Is There Any Hope for Adjuncts?

It was never my intention to teach when I was in the throes of my career as a health communications and gender specialist. But when I was invited to be a lecturer at Yale University’s School of Public Health I discovered I loved teaching, and was pretty good at it. From there I went on to various teaching gigs at institutions as diverse as community colleges, Ivy League schools and Thai universities. Not having a Ph.D., I was relegated to the world of adjuncts, but never having aspired to the academic world of “publish or perish,” I was happy.

As time went on, however, I began to experience the drawbacks of being an adjunct. Frustrations began with being paid a pittance for extremely labor-intensive, high responsibility work. While private universities paid about $5,000 (plus expenses), state institutions were offering $2,000 or less a semester. Given today’s cost of living, that’s gas money, or if you are burdened with oversubscribed online courses, the bottle of hooch you need to get through the week.

Beyond pay scales there were other issues. For example, most adjuncts – 54 percent of whom are women teaching at two year colleges — cannot collect unemployment if the semester they were promised falls through. If classes are undersubscribed they may have to accept pro-rated payment (make that half a tank of gas). They have no office space, no benefits or salary increases unless they’re unionized, no hope of professional development funds, and no job security.

And yet, adjuncts comprise a large percentage of faculty in institutions of higher education, sometimes approaching 50 percent of teachers at public institutions. We bring special expertise and often years of experience to the classroom. We could bring those skills to committees too if we were incentivized to do so. We are skilled professionals who spend hours planning and delivering courses, evaluating, mentoring and counseling students, and responding to administrative demands.

I thought things might be looking up for adjunct faculty when, a while back, I received a letter from the new president of a college where I was teaching. His letter was a call for better recognition of adjunct faculty. “The need for an accessible, quality education has never been greater,” he wrote. “Your willingness to give your time and share your experience makes a tremendous difference in the lives of students we serve.” With that in mind, the president, a former adjunct himself, announced a “new model for part-time faculty that better recognizes the role [they play].”

But things don’t look so hopeful these days. Another college where I’ve taught — part of the same state system in which the new college president works – has begun a rigorous campaign to remove long-time, unionized adjuncts, replacing them with less qualified “newbies” burdened with ever larger classes.

A recent article posted on AlterNet questioned whether we are about to see an “Adjunct Spring.” It pointed out that over the last thirty years colleges have grown more reliant on adjunct faculty as a way to cut costs while simultaneously trying to stop them organizing for better pay and benefits. But work conditions are often abysmal. For example, office space is small and shared and there is no clerical support. As contract workers adjuncts don’t speak out about necessary improvements. But this renders them less able to mentor and advocate for students, who are also beginning to bemoan their college experience.

There is some pushback in the face of lowering standards and unfair labor practices. One adjunct lecturer has started an online presence called the Adjunct Project. According to AlterNet, its documentation of adverse conditions has resonated with faculty around the country. After several weeks the database had over 1600 entries about pay, working conditions and personal experiences. It’s the Angie’s List of Academia.

Education, as we know, is in crisis in this country. When we talk about that crisis, we emphasize K-12. But an invisible crisis exists in colleges and universities and it’s getting worse. Just compare where we are with higher education standards and practices in other industrialized nations. In the UK, for example, students not only know how to write fluently in English; they also tend to speak another language. They are taught how to argue logically based on research and empirical evidence. Our students prefer easier methods of learning which overburdened teachers often yield to in the interest of their own sanity.

Respect for, rather than exploitation of, part-time faculty can go far to improve academic standards, provide quality learning environments, and guide students toward successful futures. Our kids deserve that. So do our teachers.

You don’t need a Ph.D. to know that much.

Beauty and the Beast: The Ugly Attacks on Activist Women

Last month, actress and activist Ashley Judd took a lot of heat from mainstream and social media. Pundits and bloggers alike went after her, sometimes viciously, for her appearance, pointing out that she seemed to have gained weight, especially in her face, and was no longer the “familiar beauty audiences loved her for.”

Nevermind that she had been ill and treated with steroids for a month, let alone that she is now 43 years old and still quite stunning. Word went out that she’d “had work done” and it had gone badly, “messing up” her face. Ironically, Judd has countered, when she has no visible wrinkles on TV, she is also accused of having had “work done”, attested to by plastic surgeons who weigh in even though they have never set eyes on her.

