, a new 67-year-old patient came to me for severe vaginal dryness and pain with intercourse. She had been seen by at least two other medical providers.  One told her she should simply expect her sex life to suffer as she ages. That’s ridiculous.  Many therapies are available for dryness and pain, either over the counter or by prescription.  Another doctor offered her anti-depressants and sleeping pills.   She needed a doctor who understood menopause. I prescribed a combination of vaginal hormone therapy and CO2 laser tissue rejuvenation.  Three months later, she could resume sexual relations  with her husband and they now report intercourse twice weekly. It has changed their marriage.

            I see this all the time.  Women frequently hear that painful intercourse after menopause is all in their head, not an actual medical condition that can be treated

This is true of other symptoms related to menopause as well.  A fifty year old women with newly diagnosed anxiety and heart palpitations is likely to get a psychiatric and cardiology workup, despite the fact that she is experiencing some of the most typical symptoms of estrogen imbalance.  

            Even me—a 53-year-old gynecologist! I was so steeped in traditional (male) approaches and mindsets in medicine, that when I started feeling irritable, depressed,, had difficulty sleeping and experienced night sweats, I complete overlooked the fact that I was entering perimenopause,  the one-to -eight year period preceding menopause. Once I realized what was happening I treated my symptoms through integrative  approach. I changed my diet, focused on self-care, and eventually started hormone replacement therapy. 

But more importantly,  I realized that I was not going crazy.  Within weeks I was feeling better but it was a long journey to begin to understand how my body was actually changing. I realize that if a gynecologist could be this confused about this period in  her life, what must the average woman experience?

            Some of this comes from the same shame and silence that has historically surrounded the female body—but it’s even worse for menopause than other conditions.  Every woman knows where to turn if she is contemplating motherhood—sisters, girlfriends, best friends, obstetricians, and thousands and thousands of books. . Yet, of the hundreds of women I’ve talked to about menopause, less than 10% have told me that there were women (or sometimes men) in their lives who described menopause, what it was, or what to expect. With a lack of intergenerational conversations, we will always lack understanding of the unique experiences of women entering this transition. 

            While the Goop Lab may not survive its savage reviews, I fervently hope that the show’s willingness to explore taboo subjects—including menopause—continues.  But fortunately, we don’t have to depend on Netflix and Paltrow to continue that movement.  

            Women can change the narrative right now, by starting the conversation with their mothers, sisters, daughters, and yes, even their doctors. Transparent, evidence-based, unbiased healthcare should be the standard of care delivered by our health care professionals not only during a women’s reproductive years but also in the decades that follow. 

About the author: Arianna Sholes-Douglas is an OB-GYN and author of The Menopause Myth: What Your Mother, Doctor, And Friends Haven’t Shared About Life After 35

March 18th 2020, 6:43 pm

From the Executive Director: 21 Leaders for the 21st Century Awards Gala Rescheduled


Lori Sokol, PhD

Dear Women’s eNews Readers:

Women’s eNews has been closely monitoring the spread of COVID-19 in the US and particularly in New York City, where we host our annual ’21 Leaders for the 21st Century’ Awards Gala on the first Monday in May.

Due to the increasingly widespread community transmission of COVID-19 in New York City, coupled with the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) recommendation yesterday that no events of more than 50 people take place over the next eight weeks, Women’s eNews has decided to reschedule its annual gala.

We believe it is critically urgent to adhere to guidelines for protecting vulnerable populations, as well as social distancing to help reduce the chance of transmission.

The Awards Gala will be rescheduled for the Fall, 2020. The new date will be announced later this month.

We also ask that each of you to abide by recommended measures to minimize risk of infection, and protect others, as provided by the World Health Organization. By doing so, we can remain healthy and slow its spread.

As always, we thank you for your understanding and continued support, as Women’s eNews looks forward to honoring our ’21 Leaders’ and celebrating our 20th anniversary with all of you later this year.

In solidarity,

Lori Sokol, PhD

Executive Director

March 16th 2020, 12:33 am

’21 Leaders for the 21st Century’ 2020 Honorees Announced!!


March 9th 2020, 6:21 pm

For International Women’s Day: Advance Your Voice


Women’s eNews has provided a consistent, bold and courageous voice for women and girls throughout the world since its inception, in the year 2000. As we celebrate our 20th Anniversary this year, and today, on International Women’s Day, we are introducing a new logo which not only embodies our voice, but emboldens it. While keeping with our founding colors, red and black, we have added the image of a retro vintage microphone which was designed approximately 100 years ago, around the same year that the 19th Amendment was ratified, enabling women’s constitutional right to vote.

Since then, and much more recently, women have been boosting their voices on the congressional floor as elected officials defending and advancing women’s rights, and via the “#MeToo and #TimesUp movements, by calling out perpetrators of sexual assault.

But we need more, much much more — and time is of the essence.

While ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment has overcome some major hurdles in the last few months with Virginia becoming the crucial 38th state to ratify it and U.S. House removing the deadline for ratification, an increasing number of legal challenges are being made in attempts to block it. Women’s reproductive choice and health is increasingly on the line as Republican-led states, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority and the Trump administration’s anti-abortion policies, passed 59 abortion restrictions last year. The Violence Against Women Act, aimed at preventing sexual violence and assault, was stalled in the US Senate, and Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting “discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance,” is being reintroduced with proposed regulations that define harassment far more narrowly. It will also require schools to hold live hearings, while permitting cross examination by attorneys, which will only increase the victim’s trauma.

These are just a few of the reasons why the voices of women, and similarly-minded men, who support equal rights need to be broadcast everywhere from the home to the workplace, and in private and public gatherings, to ensure our safety is no longer endangered, and that gender equality becomes the law of the land!

And now, I’d like to introduce you to just a sampling of women who are devoting their work, and their lives, to supporting and advancing the rights of women, as our honorary ’21 Leaders for the 21st Century’ 2020. I hope you’ll join us in celebrating them in the evening of Monday, May 4th, in NYC. We need them, and you, more than ever!

In solidarity,

Lori Sokol, Phd, Executive Director

March 8th 2020, 10:56 am

The End of Black History Month is Only the Beginning…


In celebration of Black History Month, below is a Q&A with Shellye Archambeau, one of Silicon Valley’s first black CEO’s and black female executive at IBM. Archambeau has over 25 years of experience handling business and consumer relations, turned her failed businesses into overnight successes, and is a sought after speaker, coach and board member to Verizon and Nordstrom. Here, she shares her words of wisdom to other black businesspeople looking to climb to the top to achieve personal, professional and financial success.


How did you break barriers and ceilings as a black woman in a white male dominated industry?

I’m very goal oriented and disciplined. I decided I wanted to run a business before I even started my career. Ignorance helped, in that I wasn’t constrained by the reality of the challenge when I set my goal. Once I set it, I was determined to achieve it. I focused on excelling at each role I had, and looking for constant opportunities to demonstrate my leadership capabilities. I practiced servant leadership, focusing on supporting my teams and people around me to be successful.

I took risky jobs, cultivated allies, mentors and ultimately sponsors. I let people know what I wanted each step of the way. I made many, many trade-offs, moving my family numerous times, commuting long distance, and ultimately taking on the sole financial support for my family. Ultimately, I turned being an outsider into an advantage. I built a strong reputation and because I was different, people remembered me.

What was your biggest challenge you faced in your career growth?

I was a senior sales exec for IBM and was ready for a management role. I was a top performer and my boss knew my aspirations. But IBM was going through financial challenges and roles were being consolidated and eliminated. Whenever I asked about. Promotion I was told I had the talent, track record and performance, but there just weren’t jobs available. I was frustrated because I was doing what I was supposed to do and yet I was stuck.

After a year of this, I knew I was going to be off track with my personal career plan if I didn’t get the promotion soon. So I decided to look for the job I wanted outside of IBM. I interviewed and received a good offer. However, when I resigned my boss was shocked. Senior management rallied and found a promotion for me within the company. I stayed. The big lesson was goals aren’t good enough by themselves. They need to be time defined to truly drive your behavior.

What are your top tips on building your network and developing financial literacy?

Building a strong network isn’t collecting the most business cards. It’s creating relationships. My approach to building relationships is through giving. There are many ways to give. You can help people, inspire people, or educate people through advice. Now, you need to have people to give to. There are many ways to meet and interact with others. Get involved in areas of interest to you. Local alumni groups, professional organizations, book clubs, church committees, etc., you can also start your own.

When I moved to Silicon Valley, I didn’t have a network. I also didn’t have a lot of free time to pursue many different paths to creating my network. I was a CEO facing a major turnaround effort. So I created my own club by combing what I like to do. I enjoy entertaining, cooking, and wine. So I started a gourmet dinner club. As I encountered interesting people, I’d ask them if they liked to cook. If they did I’d describe the club I was creating and ask if they were interested. We had our first dinner with 12 people 9 months after we moved into our home. That club is now 16 years old with 50 members. It was the core of my initial network.

We don’t talk enough about money and I’m not referring to discussions about salary. I mean how to approach your finances. Research, commissioned by GuideVine — a service matching people with financial advisers — revealed over half of those polled (55 percent) feel lost when it comes to a long-term and stable financial plan. We have to personally educate ourselves with at least the basics: creating a budget, understanding the time value of money and compounding. Why? This understanding will help you make better choices.

I’ve always strived to create financial flexibility so that I’d have money for the important things in life. I worked all through college to pay for the portion of my expenses my parents didn’t cover and to build savings for a wedding that I would want one day. My parents helped with college, but let us know that wedding costs were on us. I ended up marrying soon after college graduation and was able to pay for the entire event.

February 25th 2020, 6:10 pm

Meet Ten of our 21 Leaders for the 21st Century Who Champion Gender Equality!!


February 17th 2020, 11:36 am

Redemption: Not All Mistakes Are Created Equal


What does redemption mean and how does it happen?

Should we forever be defined by the worst mistake we’ve ever made?

In the new Podcast: Post-Coffee, Pre-Wine, author Amy Ferris and publishing veteran Teresa Stack talk about redemption and second chances, and finding peace – their peace. They share their own stories and share their truth, and by digging deep within themselves, you may find yourself doing the same…

You can listen by clicking onto any of the links below:

Who is Amy Ferris?
Amy Ferris is an author, editor, screenwriter & playwright. Her memoir, Marrying George Clooney, Confessions From A Midlife Crisis(Seal Press) was adapted into an Off-Broadway play at CAP21 Theater Company in 2012.
She created The Ovary Office (in collaboration with Women’s eNews) and recently co-authored a book Old School Love for Harper Collins,

Who is Teresa Stack?
Teresa Stack was the president of The Nation magazine from 1998-2016.  During her 30+ years in publishing, she was a long-time member of the Independent Magazine Advisory Group of the Association of Magazine Media (MPA) and a founding member of the Media Consortium,.Teresa is also a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 

February 11th 2020, 6:32 pm

A Monumental Week for Women: Right Here, Right Now!


