A Story in Pictures January 29, 2009 Jill Two of the most important women’s-rights-related bill-signings in the past few years. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: And the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009:
When I squint my eyes enough to seriously distort the contrast of the first image, I can almost fool myself into believing one of those men is not white.
let’s see, since a pics worth a ‘thousand words’:wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow
let’s see, since a pics worth a ‘thousand words’, how about the Reader’s Digest rev (jsut 200) > wow AND wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow
Sorry, not trying to start a flame war, but I’m uneducated about some of this stuff. I understand from a visual standpoint that Bush’s group looks less women-friendly. But can somebody explain what the partial birth abortion ban act was and why it’s bad for women? I have heard a lot of stuff both ways from people who aren’t really qualified to give an answer.
This should be put next to the word “juxtaposition” in the dictionary. I cried out “woo hoo!!!” in the car today when I heard that it had been signed. And, NPR gave a beautiful mental picture of the crowd of women in the room. Thanks for giving me a literal picture, too.
Dennis: “partial-birth abortion” is a disingenuous, medically inaccurate term used to make people think it must be worse than other forms of abortion. It’s correctly termed intact dilation and extraction (IDX). It is very, very, very rarely used in a small percentage of late-term abortions, so seizing upon it in the abortion rights argument is itself disingenuous; it is in no way representative of the typical abortion. Late-term abortions are, contrary to what the religious right would have us believe, not something women get because they for some reason forgot to get an abortion in the first 20 weeks; they are often medically indicated for health reasons. Also, many women do not have ready access to either money or abortion providers, which can delay things. IDX an outpatient procedure that is less dangerous for the woman than other late-term abortion methods. If the problem is late-term abortions (and I personally think they should be legal, period), banning IDX but not D&E or other methods is disingenuous; they did it because they could call it by a scary name “partial-birth abortion.” If one believes that free access to abortion is an essential right for women, than the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is harmful to women’s rights. Pretty simple.
This is a great juxtaposition. Right now, as far as diversity of all kinds goes, the difference between the two is still tenuous and superficial, but after a generation or so it should become ingrained in the system enough, and enough of a non-issue, that we can finally start making fair decisions in our democracy, with everyone equally represented (including the good people of our capital).
Wow. A bunch of asshole men taking away women’s rights, and one more man getting a big fat “WOW cookie” for doing the absolute bare minimum for women. If ensuring women are paid fairly, in 2009, is such a huge step forward for women, what does this tell us? Also, note there’s no picture of red-jacketed women clapping and looking over Obama’s shoulder as he restores the rights of women worldwide to have access to medical care before and during pregnancy. Can’t have a big fanfare over that, can we?
Wow. A bunch of asshole men taking away women’s rights, and one more man getting a big fat “WOW cookie” for doing the absolute bare minimum for women. If ensuring women are paid fairly, in 2009, is such a huge step forward for women, what does this tell us? Also, note there’s no picture of red-jacketed women clapping and looking over Obama’s shoulder as he restores the rights of women worldwide to have access to medical care before and during pregnancy. Can’t have a big fanfare over that, can we? It tells us that we’re not finished yet. But that some people are listening to reason. Which I can’t see as a bad thing. I look forward to having this series of photographs finished with one of a future female president.
“You are aware that despite Obama’s popularity, he is not, in fact, President of Earth?” Wow, Axiomatic, I had never thought of that title for Obama! That’s a great idea! We should all call him that from now on! Thanks for the idea!
Sure, things are still fucked up. But it is comforting to know that Hastert, Delay and Santorum are no longer members of Congress.
What an incredible visual – thanks for posting this! And Mel, that was an excellent and concise explanation of the whole “partial-birth abortion” issue.
You are aware that despite Obama’s popularity, he is not, in fact, President of Earth? And who said he was?
Repealing GGR: bare minimum. Sends us back to existing policies of 1984. “Allowing” women to take it to court to sue if they’re being ripped off, in 2009: bare minimum. Lilly Ledbetter restores “every new paycheck is a new act of discrimination, extending the allowed time to file a complaint”, which was the legal standard before the 2006 ruling. I’m not giving unwarranted cookies to this dude. Wake me when we move forward, i.e. Equal Rights Amendment.
micheyd, I am guessing that the “not President of Earth” comment was in response to tinfoil hattie’s: “Also, note there’s no picture of red-jacketed women clapping and looking over Obama’s shoulder as he restores the rights of women worldwide to have access to medical care before and during pregnancy.” Which I’m guessing refers to overturning the Global Gag Rule. Correct me if I’m wrong, everyone involved.
magpie — first we have to undo all the damage the Bush years did and get back to where we left off — then we make more progress. Caption for first photo: “Heh heh, we’ll keep all those women in their place now.” Caption for second photo: “Sanity restored.”