Judd, usually averse to publicity, did not let the insults stand. In commentary posted on The Daily Beast she faced down the frenzied media (pun intended). Underscoring that “the conversation is really a misogynistic assault on all women,” she wrote, “The conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.”

The key word in that quote for me is “voices,” because while it may be time to revisit The Beauty Myth that Naomi Wolf wrote so eloquently about in 1991, I believe there is more than meets the eye in the assault on Judd’s appearance. I think she was pilloried as part of the so-called War on Women.

Judd is a fine actress but she is also a strong woman who actively advocates for other women in this country and abroad (in addition to her work related to HIV/AIDS). She is therefore part of a sisterhood that has found its individual and collective voice and refuses to be silenced, ever again.

Women like that get punished. I know because it’s happened to me. I’ve been called ugly, unlovable, unfeminine, and “probably fat” just for voicing my opinion on matters ranging from gun control to Israeli politics.

As Wolf said in her important book, “The more legal and material hindrances women have broken through, the more strictly and heavily and cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us.” Wolf also points out that as women breach the power structures of patriarchal society, unattainable standards of female beauty are foisted upon women to punish them for their inability to achieve those standards, and perhaps more so for their resistance to male authority.

Ashley Judd gets this, of course. And although she did not specifically make the connection I’m making in terms of the hideous backlash against women who speak out on behalf of other women – whether or not they are famous – she did choose to address the issue because, as she said, all the talk about her was “nasty, gendered, and misogynistic” as well as “outrageous and subtle.”

Why, Judd asked, was a puffy face cause for such a conversation in the first place? “Why did people participate? What is the condemnation about? The insanity has to stop, because as focused on [the actress] as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women.”

To be even clearer, I would add that it is about girls and women who have found their voices, at last, and now use them to speak out against the injustices and the violations of human rights now being thrust upon our gender.

It may not seem pretty when we do that, but as far as I can tell, the only thing puffed up about it is those male egos striving mightily not to suffer what might be revealed of their character when they are required to confront a mirror themselves.

Drum Roll, Please: Appearances & Workshops

“The Scarlet Letter: An Evening with Carol Gilligan & Elayne Clift” Sat., May 19th @ 7:00 pm. Next Stage, 15 Kimball Hill, Putney, Vt. $15.00

“From Harriet Tubman to Harry Potter: Exploring Our Archetypal Journeys”, A 3-part Writing Workshop, Saturdays, June 2, 9, 16. The Writers Center, White River Junction, Vt. $75 (3 sessions)

Hester’s Daughters now available for Kindle & Nook! Or ask your bookseller to “BACK ORDER” from Baker & Taylor Distributors! (Also on amazon.com or direct from me!)

Why I Wrote It, and What the Critics Think!

Re-imagining Hester Prynne

The fortune cookie said, “A childhood book will have new meaning for you.”

I was eating Chinese with a group of women writers and discussing favorite books. I mentioned Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic tale, The Scarlet Letter. Hester Prynne, I said, was my literary heroine. “But I wonder what ever happened to Pearl?” I mused.

That was it. Somewhere between the conversation and the cookie I knew I had to answer my own question. I also knew that I couldn’t write a historical novel; it just wasn’t in me. But I do know a lot about the Second Wave of the women’s movement. Why not put my Hester into the 20th century, replicate the main events of Hawthorne’s work within a contemporary, feminist context, then invent a life for Pearl?

So was born my first novel, Hester’s Daughters, published in January 2012.

The reason I loved The Scarlet Letter, even though like most high school students I couldn’t grasp altogether the extraordinary insight into human psychology that Hawthorne exhibited, was Hester. I was moved by her strength in the face of such isolation by her community; I admired her pride, and her absolute dignity. I loved that she embroidered the scarlet A worn on her bosom in such a way that it cast shame on those who looked upon it, not the woman who wore the mark of adultery. I admired how she came to be respected by the Puritans who had scorned her. I envied her empathy.