Yesterday, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-12) joined NYC elected officials and women’s rights advocates at the historic Roosevelt House at Hunter College to rally support for critical legislation expected to pass the House of Representatives this week. 

During this week, the House of Representatives is expected to pass  H.R. 1980, the Smithsonian Women’s History Museum Act and H.J.Res. 79 to remove the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Ahead of this monumental week, the coalition of women’s rights advocates came together to celebrate these historic milestones in the fight for women’s equality

“I have worked my entire career to make sure women are represented in the halls of Congress and in seats of power. This next week in Congress will be historic for women and a culmination of decades of advocacy. The passage of H.R. 1980 and H.J. Res. 79 is vital to celebrating women’s achievements in history, inspiring the next generation to make history themselves, and finally ensuring that women’s equality is enshrined in our Constitution. I am thrilled to take these next huge steps in the fight for women’s equality,” said Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-12).

“As the birthplace of the women’s rights movement, we have a moral responsibility to continue the fight for full equality,” said Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul. “In New York, we have taken action to protect the rights of women and all New Yorkers across our great state. We have accomplished a lot, but we still have more work to do. With strong advocates and partners like Rep. Carolyn Maloney, we must work together to secure equality for all and ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.?”?

“The time is right, now more than ever to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. I commend America’s Congresswoman, Carolyn Maloney, for her work and her leadership to pass the ERA for women and girls. At the New York State level, we are going to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to be added to the State Constitution. We can no longer stand by and watch our rights continue to be rolled back, so this is the year that we’ll make the ERA happen at state and federal level,” said Assembly Member Rebecca Seawright. 

Congresswoman Maloney is a longtime champion of the Equal Rights Amendment and it is exciting to see the ERA move forward. One hundred years after women’s suffrage, it is clear from pay inequity, gender-based violence, and so many other indicators that women and girls remain unequal in this country. The ERA will help end second-class citizenship. It is long overdue,” said Jessica Neuwirth, Co-President of the ERA Coalition,

“We are excited to join Congresswoman Maloney today as we announce that the fourth annual Campus ERA Day will take place on Monday, April 27 at 7pm. The ERA Coalition will work once again with the Grove Fellows at Hunter College to organize the annual event. Campus ERA Day will take on added significance this year now that the Equal Rights Amendment has satisfied all the requirements under Article V for inclusion in the U.S. Constitution,” said Carol Jenkins, Co-President and CEO of the ERA Coalition/Fund for Women’s Equality.  


Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

H.R. 1980: Smithsonian Women’s History Museum Act

February 9th 2020, 7:28 pm

Marriage Story: What Heterosexual Relationships Can Learn from Queer Divorce


As Marriage Story grasps for an Oscar, this weekend we are reminded that the story of a heterosexual couple going through a painful, cruel divorce is the unfortunate story of many in our country. And yet, it doesn’t have to be. We are active participants in the culture that benefits from and monetizes our own suffering.

As the child of heterosexual divorce and as a queer stepmother now, I was warned not to watch this movie. In an interview with Stephen Colbert, Adam Driver describes the movie as a love story told in the lens of divorce. Charlie and Nicole intend to have a friendly divorce, Driver says, but other people’s opinions, agendas and lawyers wind up propelling the legal battle in the end.

What I would add to Driver’s analysis is that the agenda and those opinions are rooted in heteronormativity, which is what allows the legal process to go from fact-finding and fair treatment to cruel performance art.

Heteronormativity is the notion that heterosexual coupling (and marriage) is the norm, and our culture should essentially be built to support it. Heteronormativity is the breeder (no pun intended) of the Hallmark Channel, daddy-daughter dances, “mancaves” and separating McDonald’s toys into “girls” and “boys” toys. Heteronormativity plays a role in domestic abuse and homophobia and the proliferator of painful and scarring divorces like Charlie and Nicole’s in Marriage Story.

During Nicole’s first visit with Nora, her lawyer says, “Once we have babies, we become the mom and they get sick of us.” Yeah, Nicole responds. During Charlie’s visit to the initial lawyer he speaks with, he is asked a series of questions intended to get at Nicole’s potential vices – to which Charlie responds with my favorite line of the movie, “She was addicted to Tums for a while.” The lawyer warns Charlie that he’s not going to win “if she’s the perfect mother.”

This is not a commentary on divorce lawyers. The lawyers are just using what’s already there – the heteronormative culture we have created and continue to willingly buy into. Despite the original wishes of Charlie and Nicole to keep it friendly, they got caught up too, as many heterosexual divorces do, and one of the very things that marriage is built on and cherished by our culture – parenthood – is also the thing that is turned against them during their legal battle.

Despite the fact that heteronormativity is a plague on our culture, it still privileges heterosexual couples on an everyday level, and therefore, the groundwork on which a same-sex marriage stands is already different from the ground on which a heterosexual marriage stands, and that makes the grounds of divorce different, too.

Heteronormativity is often dangerous for LGBTQ communities in general, and we’ve had to learn how to adapt, shift, hide and fight. It’s made us resilient, yes, but it’s also forced us to assemble and disassemble our relationships differently.

Due to the high rate of homelessness and familial rejection for LGBTQ youth, LGBTQ communities often bond together as each other’s families. These are not blood ties, these are heart ties, born from understanding the devastation and hopelessness that comes from the rejection from one’s family of origin. We continue to re-define the word “family,” unraveling the traditional definition that has betrayed us and instead, created a unit of people who sustain us as human beings to be loved, celebrated, protected and given another chance.

Additionally, same-sex couples are not bound to the same prescribed gender roles written by our culture and enjoyed by many heterosexual couples.

Of course, the frustrations of marriage do not discriminate completely along the lines of gender or sexual orientation, and someone has to do the dishes, bring in a paycheck or stay up all night with a sick child. And yes, there might be someone in the marriage in an unhealthy place and they wind up legally battling their partner during the divorce.

Moreover, there are people who have arranged their heterosexual marriages differently to be more egalitarian, and some early trends show that younger generations are putting off marriage to create more financial stability and effectively avoid the “first divorce.”

But in queer culture, the conversations about child custody are different, because LGBTQ people aren’t “supposed” to have kids in the first place. The financial discussions are different, because perhaps one or both partners don’t have family money to rely on due to estrangement, or underemployment because one partner is transgender. The property discussion is different, because perhaps there isn’t enough access to safe housing in the area for LGBTQ individuals. And because of those reasons, divorces look different for us.

For example: now as a queer stepmom, I knew when I married my wife, her ex-wife and their children were to become my family, too. I understood that the success and happiness of my wife’s ex- and their children was directly tied to me, individually and to the collective LGBTQ community. And to achieve that, it meant taking a different approach to raising the kids, finances and scheduling. Case in point: we switch the kids every day. And if that seems odd to you, that’s heteronormativity creeping up (i.e. the assumption that children need to stay with their mother for the majority of the time – but what happens when there are only mothers?)

But it should look different for heterosexual couples, too. You can see glimmers in Marriage Story pleading to get rid of the common constraints and allow the love of their relationship – regardless of its dissolution – to guide what’s best for all involved. There’s no need for the backstabbing betrayal or dragging your children through the mud just because the heteronormative fantasies that have been sold to you your whole life didn’t work out. We are all humans, despite who we love, and forcing us to conform to a set of constraints that create more suffering serves no one.

About the Author: Lauryn Bianco is Vice President of Operations and Philanthropy at Emerge Center Against Domestic Abuse in Tucson, Arizona, and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.

February 6th 2020, 1:51 pm

Reflections on Devos: Through a Gender Lens


I’ll admit, I was feeling more skeptical than usual when planning our presence at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos this year. It would be WEF’s 50th anniversary and my fifth time there, and it was initially hard to see our core issues — gender equality, and the health and rights of girls and women — substantially reflected on the formal WEF agenda. In addition, space for civil society organizations, including those working on gender issues, seemed limited due to the many heads of states and corporations arriving for the anniversary.
But off we went with heavy boots; gender lenses in the hand; facts, figures, and tested arguments in the bag; and a calendar full of events and meetings that got even more packed as the week progressed.
Coming down the Davos mountain after five days of working the floors, speaking from the podiums, and having both fly-bys at receptions and events, as well as substantive sit-downs and late night huddles with current and future partners, politicians and CEOs, inspiring young leaders and other agents of change, I am tired but definitely more hopeful than when we came up. Yes, the world is still on fire, and yes, there is a long way to go before we are on a proper path to sustainability, but there is also room for hope, and some good predictors that 2020 will be a super year of action both in regards to conservation and climate change, as well as gender equality and #GenerationEquality.

Here are some of my key points and takeaways:

Through it all, we and many others relentlessly urged participants to use their power for good, and take bigger and bolder action for girls, women, health and equality. And we did see companies and investors step up, speak up, and commit to hardwiring gender equality in the future of work. Even more brought the gender lens down the Davos mountain to apply it to their businesses, governments, and organizations — today, tomorrow, and always.

While of course more could have been done, and a lot more needs to be done, it was a good kickoff to the Decade of Action for the Sustainable Development Goals and 2020 — the ‘Super Year’ for gender equality — where we will mark the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration with the big Generation Equality push.

About the Author: Katja Iversen is the President/CEO of Women Deliver.

January 31st 2020, 12:13 am

Unbearable: Trump’s Travel Ban Against Women of Child-bearing Age


According to America’s Voice , policy and legal experts gathered on a press call yesterday to discuss the ramifications following Trump’s new rule that could ban women from visiting the U.S. just because they are pregnant or could become pregnant. In another attack on women’s reproductive rights, Trump and his administration have attempted to wield more xenophobic and misogynistic power to cast off women, particularly women of color, visiting from non-visa-waiver countries. 

Here are the opinions from leaders representing a number of major organizations regarding the new rule:

Ur Jaddou, Director of DHS Watch and former USCIS Chief Counsel, America’s Voice, said, “To be clear about the absurdity of this new and overly broad regulation, let me restate it. Under this new regulation, women, not men, just women, now have a higher burden to travel to the United States just because they look pregnant or may become pregnant. If the State Department was trying to contain the discrimination and absurd breadth of this new regulation through new policy guidance issued on Friday, they failed. The fact remains, even with the policy guidance, consular officers are still empowered with broad discretion to deny women visas to travel to the United States because of their bodies and their natural ability to have babies.” 

Ann Marie Benitez, Senior Director of Government Relations, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, said, “The Trump administration’s recently published pregnancy ban is just one more attack on the well-being of immigrants and women of color. Since the start of their term, this administration has been sending the message that those populations are not welcome here. A few examples of this: the rule expanding the definition of public charge has led to an increase in the number of families deregistering, and this leads to lasting impacts on their health and safety; another example is the detainment of pregnant women by ICE. These examples illustrate how this political climate is taking a toll on immigrants’ well-being. We believe immigrants are bestowed with inherent human rights – freedom of movement, health care, and the fundamental right to establish families with dignity and unity. Instead of these policies, we should have policies that respect the dignity and agency of immigrant women.”