Unfortunately, those women include nancy pelosi, who is a total fucking moron, regardless of her gender.
Why, yes, there is no reason whatsoever why we should celebrate a return to sanity and sensible policy. He’s been in office for ten days and already some of the worst damage is being dealt with head on. I think an emphatic “Huzzah!” is called for, not whining about whether or not cookies are to be dispensed.
I would only really have qualms about this if Obama himself had somehow arranged for all these rights to be removed, just so he could come in and fix them in a dastardly plot to bring hope and change while progressing nowhere. But, yanno, as that *isn’t* the case… He’s getting props from me. Feminist actions are feminist actions, even if it happens to be a guy in the chair at the moment.
I must confess that after marveling at the difference, I wished for a third picture beneath Obama’s with a female president signing a women’s rights bill surrounded by men and women. Don’t get me wrong. I’m thrilled to have Obama as our president (more happy than I ever expected I could be for a politician) and I’m thrilled to see this act signed into law. But something still bugs me about the hero in that picture being the man in the center signing a bill for the ladies.
That is indeed a wonderful picture of Obama signing that act, but also very telling of the first picture with nothing but white, old men. I hope to see more of these pictures, and I am glad to see sanity restored.
Thirding Tinfoil and RKMK. I’m hoping Obama does good things for women’s rights and that this is as good as it seems. I have a few questions, though. 1) would this have been done if it didn’t make the trial lawyers’ lobby happy? 2) will this be as good for women as it seems? I’ve read legal analysis that speculates that employers may hire fewer women to lessen the possibility for suits, even where there may not be policies that would merit suits. I am hoping that the net benefits to women are positive, in other words — that the increase in egalitarian pay is greater than the inevitable increased caution in hiring women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act This has the full picture/picture from another angle. A little more completely representative.
RKMK: I’m not giving unwarranted cookies to this dude. The logic of this is really baffling to me. He’s an imperfect feminist at best, and has said some sexist things. No quibbling there. Nor am I minimizing the negative impact of those statements. But how does it make sense that, as feminists, we only reward feminist acts when they are performed by perfect feminists? Politically speaking that is completely self-defeating. If feminists don’t show political support for feminist acts (and no matter that we think that this should be basic decency, it is still a feminist act), no politician is going to have any reason to do them. This is a society that is steeped in sexism (and racism, heterosexism, etc.). Therefore, even allies are frequently going to be imperfect and flawed in many ways. We still need to politically reward them when they do the right thing. Even if we don’t think that that thing should even be subject to debate. (Also, it’s not like he’s a Johnny-come-lately to this issue – he supported it (maybe even cosponsored it? not sure) last time around.)
1) would this have been done if it didn’t make the trial lawyers’ lobby happy? I’d suspect so, largely because the precedent was already in place to allow these cases to go forward. The assumption (until the Roberts court mucked with it) was that each paycheck constituted a fresh instance of discrimination. (And all of this assumes that Obama wouldn’t have acted with a modicum of good faith and the honest belief that discrimination is a prima facie bad thing. I think he’s certainly progressive enough to do this on its merits rather than because of lobbying by trial lawyers.) 2) will this be as good for women as it seems? I’ve read legal analysis that speculates that employers may hire fewer women to lessen the possibility for suits, even where there may not be policies that would merit suits. I am hoping that the net benefits to women are positive, in other words — that the increase in egalitarian pay is greater than the inevitable increased caution in hiring women. Again, see above. This isn’t a real change in how the cases were going prior to the Ledbetter decision. The Republicans have done a great job whining about trial lawyers, but that’s a serious red herring.
will this be as good for women as it seems? I’ve read legal analysis that speculates that employers may hire fewer women to lessen the possibility for suits, even where there may not be policies that would merit suits. I am hoping that the net benefits to women are positive, in other words — that the increase in egalitarian pay is greater than the inevitable increased caution in hiring women. This doesn’t make sense to me. If if benefited companies to hire women because they could pay them less, it wouldn’t make sense to hire men at all.