Hawthorne is said to have launched a new genre, the psychological romance. Both of those “tags” appeal to me. I am a romantic at heart with a good grasp of human psychology. In retelling the story of Hester Prynne through the lens of gender (and imagining Pearl as an adult who has her own love child), I hope I have honored Hawthorne and his characters.

Without a doubt they have enriched my life, and my literary aspirations.

~ ~ ~

What the critics are saying:

“It’s a wonderful book, full of life and truth. It made me laugh and cry. Beautiful!”

“Clift renders a stirring, contemporary retelling of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic. She captures the spirit of Hester and Pearl and recasts them in a dramatic, compelling and expansive story, cutting across time and culture to excavate connections that bind the hearts of women, no matter the century.”

“Clift delivers universal truths in complex packaging – so much so that if you have never read Hawthorne it could still be said that after reading Hester’s Daughters, you have… because the themes about the human condition that Hawthorne mined so well are just as compellingly revealed in Clift’s novel.”

This is what happens when I get bored!

Medical Monopoly: A Game of Chance Over Choice

Inspired by Milton Bradley’s popular, timeless board game Monopoly in which we all got to be millionaires if we played our cards right (pun intended), a hot new game is forthcoming in which millionaires have the only cards that matter. Called “Suck It Up or Die,” or Medical Monopoly, the game was developed by Fundamentalists for Fun, a group of guys in DC, some of whom wear sweater vests, whose motto is “I’m okay, Jack”. The game is said to be a bit pricey but for anyone over 65, Medicare will kick in so long as purchase is made before November 2012.

Instead of using cute little chachkas like silver cars and thimbles to move around the board, Medical Monopoly players use colored pills. Owing to the fact that everyone has a pre-existing condition, no one gets $200 each time they pass Go, but after passing Go five times, a player receives $10,000 in pharmaceutical stocks which only devalue if the company has a product that has proven to cause cardiac arrest, chronic respiratory infection, colitis or crabs.

The board’s properties are no longer called names like Park Place or Marvin Gardens. In Medical Monopoly each property bears the name of a drug. There is, for example, Lipitor Lane, Cialis Court, and Rue Xanax. Psychotropic venues are highly valued generally as are ED locations among male players. Some properties are in bad neighborhoods; they carry risks and are therefore less valued than others and are usually sold quickly to some fool who doesn’t bother to read the Patient Packet Insert. One property, RU-486, was once considered extremely valuable but it is now a vacant lot, considered too hot to handle.

Once a player has passed his own property seven times, the property becomes known by its generic name (e.g., Paroxetene vs. Paxil Place), thus devaluing the holding significantly and rendering it’s owner powerless in the courts.

Medical Monopoly has a jail, where doctors who perform abortions or fail to perform transvaginal ultrasound are sent, and a hospital, where side effects such as bloating, blemishes, fatigue, shortness of breath, loss of appetite, joint pain, suicidal ideation, respiratory failure, organ shutdown, erections lasting more than four hours, and hair loss (among others) are treated. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are not an option (unless you know the right people who, for a fee, will refer you to a friend off-site) but there is a state of the art fertility clinic on the premises.

There is a Pharmacy in Medical Monopoly but it no longer carries contraceptives. It also does not accept Medicaid. There is also a theater where films of fetal development run continuously. Next year’s edition of the game is said to include a short video about the effects of a four hour erection.

There are good cards and bad cards. Good cards bear messages like “You have recovered from the psychosis brought on by your anti-depressant. Proceed to the pharmacy to pick up meds for your hypertension brought on by stress.” Bad cards say things such as “There is nothing more we can do about your four day erection. Get over it or consult Lorena Bobbitt.”

So far, there is no clear way to win Medical Monopoly. Critics have suggested it was developed simply to amuse the idle rich (who allegedly have no problem dabbling in drugs) while earning profits for the manufacturer’s shareholders (which are substantial since all game components are made off-shore). Both the manufacturing company and the idle rich have denied this claim.

There are several warnings attached to Medical Monopoly: “If you are pregnant or nursing or even thinking about getting pregnant or nursing, playing this game could be harmful.” “If you enjoy sex out of wedlock, this game may not be for you.” “If you are a member of Christian Mingle, consult your clergyman [sic] before purchase.” And finally, “If after playing this game you experience suicidal ideation (or a four hour erection), consult your travel agent and get the hell out of here while you still can.”