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director and CEO,, said, “Pregnant women already face an unconscionable level of discrimination in our workplaces and our society.  Trump’s new rule would codify pregnancy discrimination by turning our government into reproductive police who invade the privacy and assault the dignity of women seeking to enter the United States. As mothers, we cannot and will not stand by for this attack on pregnant women, women of color, and women seeking to enter the United States.”

Sung Yeon Choimorrow, Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), said, “This ugly development is ultimately an issue of racial profiling of Asians. The Trump administration will go to any lengths to demean immigrant women. Millions of Asian people come to the U.S. to visit their families and targeting them because of their race or country of origin is discriminatory and wrong. This administration has a track record of detaining pregnant people and has made it impossible for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to seek asylum. There is no justification for the harm they have done to immigrant women or for their xenophobic agenda.”

Dorianne Mason, Director of Health Equity, National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), said, “This policy does nothing more than penalize pregnancy and women. It is an invasion of women’s privacy that creates potentially insurmountable barriers to life-saving care. As with many of this Administration’s policies, its burden will fall most heavily on immigrant women of color; signaling yet again that if you are too brown, too black, or too poor, you are not welcome here. Women and girls have the right to dignity, autonomy and lives without discrimination. Pregnancy or potential pregnancy should not be weaponized to keep people out of this country. We condemn this repugnant regulation of women’s bodies.”

Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, OB/GYN and Board Member with Physicians for Reproductive Health, said, “As someone who holds the identity of a physician, a woman of color and a first-generation American, I am angry and horrified by this recent travel ban. This travel ban is the very definition of discrimination. Having cared for thousands of pregnant people, I know first-hand that pregnancy is not a national security threat. Being of child-bearing age is not a national security threat. Babies are not a national security threat. To suggest that our communities seek to deliver our children in this country only to groom them to harm Americans is not only baseless, but also dehumanizing. Pregnancy is never a reason to bar someone from entering a country. Pregnancy is only the concern of the person who is pregnant, and if they choose, their family and health care providers. The long line of attacks on immigrants has created a culture of fear and often keeps people from trying to access health care when they need it. I call for everyone, especially health care providers, to speak out against this rule.

The full recording of the call can be found here and via link:

Frank Sharry is the founder and executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration reform group.

January 27th 2020, 3:30 pm



Women’s eNews is Pleased to Announce our 2020 Honorary Gala Chair, Loreen Arbus!!

Loreen Arbus, President of The Loreen Arbus Foundation, The Goldenson-Arbus Foundation and Loreen Arbus Productions, Inc

January 13th 2020, 11:18 am

What Role will the “Disgusting, Clownish Behavior Factor” (DCBF) Play in the 2020 US Elections?


In 2016, most pundits thought that Donald Trump was finished when the infamous Access Hollywood tape was aired, in which ‘The Donald’ was bragged in gleeful delight that his stardom enabled him to grab women’s private parts with no dire consequences. His payoffs to a porn star and a playboy model to keep quiet about sexual encounters were documented by his (now imprisoned) lawyer, Michael Cohen. And the National Enquirer, purveyor of alien invasion stories, celebrity gossip and unusual crime headlines, (I Cut Out Her Heart and Stomped on It) joined the fray. The editor admitted to federal prosecutors that the Trump campaign asked him to “catch and kill” a story about the Playboy model; that is, to buy her story and bury it.

Trump’s behavior was already well known, but he won via the electoral college anyway, albeit by the very narrowest of margins. Many thought that he would move towards the center and become more ‘Mr. President’ than the guy from Celebrity Apprentice, but they were dead wrong. He immediately began using tweets like poison darts, and his targets were often women and people of color.

One of his major DCBF vocalizations occurred in August 2017, when hundreds of neo-Nazis invaded the campus of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. They carried Tiki torches, chanting “Jews will not replace us,” and Trump referred to the marchers as “Very fine people.”

The next day, a 27-year-old neo Nazi drove his car into a crowd of anti-fascist protestors, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer.

Alt-right guru Richard Spencer told the Atlantic: “There is no question that Charlottesville wouldn’t have occurred without Trump. It really was because of his campaign and this new potential for a nationalist candidate who was resonating with the public in a very intense way… He changed the paradigm and made this kind of public presence of the alt-right possible.”

Atlantic writer Ben Rhodes agreed.  “His whole brand is: I will say the things that the other guys won’t.

And while the “other guys” would not mouth slurs against Black women, Trump has no problems with that. The Guardian notes that “Trump had reportedly referred to Congresswoman Maxine Waters as ‘low IQ’ seven times in 2019, often at high-profile campaign rallies.” Additionally, Trump had called former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman, who is Black, a “crazed, crying lowlife” and a “dog.”

And CNN Opinion reported that Trump berated CNN correspondent Abby Phillip (“What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot. You ask a lot of stupid questions.”) He also said of April Ryan, a reporter and CNN contributor who has covered the White House for 21 years: “You talk about somebody that’s a loser. She doesn’t know what the hell she’s doing.” April Ryan has further been subjected to death threats in the wake of Trump’s verbal attacks. All of these women are Black.

Women, especially smart or outspoken ones, really bring out Trump’s DCBF. For example, he has called MSNBC  anchor Mika Brzezinski “dumb as a rock” , “Crazy”“low I.Q.”“bleeding badly from a face-lift”“had a mental breakdown while talking about me”, “crazy and very dumb”“very insecure”“not very bright”“neurotic” and “wild with hate”.

More recently. Trump attacked Democratic Congresswomen of color including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts. He implied in a series of tweets that the Congresswomen weren’t born in America and sarcastically suggested that, “They go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Pressley are natural-born US citizens, and Omar was born in Somalia and immigrated to the US when she was young. Omar became a citizen in 2000 when she was 17.

For much of his term, Trump has skated along with his DCBF intact, but things may be changing. The suburbs–especially suburban women–are slipping away.

The Denver Post reports that in more than three dozen interviews by the Associated Press with women in critical suburbs, “nearly all expressed dismay — or worse — at Trump’s racially polarizing insults and what was often described as unpresidential treatment of people. Even some who gave Trump credit for the economy or backed his crackdown on immigration acknowledged they were troubled or uncomfortable lining up behind the president.

In an upscale mall in the Denver suburbs, for example, 55-year-old Republican Kathy Barnes told reporters, “I did not think it was going to be as bad as it is — definitely narcissism and sexism, but I did not think it was going to be as bad as it is. I am just ashamed to be an American right now.”

Americans overall are more likely to approve of Donald Trump’s job performance (40 percent) than they are to approve of him as a person (34 percent). Ominously, in a recent Gallup poll, “Trump’s personal ratings were sharply lower than his performance ratings among two groups that are key to his base: Republicans and regular churchgoers — with less than half of the latter group approving of Trump as a person. This could put pressure on Trump to keep these groups satisfied through presidential actions and policies rather than the personal expressions he is known to make.” In other words, Gallup says, shut up and act like a president.

The good news for all the people Trump insults is that his DCBF is hardwired to his stubby, tweety trigger finger, and he is hopefully on his way to shooting himself right of out of the White House.

January 9th 2020, 5:02 pm

Confronting White Privilege During College Admissions


When I told my college counselor that Northwestern University was my first choice, he snidely responded that my chances weren’t great, especially “since I wasn’t a Lacrosse star or a Native American.” The comment, while quite discouraging and offensive, actually brought me to consider my privileges and the ways they contribute to my education and eligibility at highly selective institutions. 

Being white is possibly my most obvious privilege, but I was told that could also work against me in the context of college admissions. When I found myself feeling concerned that my chances could be worse due to my race, I had to remind myself of the historic barriers that prevented students of color from furthering their education, and why federal and institutional policies are so beneficial in attempting to close racial disparities. 

The prevailing narrative in college admissions is that if you have the best test scores, GPA, a plethora of extracurricular activities, and a killer common app essay, you’re a shoo-in, right? As I applied to some quite selective colleges over the past months, I came to realize that these factors can’t guarantee acceptance; admissions committees look much deeper than the numbers. I’ve come to learn that race can play a significant role in admissions —but in a drastically different way from what my counselor implied. 

Affirmative Action has been a hot-button in recent years, especially since several Asian-American families filed a lawsuit against Harvard University claiming that they had a quota for Asian students, and that their children were discriminated against because of their race. While a 2018 Gallup poll reported that the majority of Americans believe that Affirmative Action is a positive policy, only a quarter of people believe that race should be a factor in admissions at all. Another study found that two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fisher v. The University of Texas (2016) that universities may consider race in admissions. Despite ambiguous public opinion, many universities have been diligent about diversifying their student bodies with Black, Latinx, and Native American students. Still, white students comprise as much as 50% of the student body in the Ivy League. Until I began applying to college, I never doubted the importance of these critical policies. 

I worried for months about my chances of getting into my dream school: Was my acceptance riding on factors that I couldn’t control? The words of my counselor echoed in the back of my head. I feared that I would be turned down in favor of a student of color with an otherwise similar application. Several court rulings have set a precedent that race ought not to be a determining factor in acceptance, but I couldn’t quell my concerns. In time, I began to feel guilty. As someone who takes pride in her activism, should I not be promoting people of colors’ access to a prestigious education?

The education gap between white people and people of color feels far from me. My high school is at least 90% white and I never realized that my advanced classes were devoid of a single person of color until my friends from different schools pointed out the segregation in achievement that still exists in public schools. Some of the most diverse public schools tend to have the lowest funding, number of teachers, and resources available for students, thus creating continued barriers to education and enforcing the school-to-prison cycle. After that initial meeting with my counselor I finally started to realize how much my race contributes to my top-notch education. Being oblivious to that fact was a privilege in itself.

I’ve understood and appreciated the value of a diverse learning environment for a long time; especially coming from a homogenous school, I’ve longed for unique perspectives and backgrounds. College is the perfect environment to encounter new ideas and cultures; however, as I chose schools to apply to, diversity was never taken into consideration. It was a privilege for me not to have to look at the college’s racial demographics when applying. Wherever I went, I knew there would be no shortage of people like me. Unlike students of color, I knew with certainty that I would never be the only person of my race in class.

For the first time, I had to confront my whiteness. As a Jew, I tend to separate myself from the typical privileges enjoyed by white people, but now my Judaism made no difference. Whiteness wove its way into every part of my application. It played a role in what classes I was able to take, how I formed relationships with teachers, and what activities I participated in during high school. I realized that being white is an inherent part of my identity and that it has impacted my life in ways I’ve been oblivious to for far too long. 

As I learned more about what affirmative action really means for students, and about the injustice that students of color have faced for centuries in the United States, my egocentric worries turned into a sobering recognition of my inherent privilege. Of the privileges that contribute to my education, my race is at the root of them all. Although I initially resented my counselor’s comment, I am now grateful that his words prompted me to ruminate and reflect upon my racial privilege and the work being done to reduce it.