Jessica: Yes, that was what I meant. I’m surprised anyone actually caught the reference – I was expecting my post to appear directly under Tinfoil Hattie’s, but it had to be authenticated and verified and vetted and stuff, so naturally there was some delay and my post had no actual reference TO hattie’s post in it… Since he is not President of Earth, but only a part of it, he can’t very well restore the rights of women worldwide, on account of him not being elected president of quite a lot of bits of said world. That is not to say that he is powerless to affect the state women are in outside of the US, or that he should only concern himself with domestic issues. Certainly, he can and should work to improve stuff, like, say, replacing Bush’s sex education programs for Africa which teach abstinence with programs that teach abstinence from genital mutilation.
Octo, “would this have been done if it didn’t make the trial lawyers’ lobby happy” Eh, I don’t think that trial lawyers (at least at the lobby influence level) gave a shit about this legislation. Employment discrimination claims aren’t the money. Plus as I’ve ranted before, the fed judges will just find another reason to dismiss these cases. Judges HATE these cases. As I’m sure you know, dismissing based on the statute of limitations passing is the easiest way out of not even having to read the pleading all the way through…so it might take their clerks an extra hour to find another way to dismiss the claim…but no lawyer is going to make hours/the mortgage payment on their fourth house on an employment discrimination case. “will this be as good for women as it seems? I’ve read legal analysis that speculates that employers may hire fewer women to lessen the possibility for suits, even where there may not be policies that would merit suits. I am hoping that the net benefits to women are positive, in other words — that the increase in egalitarian pay is greater than the inevitable increased caution in hiring women.” I don’t this will have much impact on hiring. If employers choose to hire fewer women, they’ll also have an employment discrimination problem…so eh. But I don’t think this will do a damn bit of good to help women with discrimination claims for the reasons I mentioned above. I mean if you read the SCOTUS case, it’s so wrongly decided it boggles the mind how they could have come up with that answer (until you remember they’re all conservative asshats). In that way its merely symbolic (much like the original legislation). But symbols are important…and there may be some trickle down symbolicness that exists. Maybe. Meanwhile, if you go down to legal aid to volunteer and you get an employment discrimination case…I suggest being very pessimistic with your client’s expectations…FPA or no…she’s going to lose or settle for pennies on the dollar.
It is strange to to see in the first picture 10 complete abortions celebrating banning their relatives. In the second picture, it is as if women are being allowed to be human beings. I’m a man. I’m white. I’m 70. I voted for Prez O and AMERICA. It is beginning to work.
Has anyone noticed that when Obama signed those important executive orders during his first few days in office, the imagery was all men standing around him. When it came to signing the Ledbettere Bill he made sure all women were around him and yet he stated “this is not a women’s issue”. what the heck is going on. Whose issue is it. I’m loosing faith in “Yes We Can”. The guys, including Pelosi, just don’t “Get it”.
Lauren and Kristen– sorry if I was unclear. Basically, the EEOC has determined only 5% of discrimination suits have merit. Even if they’re off by a significant factor, it still creates a situation where employers will face more suits based on this act. It gets rid of the statute of limitations in large part, which makes sense because people who do not know they are being discriminated against can’t get their day in court. But it expands it so that even those who know the facts can delay for years — which is what the Hutchinson proposal was supposed to prevent. Because of this, employers, who are focused mainly on their bottom line, may hire fewer women and cover their butts by coming up with innocuous-seeming explanations. Already, in many jobs, women are only 15%-20%, so employers can conclude that it would be tough to make the % of women into a claim for discrimination (even though such a claim would likely be valid). Kristen J — there is indeed substantial money in class action discrimination claims. And I know for a fact that the trial attorneys Bar did lobby heavily for this Act. As the lawyers rather than the plaintiffs predominantly control class actions, I’m concerned that greed on their part and the opportunity for delay in the Act could prevent speedy victory for legitimate plaintiffs. I can’t agree more with the spirit of the Act, but I wonder whether the Hutchinson proposal would have been a better way to realize it.
Octo, Really? As far as I’m aware the only lobbying has been done by the AAJ and they aren’t really representative of trial attorneys.
well you should have seen the picture of Obama on January 22 with the economic team. it looked eerily familiar to Bush’s partial birth abortion photo. ..not sure if anyone caught that on CNN.
Sarah, The only pictures I can find on Google are ones like this one, with two women (one a WoC) on a 4-person team, standing behind Obama and beside Biden. No red jackets, though, for which I’m certainly not sorry. I’m not convinced about red jackets as a uniform for political women.
