Feature Archives

The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women has been holding its forty-ninth session. The February 28th-March 11th gathering has been held to review and appraise the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action from the 23rd Special Session of the UN General Assembly. Read more The Beijing Declaration was adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. In addition to the declaration review, the Commission planned this month to consider "Current challenges and forward-looking strategies for the advancement and empowerment of women and girls."

Days before the gathering was set to begin, the Bush administration signaled to other nations that it would not unequivocally reaffirm the commitments made by the United States to the world's women a decade ago. Over 30 organizations sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to urge the Bush administration not to withdraw from the U.S. pledge made at the Beijing Women's Conference. Organizations issued a March 3rd statement to urge the US to stop blocking consensus about women's rights. During the gathering, the U.S. delegation had stalled consensus by offering language that specified that the Platform conferred no new international rights, including no right to abortion.

Two memorable comments by US delegate Ellen Sauerbrey: "We have stated clearly and on many occasions ... that we do not recognise abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance." She articulated US policy on Aids prevention for adolescents: "We emphasise the value of the ABC - abstinence, be faithful, and correct and consistent condom use where appropriate - approach in comprehensive strategies to combat the spread of HIV/Aids and the promotion of abstinence as the healthiest and most responsible choice for adolescents." Sauerbrey's statements were not well received. On March 2nd, Sauerbrey read a statement from Dr. Rice

Women's Environment and Development Organization | Women's eNews | United Nations Women Watch | More about Ellen Sauerbrey

National Eating Disorders Week will take place from February 27th through March 5th. Events are scheduled all over the Bay Area for that week.

Eating disorders cause immeasurable suffering for victims and families. They have reached epidemic levels in America, affecting all segments of society, young and old, rich and poor, all minorities, including African Americans and Latinos. Seven million women and one million men suffer from eating disorders. •Victims lose the ability to function effectively -- great personal loss and loss to society. 86% of people who have eating disorders report onset of illness by the age of 20, most during their late teens. Eating disorder prevention advocates say that awareness and prevention of these disorders is vital or the numbers will continue to grow.More info

National Eating Disorders Website | Voices Not Bodies 4/16 Demo in Washington, DC | National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders | Eating Disorder Glossary | The Body Positive | Eating Disorders Coalition

On March 8th, a Global Women's Strike took place in over 60 cities around the world. The San Francisco protest on that date started at 3pm at City Hall and marched to the SF City Jail for a 4pm rally. Photos: 1 | 2

This year the Strike focused on demanding: "A Living Wage for All our Work & Pay Equity in the Global Market; End Poverty and War! Invest in Caring Not Killing!" More Demands of the Strike

The Global Women's Strike started in 2000 with women taking action together on or around March 8th. It has grown every year since, particularly in countries in the Global South. Men's support and participation internationally has been coordinated by Payday, a multiracial network of men, which is organizing with women and men who are Refusing to Kill: refusing the military and its lethal and repressive work, from the US and UK to Israel and Eritrea.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has started a campaign to try to work with the anti-choice movement towards a similar goal: fewer abortions. NARAL says, "What better way to end the debate over abortion than by eliminating the reasons women seek abortion?"

The group is circulating a petition to organizations in the anti-choice movement, asking them to join a new campaign to reduce the need for abortion. Senator Harry Reid - who opposes a woman's right to choose - has offered a common-sense bill called the Prevention First Act, which would help reduce unintended pregnancies through better access to birth control. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America says that it would "expand access to family planning services, ensure comprehensive medically accurate sex education, end insurance discrimination against women, promote emergency contraception, especially for sexual assault survivors, reduce the rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections and reduce the need for abortion among women of all ages." Read more

January 14th, 2004: At a conference of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Lawrence Summers proposed that innate genetic differences between the sexes may be one explanation for why fewer women succeed in math and science careers. Since that date hundreds, if not thousands, of women who have written to newspapers and to Summers directly to set him straight about the challenges that face women in still-non-traditional fields. It would be bad enough if Summers were any ordinary academic, but he is the current President of Harvard University and a former Chief Economist of the World Bank.

In a January 19th apology statement, he said, "Despite reports to the contrary, I did not say, and I do not believe, that girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of science. I was wrong to have spoken in a way that has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women... As a university president, I consider nothing more important than helping to create an environment, at Harvard and beyond, in which every one of us can pursue our intellectual passions and realize our aspirations to the fullest possible extent....as academics who believe in the power of research, we should invest our energies in thinking as clearly and objectively as possible, drawing on potential insights from different disciplines, to identify and understand all the various factors that might possibly bear on the situation."

Working Papers by Lawrence Summers | NOW Statement | Feminist Daily News Story | GPAC Statement | Democracy Now Story | Association for Women in Science | San Francisco Chapter | Palo Alto Chapter | Committee on Women in Science and Engineering | Association for Women in Science and Engineering (Britain)

1/22/2005: Several thousand people gathered for a Roe v. Wade Anniversary Demonstration that included a rally on Market Street and a march to the location of an anti-choice rally. After the march, participants lined the Embarcadero as the "pro-lifers" paraded towards the Fisherman's Wharf tourist district. The route of the parade was stopped twice by pro-choice protesters. Police kept the women's rights advocates out of the street as much as possible, divided them up on sidewalks, and escorted the anti-choice march through Fort Mason, down Marina, to the park area where a post-march celebration of hatred of women's right to choose when to have a child was to be held. The pro-choice march was eventually allowed through Fort Mason and headed to the Marina Green.
Breaking news from today's march and action in San Francisco, as heard on Enemy Combatant Radio or reported to Indybay editors.
Photos: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 Reports: 1 | 2 Audio: 1 Video: 1 | 2

These protests were part of a series of events this weekend that commemorated the 32nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Decision, which legalized abortion in the United States. Indybay coverage of the 31st anniversary celebration of Roe v. Wade.

More photos and reports to come - check back for updates to this story. You can also publish your report

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on December 28th, 2004 that a female employee fired for refusing to wear makeup cannot sue her employer for sex discrimination. Darlene Jespersen had been employed by Harrah’s Resorts as a bartender in Reno for over two decades. In 2000 Harrah's put into place a “Personal Best” policy that required female employees to wear their hair "teased, curled or styled," and wear "foundation/concealer and/or face powder, as well as blush and mascara," nail polish, and lipstick. Male bartenders at Harrah's were only required to wear their hair above the collar and keep their nails clean and neatly trimmed.

Jespersen was fired when she objected that the new standards "forced her to be feminine" and made her feel "dolled up" like a sex object. Jespersen said that when she had worn makeup in the past, she had felt that it interfered with her ability to win the respect of customers that would be necessary or her to deal with them when they were unruly. The 2-1 decision rejected Jespersen’s suit, saying that she had not shown that feminine standards were significantly more burdensome than those imposed on men. The Court held that sex stereotyping rulings – such as the landmark Supreme Court case decision Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse – did not specifically address the issue of sex-differentiated grooming standards.

In the dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney Thomas stated, "Harrah's fired Jespersen because of her failure to confirm to sex stereotypes, which is discrimination based on sex and is therefore impermissible under Title VII (of the US Civil Rights Act)." The decision was largely ignored by the mainstream media and mainstream feminist organizations, perhaps due to the fact that it was announced between the Christmas and New Year holidays.

More about this court case | Statement from GenderPAC, the national advocacy organization working to end discrimination and violence caused by gender stereotypes. | 2001 Mother Jones Article | Barbwire History of the Case | 2/5/04: Case is about civil rights and sex bias by Darlene Jespersen | Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Personal Care Products