About the Author: Ari Fogel is a member of The Jewish Women’s Archive’s  Rising Voices Fellowship,a 10-month program for female-identified teens in high-school who have a passion for writing, a demonstrated concern for current and historic events, and a strong interest in Judaism, gender and social justice.

January 5th 2020, 7:02 pm



December 28th 2019, 7:10 pm

Book excerpt: Seducing and Killing Nazis


This book is a non-fiction historical account on the lives and resistance work of Dutch resistance heroines Hannie Schaft and the sisters Truus and Freddie Oversteegen (author Sophie Poldermans personally knew them for twenty years). It is based on first hand interviews with both the Oversteegen sisters and direct witnesses, historical facts and archival photographs.

This is so unique because the role of women in WWII has often been underrepresented or neglected.

In the Netherlands, ninety percent of the population tried to live their lives as normal as possible during the German occupation, five percent consisted of collaborators, and five percent joined the resistance, of which only a very small part were in the armed resistance, and of that group only a handful were women. These three young women were part of this very small group of women in the armed resistance. That is what makes this story so unique:


They were only teenagers of nineteen (Hannie), sixteen (Truus) and fourteen (Freddie) when WWII started. They met in the summer of 1943 in the resistance group the Council of Resistance.

Truus recounted, “A war like this is a very raw experience. While I was biking, I saw Germans picking up innocent people from the streets, putting them against a wall and shooting them. I was forced to watch, which aroused such an enormous anger in me, such a disgust, a feeling of ‘dirty bastards.’ You can have any political conviction or be totally against war, but at that moment you are just a human being confronted with something very cruel. Shooting innocent people is murder. If you experience something like this, you’ll find it justified that when people commit treason, such as exchanging a four-year-old Jewish child for 35 guilders (Dutch currency at that time), you act against it. (Page 51)


Below are excerpts from the book, Seducing and Killing Nazis. Hannie, Truus and Freddie: Dutch Resistance Heroines of WWII” based on an interview by Sophie Poldermans with Truus Oversteegen on February 28, 1998:The three young women made a great team: Hannie was the lawyer, the intellectual, Truus was a decisive, down-to-earth leader. Freddie was the intelligence, the one who would explore and map everything out in advance.  (Page 45)


Truus recounted, “A war like this is a very raw experience. While I was biking, I saw Germans picking up innocent people from the streets, putting them against a wall and shooting them. I was forced to watch, which aroused such an enormous anger in me, such a disgust, a feeling of ‘dirty bastards.’ You can have any political conviction or be totally against war, but at that moment you are just a human being confronted with something very cruel. Shooting innocent people is murder. If you experience something like this, you’ll find it justified that when people commit treason, such as exchanging a four-year-old Jewish child for 35 guilders (Dutch currency at that time), you act against it. (Page 51)

See for more info on the book:

Book in the media:

More info on Sophie Poldermans:

The book available through and Amazon in paper back and eBook

About the Author: Sophie Poldermans is the author of “Seducing and Killing Nazis. Hannie, Truus and Freddie: Dutch Resistance Heroines of WWII” (2019). She is the founder of “Sophie’s Women of War,” is a Dutch women’s rights advocate, author, public speaker, lecturer and consultant on women and war. She personally knew Truus and Freddie Oversteegen for 20 years and worked closely with them for over a decade as a board member of the National Hannie Schaft Foundation. Please check out or and follow on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or Goodreads.

December 22nd 2019, 3:46 pm

Two Years After #MeToo: New Treaty Anchors Workplace Protections


It’s been over two years since the #MeToo movement erupted, exposing—amid shared stories of abuse from women of all ages, nationalities, and social and economic backgrounds—endemic workplace harassment and abuse. It also revealed the systemic failure to stop it.

For 2020 and beyond, we have a new standard to which we can hold governments and employers around the world accountable for sexual harassment and violence against workers. Fueled by the outpouring of experiences that women articulated in the wake of #MeToo, a new treaty has huge positive potential, not just for women in the workplace, but for all workers.

The 2019 International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on Violence and Harassment at Work—which 439 out of 476 governments, employers, and workers from around the world voted to adopt in June at the United Nations in Geneva—sets out key measures to tackle the scourge of harassment at work. These include the adoption of national laws prohibiting workplace violence and taking preventive measures, as well as requiring employers to have workplace policies on violence. The treaty also obligates governments to provide access to remedies through complaint mechanisms and victim services, and to provide measures to protect victims and whistleblowers from retaliation.

The ratification process is just beginning, with at least 10 countries signaling willingness to ratify the new treaty– Argentina, Belgium, France, Iceland, Ireland, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa, Uganda, and Uruguay. With public support and pressure, more are expected to follow suit. We can also expect countries to undertake national reforms even where they do not ratify the treaty.

Workplace sexual harassment isn’t inevitable. It flourishes when governments and employers fail to prevent it, protect survivors, and punish abusers. A 2018 World Bank report found that 59 out of 189 economies—including Guatemala, Iran, and Japan—had no specific legal provisions prohibiting sexual harassment in employment. And the ILO has found that existing laws often exclude those workers most exposed to violence, such as domestic workers, farmworkers, and those in precarious employment.

I have interviewed hundreds of migrant domestic workers in the Middle East, many of whom described being beaten or sexually harassed and assaulted by their employers. They are more at risk of such violence because they are usually excluded from labor laws, and their visas are tied to their employers whom they cannot leave or change jobs without their permission. 

So, what do we hope to change as a result?  

Individual countries should ban violence and harassment, including gender-based violence, at work in their laws and policies. They can mount prevention campaigns, conduct inspections and investigations, and provide ways for victims to make complaints and get remedies, including compensation. They should also protect whistleblowers and victims from retaliation.

Crucially, countries should also ensure that employers have workplace policies addressing violence and harassment, with risk assessments, prevention measures and training.

Having good examples of how to fight workplace violence can have ripple effects. Governments can work with employers and worker organizations to develop information campaigns that can reach the public widely, as well as specific campaigns to highlight how violence and harassment will not be tolerated, how it can be reported, and what will be done about it. Effective and accessible complaints procedures, successful investigations by employers or authorities, as well as sanctions against the abuser or their employer, and remedies for victims will encourage more women to come forward and help deter abuse.

For instance, while clothing brands or factories often bring in social auditors to examine factory working conditions, social audits primarily rely on in-factory interviews with workers who may fear retaliation, often leaving them ineffective for detecting workplace sexual harassment. In contrast, women workers who speak outside factory premises feel less anxious about retaliation. The Worker Rights Consortium, an international labor rights group, found evidence of sexual harassment in three factories in Lesotho after conducting off-site interviews with workers. All three factories had been using routine social audits by third parties.

The factory management signed legally binding agreements with the unions and three brands, promising to carry out  a program designed by factory unions and two prominent local women’s rights organizations. It includes creating an independent investigation body to look into complaints of sexual harassment, and anti-retaliation protections, and provides that factories’ policies against gender-based violence and harassment also apply to its suppliers and third-party contractors.

Workplace violence is not limited to paid workers. Protections against violence should also include people who are often at greater risk: volunteers, interns, job applicants, and job seekers. Dangling the possibility of a job in return for sex to someone looking for a job is known as quid pro quo; many women have highlighted how often this happens. Companies should investigate and sanction such behavior. In December, activists in Japan called on the government, companies, and universities to stamp out sexual harassment of job-hunting students.

Global trade unions, motivated by the adoption of this new treaty, are planning national campaigns to support ratification. These campaigns will highlight the abuses faced in numerous sectors that have been out of the spotlight. For example, the market traders are organizing in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, to stop harassment, and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) opened a global campaign in May 2018 to press the world’s largest hotel company, Marriott, to sign a global framework agreement to protect its workers from sexual harassment across all Marriott hotels globally.

Coming off protests at Marriott hotels worldwide including an event at the International Labour Conference, Marriott did not heed calls to negotiate such a global accord but instead announced in September 2018 that it would continue to roll out alert devices, commonly known as “panic buttons,” for their workers across North America in 2020.

In contrast, earlier this year the IUF successfully negotiated the first global agreement on sexual harassment in the hotel sector with the Spanish multi-national hotel chain Meliá. And in September it  successfully negotiated an agreement with the French multi-national hotel chain AccorInvest on measures to combat sexual harassment at work, including disseminating detailed information relating to the zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment.

States should also identify sectors of work and work arrangements that leave workers more vulnerable to violence and harassment. Domestic workers, garment workers—most of them women—and those in precarious employment, like short-term contracts and the increasing gig-economy, can easily become prey to abuse. An employer can put in place complaint mechanisms but making a complaint should not mean the end of their job or career. Tackling these structural issues so that all such workers are protected will be important.

Governments and employers should also address third parties who harass or are harassed. They are the patients who abuse or face abuse by medical staff, the customers and the service staff, the teachers and their students. According to a 2018 survey by the National Association of Schoolmasters / Union of Women Teachers body (NASUWT) in the UK, one in five of their members said they had been sexually harassed at school by a colleague, manager, parent, or pupil since becoming a teacher. Safety at work is not just threatened by colleagues or managers, but by the people with whom we interact with for the purpose of work.

#MeToo helped expose the endemic abuses that women face in the workplace. In 2020, we should see the start of the structural reforms needed to end violence and harassment at work for women, and all workers, on a global scale.

Rothna Begum is a senior women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch.

December 19th 2019, 3:17 pm

In Case You Missed It: TEDWomen 2019


Held in a posh resort in Palm Springs, California, TEDWomen 2019 attracted 900 people who came to network with people in their field and to hear talks by innovators and risk-takers.

Since it was founded in 1984, TED has become an idea machine. Originally, the conferences focused on the fields of technology, entertainment and design before branching out to include topics that range from science to business to global issues.  And those who didn’t hear the talks in person looked for them online. TED talks have hit an impressive number: 1 billion views.

TEDWomen began 10 years ago when Pat Mitchell approached TED’s chief curator with the seed of an idea that she and the TED team developed into a conference focusing on the power of women and girls to be creators and change makers. Mitchell herself is a star when it comes to making inroads for women in the world of media. She was the first woman to head the documentary unit when Ted Turner started CNN, the first female President of the Public Broadcasting System and author of the book “Becoming a Dangerous Woman.”  

The opening session featured well-known personalities like Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former President of Liberia and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate for her efforts to bring women into the peacekeeping process. Wearing a traditional long wrap skirt and a purple satin top and turban, Johnson strode onto a stage lit with colorful circles of neon light and told the packed audience about her 12-year tenure as the first democratically elected female head of state in Africa. Sirleaf became the leader of Liberia in 2006, inheriting a country devastated by more than a decade of civil war. Among the challenges she faced: rebuilding the country’s crumbling roads, putting economic policies in place that would lift the population out of poverty and creating an adequate health care and education system.