What Ever Happened to Gun Control?

Ever since Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in the head and several people were killed while she was rapping with constituents at a shopping mall I’ve been wondering why there hasn’t been any mention of gun control. I wonder the same thing about the killing of Trayvon Martin.

I thought maybe I was missing some under-the-radar political action in the name of stopping gun violence in this country so I went online to see who was doing what to stop the madness. The answer is no one. There were no postings dated beyond the 1990s other than a few statistics. That silence and the absence of calls for gun control legislation speak volumes, mainly about the NRA and its powerful lobby, which might as well be pointing a pistol straight in the face of every legislator in the country.

Here are some startling statistics I found: Between 2000 and 2010 there were a total of 147 deaths from school shootings in the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control Safe USA website on youth violence, the average number of school-associated violent events with multiple victims increased from one event per school year in 1992 to five events per year six years later. Between 1992 and 2001, shooting was the leading cause of violent deaths in schools; in 2001, 17 percent of high school students carried a weapon to school, including guns, in venues where research on the issue was underway.

Just since 2011, thirteen shooting deaths have occurred in schools in seven states. One of these deaths was a suicide and one shooting was committed by an adult; the other 11 were kids shooting other kids.

Clearly gun violence is at epidemic levels in the United States. It claims over 30,000 lives a year and for every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And still, “gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. usually occur quietly, without national press coverage, every day.”

The shootings at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, which left 15 and 32 people dead respectively, did not go unnoticed. Nor did the tragic killing of Amish school girls some years ago, although fewer people remember the women who were gunned down in an aerobics class in 2009. And yet, some states want to legalize carrying concealed weapons, even in schools. Where is reason in the face of such insanity?

Not all gun violence is carried out by kids in schools, of course, and we are not the only country with gun-related tragedies. The recent school shooting in France was the act of an anti-semitic adult just as the horror of the camp shootings in Norway was perpetrated for political reasons. But as the killing of an innocent young African-American man named Trayvon Martin reveals, there is an urgent need to curtail gun ownership and use in this country.

How likely is that to happen in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions? In 2008, for example, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Court struck down a DC law banning individuals from having handguns. Two years later, in a similar ruling, the largely conservative Court overturned a lower court decision in McDonald vs. Chicago which had banned handguns in the home for self-defense.

And how likely is gun control legislation in the face of the NRA which states on its website that “the NRA’s national campaign is designed to get America to pull the trigger on registering to vote”? What do you do to defeat a massive , well-funded organization that prides itself on bumper stickers reading “If the First Amendment doesn’t work, the Second Amendment will”?

Nevermind that the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791 when life was entirely different in a new America than it is now, states only that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (italics mine).

The last truly significant federal gun law, passed in 1994, was the Assault Weapons Ban. A subsequent bill designed to subject handguns to the same restrictions as machine guns died in Congress. Now attempts to close the so-called Gun Show Loophole languish. There is no pending gun legislation in the present 112th Congress.

How many more shootings – at schools, shopping malls, camps, gyms, neighborhoods — will it take before we come to our senses? When do our representatives in Congress tell the NRA enough is enough, and mean it? When do we stop talking about Trayvon’s tragedy and Gabby Giffords’ courage and start showing some of our own?

What the War on Women Is Really About

After weeks of pondering what the “war on women” is really about, I’ve finally had an epiphany.

It never seemed sufficient to me that laws mandating women’s bodies be medically invaded, having their access to contraception curtailed, or abrogating the constitutional right to abortion was just about women. The phrase itself — “war on women” — seemed to trivialize what was actually happening. Surely, I thought, this has to be about something bigger.

And then came my Aha! Moment. This isn’t only a war on women! That so-called war is simply part of a full-scale aggressive action aimed at President Obama and those of us who, like him, believe in a more socially responsive, responsible, and forward-thinking America. It’s an attack on liberal ideology and an attempt to defeat the left, no matter what.

What fueled my Aha! Moment was recalling something important about human history: Ever since nomadic and agrarian societies yielded to land ownership, men have warred over territory and everything on it, including women. Thus women have suffered male aggression in various forms, including sexual assault, always in the name of “winning.” The rape and pillage in history books and romance novels became commonplace once one group of male warriors wanted what their perceived enemy owned or controlled.

