<^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> ........Catt's Claws # 112 ... June 27, 1996......... ........ A Feminist Newsletter by Irene Stuber......... <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> This is an "interim" Catt's Claws that seeks to address two current, major events that directly pertain to women and women's rights. The first is about the unparalleled and FILTHY attacks on Hillary Rodham Clinton led by the _New York Times_ whose board of directors consists of many big time insurance company money men who will NEVER forgive her for her efforts to gain affordable health care for the American people, And by the _Wall Street Journal_ which is the mouthpiece of big bu$ine$$ and the rich in Amerika, and the _Washington Post_ whose reasons are buried back with Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal and those trying to regain their glory days. We invite, beg, and plead for the readers of Catt's Claws to write the _Washington Post Letters to the Editors_, 1150- 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071, the _Wall Street Journal_, 200 Liberty Street, New York 10281, and your local newspaper(s) in defense of Hillary Rodham Clinton to be a human being. Tell them you don't see anything wrong in carrying on imaginary conversations with your dead grandmother, or dead saints, or with one of the greatest women who every lived in the U.S., Eleanor Roosevelt. For heaven's sake, who else would a First Lady talk to in her imagination than with another strong woman. Should Rodham Clinton have talked Barbara Bush? Is there anyone - ANYONE - who at one time or the other in their lives has not turned to a role model or to a famous person in their minds and asked for help? Hey Babe, is this the way I should hold my bat? How about Reagan saying he talked to Abraham Lincoln in times of trouble (well, maybe Reagan isn't the best example, but you get the drift). These attacks on Rodham Clinton are accepted and perpetrated because they are attacks on "ONLY a woman" - a woman who has stepped outside the proscribed limits imposed by the patriarchal society, those lovers of men and men thingies. They can't say such things about Bill Clinton because the whole damned country would come down around their ears. Every president has admitted he talked to his predecessors looking for guidance in times of trouble. But because of their prejudice against women, the media feels it can say whatever it wants about Rodham Clinton because such hatred meets with the tacit approval of the Promise Keepers, the Christian Coalition, the Black Muslims, reactionary churches, Freemen, etc., who maintain that women are to be silent and serve men's sexual and other bodily appetites and then die. Please - it is time to pemacho the prejudicial news media and do something about this unabashed character assassination. BTW, none of the papers will accept faxes to the Letters columns and they pay NO attention to email. Also write _Time_ magazine, _Newsweek_ and other news magazine. Enlist people from work, from the various meetings you attend. Talk to your ministers and demand Christian love and fairness. These attacks on Rodham Clinton go beyond freedom of speech. They are organized and orchestrated character assassination aimed at destroying Bill Clinton's closest friend and advisor in the hopes of destroying Bill Clinton's resolve. It's a filthy thing to do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our second point is that the news media has centered all its discussions of the Supreme Court decision on the poor macho guyz whose institutions are going to be ruined. And it is ignoring a brilliant piece of reasoning that will resound through American laws against women like a rocket on a pogo-stick. Ruth Bader Ginsberg's writing of the decision is totally beautiful. While the full decision may be read in the documents portion of my web site (http://www.imageworld.com/istuber.html) we are posting only the pertinent part here that the media boyz have (intentionally? Waiting for instructions?) failed to note. " The heightened review standard our precedent establishes does not make sex a proscribed classification. Supposed inherent differences are no longer accepted as a ground for race or national origin classifications. Physical differences between men and women, however, are enduring: "The two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both. "Inherent differences between men and women, we have come to appreciate, remain cause for celebration, but not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual's opportunity. Sex classifications may be used to compensate women for particular economic disabilities [they have] suffered, to promot[e] equal employment opportunity, to advance full development of the talent and capacities of our Nation's people. But such classifications may not be used, as they once were to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women. "Measuring the record in this case against the review standard just described, we conclude that Virginia has shown no exceedingly persuasive justification for excluding all women from the citizen-soldier training afforded by VMI. We therefore affirm the Fourth Circuit's initial judgment, which held that Virginia had violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause." The operative word is "exceedingly persuasive justification..." which allows for sex differences, one of the thornier issues when it comes to reproductive situation under an ERA (you can't pay for a woman's D & C if you don't offer and pay for a man's) but Ginsberg's decision states, in essence, that sex may not be used to create or perpetuate any legal, social, or economic means to make women inferior. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I bow to you with my forehead on the floor. Your wording is beautiful. Your reasoning brilliant. You have put into place a necessary legal precedent that clears the way for the passage of a sensible Equal Rights Amendment. Ironically, the best exposition of the RBG written decision is in the vitriolic dissent by Anton Scalia. Scalia's shadow, yes man Clarence Thomas recused because his son attends VMI. Want to exercise your skin, make it crawl? The pure malice towards women Scalia shows in his dissent is ghastly. It's at my web site. I may not live to see an ERA passed but I now have proof that it is inevitable. ....................... * ........................ Women's rights are young and tender and we must protect them from the plagues of holy hypocrisy and newts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>> Send your ideas, comments, and news to istuber@cswnet.com for inclusion in the Catt's Claws feminist newsletter which will be emailed up to three times a week. This is NOT an interactive discussion net but an exchange of information. Catt's Claws is NOT sponsored by any organization. We are accepting *limited* donations (only what can be spared) to help offset the online costs of posting Catt's Claws. Copyright 1996, Irene Stuber. PO Box 6185, Hot Springs, AR 71902.<<<<