Sirleaf said she’s proud of what she was able to do like appointing women to important government positions. She also admitted she didn’t accomplish as much as she’d hoped as the country battled an Ebola outbreak that killed 5,000 people and an economy that contracted when prices for commodities like iron ore and rubber collapsed.  

Her remarks about the future drew cheers. She has no plans to retire and she’s putting her energy into developing a center dedicated to the empowerment of women.

Eve Ensler speaks at TEDWomen 2019: Bold + Brilliant, December 4-6, 2019, Palm Springs, California. Photo: Marla Aufmuth / TED

Then another well-known performer took the stage. Eve Ensler, creator of The Vagina Monologues, held the audience rapt with a harrowing story about her childhood that’s the theme of her book “The Apology.” Ensler talked about growing up in a well-to-do family in Westchester where her father sexually abused her from the time she was 5 and then inflicted physical punishment after she began to refuse his sexual advances. During his lifetime, Ensler’s father never apologized for his actions so Ensler said she decided to write an apology in his name as a way to be finally be free of what he had done. Ensler said abused women want the profound power of an authentic apology. The way she put it, “We don’t want men to be destroyed, we don’t want them to only be punished. We want them to see us, the victims that they have harmed, and we want them to repent and change.”

Alice Sheppard speaks at TEDWomen 2019: Bold + Brilliant, December 4-6, 2019, Palm Springs, California. Photo: Stacie McChesney / TED

There was also irreverence, fun and wonder. Comedian Gina Brillion drew laughs with her stories about the tyranny of Spanx. And the audience sat mesmerized as disabled dancers Alice Sheppard and Laurel Lawson performed a sequence of movements that included lifting and embracing while one dancer was strapped to her wheel chair.

 During breaks between sessions, people wandered over to a patio area where you could order a latte with soy, almond or oat milk and hang out in comfortable chairs that invited conversation.  

That’s where I met attorney Abeer Abu Judeh,  Judeh, who came to the conference from Denver, is the founder and CEO of a startup called Lexdock which allows clients to manage their own legal affairs. Judeh said she decided to spend the $3,000 to attend the conference sometimes referred to as the ultimate schmooze fest, for the opportunity to meet new people and to make connections to potential funders. She said she’d also come for a little inspiration and she got it from hearing Rayma Suprani, a political cartoonist from Venezuela. Judeh, a  Muslim who grew up in a refugee camp in Palestine, said she could relate to a feeling that Surprani expressed in her talk. When the cartoonist first emigrated to the U.S. she felt like she was an alien on another planet. “At times,” Judeh said, “I still feel like an alien.”

Not everyone who attended pays out of pocket. For many conference goers, their company foots the bill.  Kathryn Jacob is President and CEO of SafeHaven, an agency that operates domestic violence centers in the Dallas-Forth Worth area. Jacob says she and her team have been trying to think out of the box, experimenting with different systems to better protect women who are in danger of being attacked by abusive husbands or partners. She came to the conference to meet new people and hear new ideas about what works in her field.

Still others, like Trillion Small came to Palm Springs to learn more about the TED brand and how the non-profit puts together its conferences. Trillion is a TEDx leader ho has signed on as a volunteer to organize the events that some people think of as baby TEDS. These are TED-like talks and performances that take place in local communities. Trillion has put together a January event in Frisco, Texas. She and a staff of volunteers have recruited the speakers, chosen the venue and are selling tickets for $100 each.

A mystery guest was announced for the closing session. In the darkened theater, a familiar face appeared on a video screen onstage. It was Jane Fonda speaking from the Greenpeace offices in Washington, D.C. Fonda has taken up residence in the nation’s capital where she’s been arrested several times for acts of civil disobedience in protests meant to highlight the climate crisis. Wearing a black tee shirt with the slogan “Fire Drill Fridays,” Fonda urged grandmas to unite and said, “We do have to build an army. To stave off depression is to do something active.”

Fonda explained that as a healthy 81-year old person with a well-known name, she feels it’s her responsibility to take a stand. And she said she knows she’s not alone. She left the audience with this thought. “There are 25 million people in the U.S. who are scared and want to do something about the climate crisis. I feel very hopeful.”

After a standing ovation, people trickled out of the theater and headed for a farewell lunch of tacos with mango salsa and little cups of flan. Before saying good-bye to new-found friends, they tapped contact information into their phones and posed for photos. Some said they’d had a good time in a pretty place, enjoying a break from the stresses of daily life. Others said they were leaving with renewed energy, ready to go home and tackle the tough issues that threaten the planet.

About the Author: Carole Zimmer is the host of the award-winning podcast “Now What?” Curated conversations with people you want to know on Apple Podcasts and wherever you listen to your podcasts. She’s a journalist with more than 30 years of experience working in radio, television and digital media including Bloomberg News, NPR and NBC. Her work has also appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, New York Magazine and other publications. Zimmer has received numerous awards including an Edward M. Murrow award for her radio documentary, “Stalking a Silent Killer.” You can find more of her work at

December 17th 2019, 11:45 am

Fire Drill Friday: With Fonda and Field


There were enough ‘f’ words spewed to fill a football field. “Fossil fuels have got to go,” was one of the rallying cries Jane Fonda, Sally Field and dozens of other peaceful protestors shouted in unison on a rainy day on the Southeast Lawn of the US Capital on Friday, December 13th. But perhaps the most memorable f-word was this four-letter one – FIRE –as in the name of this weekly demonstration to save the planet, FIRE DRILL FRIDAYS, and the word heard ‘round the world in Greta Thunberg’s September 2019 speech at the World Economic Forum, when she said, “Our house is on fire.”

And, truly, wasn’t Friday the 13th the perfect day to protest together? A day rooted in witchcraft stemming from the Middle Ages when the goddess of love and fertility, Frigga, was branded a witch and banished to a mountaintop. It was believed that every Friday, she would meet with eleven other witches and the devil himself (13 in total) and plot terrible things to occur in the coming weeks. But would a goddess of love truly want to plot horrible things against others? Talk about a ‘witchhunt!’

And it seemed equally illogical that dozens of protestors should even have to gather together this, and every Friday, to protect our planet, a planet that feeds and houses us all. But with the US Capital as a backdrop, that’s exactly what needed to be done, as an increasing number of policies and bills have been recently passed to further damage our planet, under the Trump Administration’s claim that climate change is a “hoax.” And it was equally as clear that not even the pouring rain could put out a fire of this magnitude because, as Jane Fonda put it, the climate crisis is not an isolated issue. “It involves every part of our economy and society.”

Jane Fonda addresses peaceful protestors

As Fonda, the founder and organizer of Fire Drill Fridays, stood on a stage just above a poster displaying a cross-cultural legion of women and men that read, GOOD JOBS FOR A GREEN FUTURE, she talked about how this day was just one of a number of demonstrations which began in September, 2019, where scientists, movement leaders, experts, activists, Indigenous leaders, community members and youth have come together to share their stories and demand that action be taken against climate change before it’s too late. Further, to ensure the topic and its connection to the climate crisis is thoroughly explained, she hosts a live-streamed “Teach-In” with a panel of experts each Thursday evening before the demonstration, for the public to attend virtually.

“Our climate is in crisis,” Fonda went on to say, while standing in a red long coat with a black and white houndstooth cap under an umbrella. “Scientists are shouting an urgent warning: We have little more than a decade to take bold, ambitious action to transition our economy off of fossil fuels and onto clean, renewable energy. We need a Green New Deal to mobilize our government and every sector of the economy to tackle the overlapping crises of climate change, inequality, and structural racism at the scale and speed our communities require. We need and deserve a world beyond fossil fuels while creating millions of family-sustaining, union jobs, and prioritizing justice and equity for working people and communities of color on the frontlines of climate disaster and fossil fuel exploitation, so the clean energy transformation leaves nobody behind.”

Sally Field speaks at podium.

Then, renowned actress and activist Sally Field took to the podium. “I am a mother. I am a grandmother. The time is now,” the actress told protesters. “We cannot sit back in our comfort zones, on our couches, and wonder, ‘What can we do?’ We can get out. We can do something, in the rain. Whatever it takes,” she added. “This is a possibility that is actually happening, we need to get out of our comfort zones now!”

And with that protestors and journalists followed Fonda and Field as they descended the stage and walked to the front of the Capitol steps across a muddy field behind a banner that read, ‘WE DEMAND A GREEN NEW DEAL.’ As I turned to look toward the Capitol lined by a wall of twenty police officers determined to stop the protestors. I thought to myself, ‘Don’t they know we are marching for them as well?”

Police Officers guard US Capitol

As everyone arrived at the steps and stood in resistance, a police officer yelled over a loud speaker that the demonstrators were “going to be arrested” if they did not disperse. And, each time, the protestors yelled even louder, “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, fossil fuels have got to go!” drowning out the warnings.

In all, twenty-six people were arrested for demonstrating, including Sally Field, charged with crowding and obstructing justice. But they’ll be back again…next Friday, and the Friday after, and the Friday after that because, as Fonda said, and all who stand in solidarity agree, “We must act now to save the planet from irreversible catastrophe.”

“I want you to feel the fear I feel every day,” Greta Thunberg was also quoted as saying at the World Economic Forum earlier this year, “and I want you to act.”

To learn more about Fire Drill Fridays, click on the links below:

Web Site:

December 15th 2019, 6:48 pm

Teen Voices: A Pilgrimage on Emancipation Avenue


My friend wanted to get arrested one morning in July on the curb of the sidewalk along a street east of downtown Houston called Emancipation Avenue. That’s where she intended to stand while, she anticipated, her hands would be shackled, her arms hoisted up, and her body thrust into the backseat of a police car. On the street named for liberation, she would sing Hebrew as they hauled her away; freedom ringing in her voice and radiating from her eyes.

She informed me of her plan the day before, while on her way back from another demonstration in Oklahoma. Her firebrand of a five-foot tall, curly-haired Jewish mother hiked with her up to the site of Fort Sill, a nineteenth and twentieth century internment camp where the US government forcibly converted Native tribes and imprisoned Japanese Americans during WWII. As the current presidential administration prepares to detain fourteen hundred Latin American migrant children at Fort Sill, hundreds of activists (from a plethora of communities) crowded beneath a highway outside the building, employing the collective weight of their bodies and the force of their voices to implore the government not to once more make use of this camp. Jews, remembering our own difficult migrations and our history with concentration camps, traveled far to attend.

The sight on Emancipation Avenue the following morning appeared much the same. Packed together, Jews lined the sidewalk of a barred detention center that holds migrant teenagers; one long-isolated people weeping for another.

A rabbi addressed our cohort dismayed Jews, brandishing a tattered Haggadah that escaped Nazi Germany with his grandfather. Holding up the Haggadah, he turned to the camp behind us and issued a purposeful statement: “Not in my name, and not in my time.” I lifted a poster with the words of Elie Wiesel as I screamed my assent.