Better get the facts right on abortions and Obama’s position before you become a media puppet. Obama is on the record that he approves the bill Bush signed. Obama stated he wanted the federal language when he voted no as a State senator to the state version of the bill 3x. Obama also voted to cut the settlements women would receive in sexual discrimination suits in Ill. check the voting records – this bill is a sham compared to his over all position and record. we are being duped, and most people would not take the time to see what he has done in the past, so they deserve to be duped. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html UNITED STATES Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996) Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700 Why women have abortions 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). At what gestational ages are abortions performed: 52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.
Hey, the really impressive thing is that people are SMILING and LAUGHING in the second photo, and there’s not even any nationalist kitsch in shot.
Making laws about a group of people with no input at all from those people. . . didn’t a country not too far from here start a revolution over that?
“This doesn’t make sense to me. If if benefited companies to hire women because they could pay them less, it wouldn’t make sense to hire men at all.” But who will do the work?
mmmmmmm Well when it comes to women and minorities its the old white men that know whats right………right? Wait thats not true……..well what the hell all these years what do you mean. ABOUT TIME WE LOVE YOU OBAMA!
Funny don’t you think… when you compare the people with whom Bush chose to share the stage and the people with whom Obama chose to share the stage? I’m not sure it’s as much a dem vs repub thing as it is a quality-of-person thing. But yes, alarming difference.
N.B.: If I recall correctly, that first photo-op was the occasion for which the Bush White House decided to pipe in some patriotic music. So they played some Sousa. John Philip Sousa’s “Liberty Bell March,” actually, which is probably better known to those not in the previous administration as the theme to Monty Python’s Flying Circus. It was a surreal, yet somehow apt, touch.
It’s just un-freakin’ believable what we women, and men who really care about women’s rights for that matter, had to put up with for 8 years. Important women’s civil rights issues and only WHITE MEN were a part of it. Please Dear G-d, take care of President Obama. We need him, his sense of fairness and his concept of what our world should be like, now more than ever!
It’s not even just the fact that one is all white men, while the other is a mixed group. Look how freaking SINISTER everyone looks in the first picture. I can almost hear the cackling.
Abortion is not a women’s rights issue and should just as easily be decided by men. Abortion is either murder or it is not. If it is not, you cna support it. If abortion is murder, then it has nothing to do with a woman’s body or her rights. I can’t use my body to murder another human being. No one has a right to murder. Incidentally, I am for abortion because I do not believe it is murder. But can we please stop framing it as a feminist issue that men have no business discussing. Women are equally for and against abortion as men by the way so don’t whine about lack of representation, it wouldn’t make a difference.
In the first photo, we see a president who doesn’t care about the limits the Constitution places on the scope of federal action signing a piece of unconstitutional legislation which feminists don’t like. In the second photo, we see a president who doesn’t care about the limits the Constitution places on the scope of federal action signing a piece of unconstitutional legislation which feminists like. Those of us who care about the Constitution won’t cheer either bill.
Great work Jill! I work as an editor for Raffia, a Dutch magazine on gender, feminism and emancipation (www.ru.nl/genderstudies/raffia). We would love to have your pictures in the next issue; would that be possible? Cheers, Marijke
Obamas murder count has begun. 22 dead in Pakistan as US invades sovereign Pakistan with US Missiles. WAR is MURDER, left or right. ===========================================================”Virginia needs all of her sons, Mr. Anderson.” “That might be so. But these are my sons! Mine! They don’t belong to the state! When they were babies, I never saw the state coming around here with a spare tit. We never asked anything of the state, and never expected anything. We do our own living, and thanks to no man for the right.” Charlie Anderson, a widowed father of six sons, deflects the demands Lt. Johnson, leader of a Confederate conscription gang near the beginning of the film Shenandoah.
I love the contrast. It makes me feel warm inside. I am so grateful for the second picture and everything that it speaks to.
Before everyone starts singing the praises of Obama because the media is doing so, DO SOME RESEARCH! Research what Obama really stands for and see if you agree with him before you say he’s the best thing ever. He might be, and he might not be. It’s still really early in his term. The media was praising George W. Bush when he first started too.
My heart is filled with hope for women and men and this country’s future. Thank you for sharing those striking pictures that say so much.
Thank you very much for posting this contrast between’s Bush’s & Obama’s public support of women. It has been wonderful to watch the changes this administration is bringing about.