When a reporter from the Houston Chronicle asked me why I chose to protest on Emancipation Avenue that day, I repeated the words of the Rabbi. I explained that, by bringing the story of my Jewish ancestors into the present to defend the rights of others, I was participating in the age-old Jewish tradition of creating our identity, our name, through action.

My friend—a Latina Jewish teenager who painted fiercely doleful blue stars on her legs —didn’t encounter the police that morning. But three weeks later, while back sitting on Emancipation Avenue, she watched her mother earn the awaited handcuffs and make the sacred pilgrimage to the police station.

Pilgrims are people who venture to a sacred place, and their journey is equal parts travel and destination. As Jews, our pilgrimages take us from one land, one mindset, one tradition, and one generation to the next because we recognize that, in order to survive, we must grow our peoplehood by challenging ourselves to leave behind the comfort of the now (where we are, what we know, how we act) and move anew. Time flows, and we take pilgrimages to keep moving alongside it, adapting and expanding our Jewish identity.

I’ve watched for years as Jewish pilgrims in our time journey to chart the course of our people; I’ve studied the formative journeys of past millennia. But I failed to comprehend that this movement crafted the history, the identity, the people I hold dear, until my friend’s mother was arrested under the proud gaze of her daughter. No matter how hard we may try to remain quiet and still, we cannot situate ourselves, unnoticed, in one space, one mindset, for long. When there are political, social, and religious developments in society and the world changes, we move.

And why do we move? Sometimes it’s in response to persecution (or most of the time: even when we move or make a choice unmotivated by antisemitism, we’re probably—if unwittingly—influenced by our age-old affliction to some degree.) Sometimes it’s to intervene in immoral politics, such as our aforementioned immigration protests. Sometimes it’s internal change, in pursuit of new meaning for tradition. Sometimes, it’s to create space. To care for others. To pursue justice. To foster inclusion. To learn for ourselves. To teach our children.

I am a Jew because I embrace such movement: I look to the Jewish pilgrims for guidance in each new life exploration. My understanding of the Jewish people teaches me to resist passivity and immobility. Be it a curse or a blessing, stagnation, in my eyes, is our communal antithesis. Change serves as one of our few constants. Ideological nomads who make our home in the history of our travels.    

Every Jewish service or holiday acts as a reminder to shift our mindset. We interpret our religious texts, doctrines, and stories to spark new quests; these teachings are but maps to our next Temple. The Shalosh Regalim, the three Jewish holidays with Biblical pilgrimages to the Temple, never died.

And like all things Jewish, this pilgrimage manifests in limitless ways.

Jews might quite literally pack up and move, expanding our Diaspora. Or we might re-envision or revitalize a tradition within our homes. We might align ourselves with a cause and join an organization marching towards social justice. We might put pen to paper and embolden our community through a speech, a poem, a memoir, or a post.  

Or we might trek to Emancipation Avenue, one late morning in July, wielding tattered Haggadahs and signs with quotes: tributes to the Jewish pilgrims of our past. We might bear bold blue stars, strategically etched on our legs, our arms, our foreheads. And we might lie down in the middle of the street, singing, until the handcuffs arrive. 

About the Author: Madeline Canfield
 is a member of The Jewish Women’s Archive’s  Rising Voices Fellowship,a 10-month program for female-identified teens in high-school who have a passion for writing, a demonstrated concern for current and historic events, and a strong interest in Judaism, gender and social justice.

This story is part of Teen Voices at Women’s eNews. In 2013 Women’s eNews retained the 25-year-old magazine Teen Voices to continue and further its mission to improve the world for female teens through media. Teen Voices at Women’s eNews provides online stories and commentary about issues directly affecting female teens around the world, serving as an outlet for young women to share their experiences and views. Learn More.

December 8th 2019, 6:23 pm

A Study in Contrasts: Pelosi vs. Trump


         For the first time in our nation’s history we are witnessing on the largest, most public stage in the US a major contrast between the leadership styles of two of the most powerful leaders of our day: Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Donald Trump. Whatever your political leanings, we can all agree that their leadership styles are radically different. Moreover, these differences challenge conventional ideas about gender and leadership. 

         Tradition suggests that women are more emotional and less rational than men. Men are thought to be more linear and less emotional than women. Yet what we see played out on our TV screens is the exact opposite. Pelosi is composed, in control, and on message. Trump, in contrast, is bombastic, bouncing from topic to topic, and reliant on name-calling and insults to make his points. 

         She manifests competence, effective communication, and calm reassurance—certainly not qualities of the stereotypic female leader. He, in contrast, is erratic, impulsive, and overwrought, just the opposite of the stereotypic male leader.

         One of the most iconic photos of recent days, taken in October, 2019 by a White House photographer, shows Pelosi standing in the Cabinet Room of the White House surrounded by Democratic and Republican leaders, and President Trump. The body language between the two of them speaks volumes. As Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times put it, the Speaker is “standing and wagging her finger at a scowling Trump… seated across the table. [The photo was] hailed by progressives as the latest iconic image of Washington’s most powerful woman telling an impetuous president exactly what is what.”

Stolberg writes: “There is now a new classic image of Pelosi, at a long conference table filled almost entirely with graying white men, lecturing the president during a contentious meeting on Syria as others look down uncomfortably, averting their gaze.” Many saw in the photo “a powerful woman schooling an impetuous man, or perhaps a mother scolding a toddler.” 

So much for the stereotype of the frail women: Too emotional to be effective.

         Fortunately, Pelosi never got the memo about the ancient “rules” women need to adhere to if they want men in power to focus on the substance of what they are saying. Sugar and spice and everything nice is the template women must keep in mind, even when they are adult employees engaged in serious pursuits. Too often, advice to women about how to get ahead still relies on this limerick they probably first heard in kindergarten. For example, training materials used in 2018 by Ernst and Young, [a mega-accounting firm with over 270,000 employees], to help promising women be more effective leaders, offers the following guidelines:

“Don’t be too aggressive or outspoken.

“Don’t directly confront men in meetings, because men perceive this as threatening… Meet before (or after) the meeting instead.”

“If you’re having a conversation with a man, cross your legs and sit at an angle to him. Don’t talk to a man face-to-face. Men see that as threatening.”

Handouts instruct women who attend the sessions to “be polished, have a good haircut, manicured nails, and well-cut attire that compliments your body type.”  Other “rules” focus on the contrasting communication styles of women and men. “Women ‘speak briefly’ and ‘often ramble and miss the point’  …By contrast, a man will ‘speak at length’–because he really believes in his idea.”

One employee who attended the session told a reporter from Huffington Post that she chafed at the ideas she was hearing. “You have to offer your thoughts in a benign way,” the employee said. “You have to be the perfect Stepford wife.” She said it seemed that female employees were “being turned into someone who is “super-smiley, who never confronts anyone.

         Nowhere in these materials is there any mention of being forceful, direct, and persistent, qualities that arguably won the Speaker a convincing “win” in her tete-a tete with Trump. 

         Aspiring women are also warned that violating feminine norms leads to seriously negative consequences. Considerable research paints a scary picture of  the consequences women face if they step outside the strict confines of their gender role. 

         NYU psychologist Madeline Heilman finds that women who are thought of as competent are also regarded as “bitchy” and are disliked, while males seen as competent are considered likable. Further, women are likely to be penalized, by both men and women, if they don’t adhere to feminine characteristics or if  they “dare” to exhibit masculine traits. Such women, Heilman says,  are seen as selfish, manipulative and untrustworthy—”your typical constellation of ‘bitchy’ characteristics.”

         Although much research has debunked the notion of rigid, inborn female and male traits, these stereotypes stubbornly persist and have unfortunate effects. The Ernst and Young session featured a handout describing feminine and masculine characteristics. Women were said to be “Affectionate, childlike, eager to soothe hurts, gentle, shy, soft-spoken. tender, warm, yielding, gullible.” Men on the other hand, were “Aggressive, acts as a leader, ambitious, assertive competitive, defends one’s beliefs, forceful, makes decisions easily, self-reliant, willing to take a stand, dominant, has leadership abilities.”

The idea that women should never confront a man as an equal is echoed in many business “tips.” A column in Forbes, for example, advises women to never ask a question that directly criticizes a male co-worker. She should start off praising the man and then tactfully suggest that perhaps another path might be equally successful. The too-nice woman can’t simply say, “That idea sucks, and here’s a better one,” the way men often do, because she’ll be labeled as a “nasty woman.” The need to be indirect and pleasing hobbles her ability to be a forceful and effective leader

         Nancy Pelosi–and other Democratic women candidates for the presidential nomination such as Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have no problem confronting men. In debates, Harris has asked tough questions of Joe Biden and The National Journal headlined “Warren Takes on Wall Street, Big Oil in Feisty Speech.”

         Today’s young women and men who saw Pelosi confronting Trump witnessed first hand how forceful, competent and effective women leaders who ignore these stereotypes can be. If women must stay mute, they hand over their power to others–something that Pelosi is not accustomed to doing, and hopefully, more women will follow her lead.  

         As the evidence mounts, perhaps we will get to the point where good leadership will be recognized and applauded, regardless of whether the leader is female or male. Avid Trump-supporter, and former chief strategist to the President, Steve Bannon, who is certainly no fan of liberal Nancy Pelosi, had this to say of her leadership skills.

         “I don’t care if you hate Nancy Pelosi…this is a master and she is teaching a master class. Tough as boot leather.” Here is how Steve Miller, one of the closest Trump advisers, describes the speaker: “She is one of the best communications directors on the planet.”

         Further, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t obsess over the question of whether she will be reelected. When she was asked in a DC press conference about why she should be elected again as speaker, she responded, “Well, I am a master legislator, I am a strategic, politically astute leader, and that is why I am able to attract the support that I do.”

November 24th 2019, 2:32 pm

Carrie Fisher: A Life On The Edge – a Q&A


Sheila Weller

Women’s eNews sits down with Sheila Weller to discuss her new book, Carrie Fisher: A Life On The Edge:

WEN: Why did you choose Carrie Fisher to write about?

SW: I love writing about complex, iconic women who have changed or resonated with the culture, and she is high in both categories. I loved her revolutionary book of “faction” (as she calls fact plus fiction), POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE,  was always admiringly and fascinatedly aware of her role as a social magnet and adored friend and wit in Hollywood and ALL areas of the cultural world.

I also shared a Beverly Hills – entertainment industry childhood with her. Mine was non celebrity, but there were parallels and intersections: Her mother Debbie Reynolds, as an MGM teen starlet, snuck into my uncle’s glamorous Sunset Strip nightclub Ciro’s to learn to be worldly; my movie-magazine-editor mother wrote many stories about Debbie and Eddie and then Debbie and Eddie and Elizabeth Taylor. We lived around the corner from them and, briefly, when my mother delivered an article she’d written about Debbie, we once went over to their house.

And, most pointedly, my own family had a non-celebrity but not-un-public version of her family’s Debbie-Eddie-Liz scandal: a beautiful woman breaking up a marriage, with drama, publicity, and violence. My mother and I were the female cast-offs of a man we both loved, with bonding and veiled mutual humiliation, not unlike what I sensed, and learned, Carrie and Debbie felt.

But, mostly, Carrie was a badass feminist heroine hiding in plain sight: so peerlessly honest and witty about her life’s madness and challenges and sexism that she relieved other women who felt shamed by their own upswinging weight and age, and perhaps their crazy families. When she died on December 27, 2019, the world erupted in grief and admiration, and the Princess Leia posters held aloft by the hundreds at the subsequent Women’s Marches proved and fortified her significance – her adored stature. People LOVED her – not just  her  many dozens of highly accomplished and also regular-Joe best friends, but a mix of Americana from STAR WARS super-fans to the highest-barred feminists.

She simply had to be written about.  

WEN: How easy/difficult was it for you to find people to speak with you about her?

SW:  It was challenging. Many people were private or protective of their memories and I didn’t push them – I respected their reticence. But a good number of her close friends – including familiar names – and colleagues from different movies and projects and brushes with her in their lives were happy to open up. When you have to go after sources and they’re not handed to you on a silver platter you find many unexpected major sources who can identify key moments, episodes, interactions and character revelations that you might not otherwise find.

This adjoining excerpt, of Carrie’s time  in drama school in London, is an example. I found about ten people who knew her there, during a transformative but little-known year of her life. Others didn’t look.

WEN: Was there anything surprising that you learned about her while researching and/or speaking to others about her?

SW: I knew she had major challenges – inherited propensity to drug addiction and bipolar disorder. She has certainly written and spoken about them. But I guess I didn’t realize the extent of her vulnerability, because she often wrote and spoke and performed about her life with such witty hauteur and aplomb. She was achingly vulnerable, despite her reputation as her time and place’s Dorothy Parker. Her friend from drama school and beyond, Selina Cadell, said, “She was as fragile as a butterfly.” Along with the opposite – an almost intimidating wit – this was true!

I also was aware that she de-stigmatized bipolar disorder and mental illness in general, but I wasn’t aware of how greatly and bravely she did so. She really was a force in wresting the shame from the conditions, especially for women.

WEN: How did writing this book compare to writing your previous books (i.e. Girls Like Us)?

SW: Like every child is different, every BOOK is different. With Girls Like Us, my focus was music heroines and way pavers who broke the ‘50s rule that you had to get married after college, who became romantic adventurers, who mirrored and narrated their generation by writing on that and many other female ‘60s generation landmark issues and moments. With my next book, The News Sorority, the focus was on women with more settled personal lives (both families of origin and eventual partners) but whose professional lives were full of challenges as they pushed past the sexism and other roadblocks involved in reaching the highest levels of news reporting and anchoring. With this new book, it is just one woman, and her challenges, in a way, were more complex and intense than those of the others. Empathy is always what I aim for when I write. Each book requires a different kind.

WEN: How do you feel about Carrie’s family denouncing the book?

SW:  Honestly, it didn’t feel good. I am not a gotcha journalist or a Kitty Kelley. (I wish I were one fourtieth as tough as she!) I hope it doesn’t sound too self-serving to say that empathy is an important tool I like to think I  use.

I respect and admire the courage and dignity of Carrie’s family. I will say that I did contact them, through their representative, several times, and tell them about my book contract and respectfully request their participation. But I am not going to argue with their interpretation or remarks.

As I said in the statement to the L.A. Times and other media, it was my deep admiration of Carrie that prompted me to want to do a biography of her in the first place. I will also add that every single review has mentioned how positive my book is toward her.  Booklist said it was “profoundly sympathetic” and “a worthy tribute. To a strong, intelligent woman.” USA Today called it “admiring.” Kirkus said the reader had “300 pages to fall in love with Carrie Fisher” and that even if the reader didn’t follow her when she was alive, the reader would still “miss her” when they finished the book. Library Journal called it “thoughtful,” “absorbing,” and “poignant” – a “portrait of a brave, complex woman” (other reviews used very similar if not identical words). Newsweek called it a “heartfelt tribute and beautiful homage.” Publishers Weekly said I “celebrated her for her wit and strength.”       They may certainly choose not to read it but these reviewers and many readers have found it positive.


Carrie wanted to be an actress, not a singer or nightclub performer like her mother (and father). And among those in the London Palladium audience,  in late July 1974, watching Carrie wow the audience with her singing, as part of her mother Debbie Reynolds’s show,  was George Hall, head of acting at London’s Central School of Speech and Drama, long the “second” drama school in London after the prestigious Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA) but catching up to RADA now, and quickly. Lyall Watson, a Central teacher who would go on to head up RADA, was there in the audience with George, and he remembers George going backstage to, in Watson’s sensing, be “vetted” by Debbie. Debbie wanted Carrie to apply to Central, and Debbie was checking Hall out. The reason for the vetting? Carrie had already auditioned for RADA and had been turned down. Central might have to prove itself to not be sloppy seconds.

Central was not the school one would automatically pick for a cosseted movie star’s daughter. It was known for its left-wing leanings, and it had a talented, competitive, but decidedly non-elite student body: tuition was cheap; it was state subsidized. But now, under George Hall’s direction, everything was changing. Its reputation was suddenly overtaking that of the reigning RADA. As one former Central teacher, Alan Marston, recalls, “In 1974, Central was definitely the best training for any young actor.”

Central was a product of the 1930s Bristol Old Vic school, “which produced the young actors that shook up the postwar theater. It was very left-wing working-class, not this glamour thing, not this MGM-back-in-the-day thing,” says Christopher John, who would be a student there with Carrie. Its cachet was its selectivity—it accepted only twenty-six freshman students a year—and its effective emphasis on getting students jobs. Rare for England at the time, “Central achieved about 95 percent employment of students within a year of graduation,” John says. “At the time, in the U.K., you couldn’t join Actors’ Equity unless you were already employed with the regional repertory theater companies.” But Central somehow gotits graduates into rep companies. Clare Rich says, “At the end of our three years we wanted jobs, and Central made that happen. Most of us went straight from school to rep. We weren’t rich, so working right away was huge.”

Central was situated in the old Embassy Theatre in a section of London known as Swiss Cottage, not far from the Irish Republican Army’s stomping grounds, and the 1970s was the time of the IRA protests and bombings and cease-fires. Vanessa Redgrave, a Central alum, and her brother Corin Redgrave would come to Central to give impromptu speeches as members of the Workers Revolutionary Party.

Central’s audition process involved two speeches—a Shakespeare monologue and a contemporary one—followed by a series of improvisations. At the end of the improvisations, you learned whether you had been accepted.

Carrie traveled to Central for her audition, and she got a sense of the school. There was the infamous Canteen, the hub of activity between classes, run by the matriarchal Marianne, a strongly accented Romanian scolder (when you were in her café, you behaved yourself!) who served “fairly disgusting” coffee, as one alum recalled it, and liver sausage rolls and cheese and tomato rolls, wrapped in cellophane. And there was her more accommodating husband, Gerry, who ran a proper but drearily menued restaurant upstairs. Marianne and Gerry’s was where everybody congregated. The food was crap, but there was little choice, except to walk down to the Cosmo, the Eastern European café on Finchley Road.

Shampoo – the Warren Beatty-starring and co-written movie in which Carrie had her first role as a precocious Beverly Hills teenager –was not released yet. That would come in February 1975 — but George Hall knew about Carrie’s role in it. Still, her audition was handled, as all Central auditions were, by the proprietary head of admissions, an elegant elderly woman known simply as Miss Grey, whom the actress Deborah MacLaren, then a Central student, recalls wielding great power but being “tiny, birdlike, imperious, with a gray chignon; she looked like she’d just stepped off a ballet stage. We had all these fantastic old eccentric ladies fluttering around, and Miss Grey was a major one.” Miss Grey gave Carrie Fisher the official good news: she was “appointed” one of twenty-six students entering Stage ’77. (The classes were named for their graduation date, three years hence.)

Carrie’s response was not uncomplicated. Initially, she was gratified. Still, in the late summer of 1974 there might have been fear of the unknown. Drama school in London was a good choice; it meant Don’t be a movie star’s daughter. Take acting seriously! But this would bring out her insecurity, and she might well have sensed this.

And perhaps she understood that an epic showdown with her mother was what their long push-pull relationship was heading toward and that fighting over attending Central was a handy igniter. Whatever the reason, shortly before she was set to fly from L.A. to London for Central’s orientation week, Carrie told Debbie, “I’m not going. I’ve decided to stay home. I want to stay in Los Angeles and decide what I want to do.”

Mother and daughter had a whopper of a fight. Debbie in New York screamed at Carrie in L.A. that she had “no training and no education.” Those five words would pain Carrie for a long time; she was, she would later admit, “very insecure [that I] dropped out of high school to be a chorus girl.” Still, Carrie dug in her heels: I am not going!

“No,” Debbie retorted. “You’re going to do this or you’re going to have to support yourself.”

Carrie, eventually, angrily conceded.

“She was so angry” when she boarded the plane. “I felt sick,” Debbie said. “I’d lost my little girl.”

     “Carrie sort of sidled into Central,” Deborah MacLaren, who was a year ahead of her, says, remembering the early September 1974 first day of school. (Today Deborah is a working actress with her own British production company.) “We knew she was going to come—the ‘Hollywood starlet.’” There was reliable rumor that she’d already shot a few scenes in a yet-to-be-released major movie. “So we were all slightly excited and wondering what she was going to be like. I remember looking at her staring at the notice board to see what the next set of casting was in this rabbit warren of a building. She came past me and she was all covered up. It was a warm day, but she was wearing this drab raincoat and this knitted hat that looked like a tea cozy, terribly unflattering. My feeling was she was hiding and wanted to be the least significant person there.”

     “She just kind of mucked in,” says then-Central teacher Lyall Watson of Carrie’s unprepossessing entrance. “There wasn’t anything ‘I am Debbie Reynolds’ daughter!’ about her. She was very quiet—mouse-like. Not in a bad way—some Americans come over to the English drama schools and attack them, and she wasn’t like that. Carrie was vulnerable.”

“I was the youngest student there,” Carrie has explained, something that others noted, and “it was the first time I actually lived on my own. I was finally away from my mother (whom I’d happily live off but not with) . . . where no one could be disappointed in me.” She also arrived, she said, “carrying more freight” than the other students, because people knew she was a movie star’s daughter. She said she consciously tried to minimize that.

But beyond the attempt at minimization, there seemed to be genuine insecurity. “She was a lost girl—I felt that very strongly,” MacLaren continues. “She wasn’t a smiler; she never seemed to smile. She was a solemn little thing, not the sassy American we were expecting. She looked as though she needed a bloody good hug, and I don’t know how good Central was for pastoral care. Here we all were, middle-class students from Labour families. I got the sense that she was at sea—surrounded by confident young folk, singing, sitting on stairs, kissing the teachers, in the middle of IRA territory—we were doing that. It was the ’70s! I got the feeling she wanted to hide.” She became friends with a stunning girl named Lucy Gutteridge who was intense and emotionally complicated. In the casting-specific way of Central, Lucy was Stage ’77’s “‘beautiful girl’ and Carrie was the “ordinary girl,’” Christopher John believes.

Whereas most of the students lived with their parents or with roommates in ramshackle make-dos, Carrie had a lovely apartment she’d sublet from a friend and was often driven to school by a chauffeur (something she has said she was embarrassed by and hated. Carrie began giving parties at her London apartment, inviting everyone at the school. This approach—brandishing great, indiscriminate generosity—was unusual at Central and caused curiosity and opportunism. Who else did this? the Central faculty rhetorically wondered. “I remember the parties she used to throw in Chelsea,” says Barbara Griffiths (known to one and all as Bardy), the voice teacher who taught a very eager Carrie “standard English.” “Carrie was an extremely lively, very likable person. She had a twinkle in her eye, and what stood out was her youth,” Bardy says. Bardy was gobsmacked by “Carrie’s innocence in giving those parties. Nobody else had parties where they invited everyone in school!” Deborah MacLaren saw the contrast strongly. “She was a lost girl who also had these glamorous parties; the party thing was part of her neediness. I thought, ‘What is she doing? Wafting around in that silly hat and throwing these lavish parties!’ It was about wanting friendship. I don’t know who her real friends were, aside from Lucy.”

Carrie’s indiscriminate generosity was promptly taken advantage of. Right before Christmas, she gave a big party, and one rowdy fellow picked up the grand piano in the apartment and pushed it out the window! Fortunately, no one was standing on the street in the wee hours of the morning when the massive piece of furniture hit the sidewalk with life-crushing force. But a large monetary fine was inflicted on Carrie, as well as police attention. The incident buzzed around the school the next day, with the students “thinking it was a huge joke; ‘oh my God, how naughty, how hilarious!’” says MacLaren. But the young instructors who attended—Bardy, Lyall Watson—felt worry, shock, and sympathy for naive Carrie.

The day after this catastrophe was when acting student Selina Cadell met Carrie for the first time; “ran smack-dab into her” might be a better description of their encounter. Selina happened to walk into one of the school’s cloakrooms and was stunned to find “the American girl,” which was all she knew about this young student, “crumpled in a heap on its floor, crying her eyes out.” Selina was hit in the face with Carrie’s pain, and that dramatic first encounter would color her feelings about Carrie from that day forward. “People tended to exploit her because she was so wealthy,” Selina would later say, those people’s attitude being “‘Well, who cares if we spill champagne on the carpet or push the grand piano out of the window?’ I sympathized with her and I think she found that unusual. I didn’t know about her background when I was smoothing her ruffled feathers. She never played a grand game or pulled rank. She was just a lovely person with this amazing sense of humor. And she was immensely generous.” After they became good friends, in one of many gestures “Carrie paid for me to come stay with her in the U.S. when I had absolutely no money.” For years Selina was fighting off Carrie’s reflexive generosity. “We think of sharp, witty people as being very resilient, but she had a striking softness and vulnerability.”


About the Author: Sheila Weller is a best-selling author and award-winning magazine journalist specializing in women’s lives, social issues, cultural history, and feminist investigative. Her previous books, including the New York Times bestseller “Raging Heart,” have included well-regarded, news-breaking nonfiction accounts of high profile crimes against women and their social and legal implications. Her sixth book was the critically acclaimed “Girls Like Us: Carole King, Joni Mitchell, Carly Simon — And The Journey of a Generation,” which was on the New York Times Bestseller list for eight weeks, and has sold over 170,000 copies. She has won nine major magazine awards, including six Newswomen’s Club of New York Front Page Awards and two Exceptional Merit in Media Awards from The National Women’s Political Caucus, and she was one of three winners, for her body of work, for Magazine Feature Writing on a Variety of Subjects in the 2005 National Headliners Award.

November 17th 2019, 9:05 am

Brink: A Female Gaze into Steve Bannon’s World


The documentary Brink begins with Steve Bannon telling a story, really apropos to nothing in real life, about his impressions of visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau. Bannon, a good story teller and well versed at retail politics, is sitting at a table looking into the camera and marveling at the inner workings of the Nazi machine.

“You think about these guys sitting in meetings, over cups of coffee arguing ‘if it should be like this or it should be like that,” says Bannon. “It was so planned down to every last detail. People were doing this, separating themselves from the moral horror of what they were doing.”

Alison Klayman

Alison Klayman, the film maker and director, who was in the room filming, responded with raised eyebrows. “When he said this, I was chilled inside as he was describing the banality of evil,” said Klayman in a noisy coffee shop where we met to discuss her movie. “It’s the glee in his interest, in how it all worked out, it’s something incredibly unsettling to watch and I knew it had to be the opening of the film.”

Nowhere in the scene does he say: “And it is a good thing that people were murdered,’ or ‘that the Holocaust never happened,’ statements that people might imagine him saying. But it’s a subtle distinction. He’s gleeful and describes Auschwitz as the beta-site test and Birkenau, a place where they built everything from scratch.

Getting Access to Steve Bannon

Steve Bannon standing to the left of the film-maker, Alison Klayman.

Brink, was released earlier this year by Magnolia Pictures and is now available on Hulu. It prides itself as being created primarily by women: the film-maker, producer, distributor and lawyer are all women.  Marie Therese Guirgis, the producer, had worked at Well Spring Media, Brannon’s art house distribution company. When Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Guirgis showered Bannon with rage texts re-igniting a line of communication. His rising media presence and portrayal as Trump’s mastermind stirred a need in her to understand the workings of Bannon’s political machine. Her goal was to create a film in the cinéma vérité style but Bannon refused. Eventually in July, 2017, after many requests, Bannon relented and signed a detailed legal release.

After watching the film, I asked Klayman how the opening scene came about and she described its organic occurrence one day while Bannon talked about Torchbearer, a movie he made.

“He was bragging about the movie and how he went to Auschwitz,” said Klayman. “I did not intervene to ask a guiding or follow-up question but he saw me with a startled look. Bannon knows I am Jewish and that my grandparents were holocaust survivors. I believe his calculation was ‘This would be interesting to her!’”

Klayman’s grandparents came from Szydlowiec, Poland, and the Holocaust was a defining moment in their lives and although they spoke little about it, their stories were passed on to her by her mother.

“We are here because they didn’t destroy us,” said Klayman wondering aloud about society’s ability to create people who can dehumanize and celebrate the destruction and misfortune of their neighbors.

To make the documentary, Klayman followed Bannon around for thirteen months up until the mid-term elections. He is shown helping and firing up house Republicans in swing districts but after losing the House of Representatives, the movie shows Bannon in Europe where his team tries to cover up the loss by saying it’s not a bad sign for the Trump agenda as the Republicans control the senate. But Bannon comes out forcefully to correct them by stating, ‘No excuses, no spin, no agenda, we lost.’

Dinner with the Alt-Right

For Klayman, the title Brink is reflective of where we currently are as a society and globally.  “At this moment we are witnessing the growth of the alt-right where truth is slipping away. It’s a time of extreme polarization and we are at the brink of a new or a dark time.”

In one scene Bannon is seen at a dinner with high level European right-wing parties including representatives from Marine Le Pen’s party, Nigel Farage, former members of the Swedish democrats, congressman Paul Gosar from Arizona and others discussing ways they can work together to get enough seats in the EU parliament to become a blocking group – almost like the tea party – to achieve their goals.

“I spent thirteen months in rooms with these people and they don’t talk about how to increase people’s wages, how to get healthcare, how to increase safety in jobs,” said Klayman animatedly. “No, what they are talking about is birthrates, immigration, and Islam. They believe these are the problems in Europe and are good election issues and need to be talked about.”

Klayman believes it would have been more challenging as a filmmaker had they discussed solutions to these problems. “The vision that unites them is a vision of Europe and America being a white majority, Christian nation,” said Klayman emphatically.

Brink Can Help Us Organize

As a counterpoint, Klayman weaves in excerpts of victory speeches from diverse women of all ages who helped regain the house of representatives earlier this year.

“You open a window of a stuffy room when you hear these women’s voices,” said Klayman, describing the scene. “You beat a guy like him by not chastising him to death but you organize and do better. Our team has more talent, substance, ideas and have women who can mobilize their communities.”

Klayman believes Brannon’s star is tied to the President’s and Trump’s ascendance bears well for him. In the film he is seen traveling on private planes, getting invited to speak for large fees, raising money from other billionaires and then being interviewed by Anderson Cooper and Fareed Zakaria. Speaking to the media, she says, provides a direct line to Trump who is a media junkie.

“Bannon does not care about what’s best for the country,” said Klayman. “He says he does, but I don’t think so. It’s about winning.”

Klayman believes Brink presents an opportunity to witness the day-to-day operations of people on the other side who are focused on winning. So far, the response to the film from Democrats around the world has been positive as they are excited to organize and win, and change the ballot box in 2020.

“If we want the world to change, we have to figure out a better strategy that beats them and that is possible,” said Klayman. “This film is my gaze of what I observed and my point of view about Bannon and I hope people will watch it and change things in their country.”

November 13th 2019, 12:30 pm

The Ovary Office: Watch Our First Interview of 20 Women Running in 2020!


Dear Readers,

We know it’s only November 2019, but this can’t wait!

A record number of women are already planning to run for public office in 2020. But much of the mainstream media is ignoring them, so who better than Women’s eNews to do what is left undone.

Welcome to the first interview in our new series, The Ovary Office, where Lori Sokol, Women’s eNews Executive Director, interviews Valerie Plame, who is running for the US House of Representatives in New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District.

With your support, Women’s eNews will continue to interview women throughout the US who are running for all levels of public office in 2020. Women’s eNews will bring their ideas, plans and vision for America to you and our subscribers, which include many of the mainstream media (e.g. The NY Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Daily Beast, MSNBC, CNN, and others), but we can’t do it without your help.

To help us reach our fundraising goal of $80,000 to cover the costs of travel, video recording and editing of 19 additional interviews with women running for public office in 2020, please DONATE HERE. No donation is too small to help get women’s voices out to the voting public!

We know it’s still a month before ‘Giving Tuesday,’ but THIS CAN’T WAIT! Please watch this interview by clicking below, and support our crucial and urgent work!!

Watch Interview Here

Please Support THE OVARY OFFICE by Clicking Here

*The Ovary Office was created by author and activist Amy Ferris in collaboration with Women’s eNews.

**Women’s eNews is a 501c3 non-profit organization.

November 12th 2019, 7:47 am
Get it on Google Play تحميل تطبيق نبأ للآندرويد مجانا