In today’s political wars, conflict is not only about the power and prestige one group has or is at risk of losing; it’s also about what an oppositional group values and how fiercely committed that group is to destroying its “enemy.”

It’s worth noting at this point that aggression is often sexual, especially male aggression when women are present. As feminist writer Susan Brownmiller has noted, “War provides men with the perfect psychological backdrop to give vent to their contempt for women.” The “spiritual bonding of men at arms,” she says, “confirms for men what they long suspect – that women are peripheral to the world that counts.” Rape, she adds, “accompanies territorial advance by the winning side in land conflicts as one of the spoils of war.” In the context of the current Right/Left conflict it could be argued, reasonably I would argue, that rape occurs by way of hideous legislation mandating unnecessary medical intrusion into women’s bodies. (And as the history of war teaches, “to the victor go the spoils.”)

In the current ‘war’ Mr. Obama and liberals clearly constitute the enemy. One way to defeat the enemy or deny them their power, as we know, is to demoralize the women. By stripping women of their sovereignty, robbing them of decision-making and autonomy as well as control over their own bodies, right-wing zealots are doing what male aggressors have done for millennia. Just as they did in Bangladesh and Bosnia, Nanking and Nigeria, they are symbolically raping women as a way of getting at their real enemy – men in power who have something they want. They are, to put it crudely, using the orifice to win the office.

Sound a bit over the top? Consider this. In a recent report, Amnesty International stated that “women’s bodies have become part of the terrain of conflict.” Yes, the report was about the use of rape as a weapon of war, but if sexual abuse is a deliberate strategy, can it not fairly be argued that withholding contraception and legislating medical rape also constitute a strategy on the continuum of control? Aren’t both strategies a form of social domination? Isn’t humiliation being applied in both scenarios? Surely “punitive codes of conduct” are being applied in order to weaken the enemy.

As Amnesty International has noted, “Women’s lives and their bodies have been the unacknowledged casualties of war for far too long.” Whether those casualties are overtly violent or perpetrated more subtly in order to inflict emotional torment and long-lasting psychological pain on both women and men, they are devastating weapons in the arsenal of political thought and action.
That is why it is deeply important to understand that the so-called “war on women” is part of something much bigger and more harmful that some may think. It is nothing less than a strategy aimed at overtaking people’s lives in the name of profit and personal prosperity – woman by woman — one dispensable, invisible woman at a time.

For the sake of all of us, irrespective of gender, we cannot allow that to happen.

Rising Fundamentalisms Threaten Us All

It is a tale of terror in a place of intolerable repression. It is a country where people keep secrets, live in fear, trust no one. In this place, women are forced to undergo monthly pelvic exams in their workplaces to ensure that pregnancies are carried to term. High school girls cannot graduate without similar medical invasion. Miscarriages are investigated. Women die of illegal abortions. Children are abandoned to orphanages where they languish, maladapted and malformed for lack of affection. It is a horrific story, but it is not fiction. It happened during the Ceausescu regime in Romania, which ended after 24 long years with the execution of the despot and his complicit wife.

The Handmaid’s Tale is fiction. In Margaret Atwood’s chilling story, a religious group called the “Sons of Jacob” overthrows the U.S. government late in the 20th century. Women are assigned specific roles, mainly as housekeepers or mothers, known as Handmaids. Brainwashed at training centers and bullied into submission, Handmaids learn that their role is to bear children for the elites. They are made to believe that the ills of society are their fault while men remain blameless and superior. They, too, are forced to have monthly examinations. Here’s the thing: Everything in Atwood’s compelling story has actually happened somewhere at some time. Her genius was to unite real historical or current events and practices into one time and venue in order to reveal the horror of possibility.

Both of these “tales” – one in which history suggests prologue, the other suddenly seeming eerily prescient – remind us that slogans like “the war on women” are hardly sufficient for what is happening in our own time. “Maybe none of this is about control. Maybe it isn’t really about who can own whom, who can do what to whom and get away with it, even as far as death. Maybe it isn’t about who can sit, who has to kneel or stand or lie down, legs spread open. Maybe it’s about who can do what to whom and be forgiven for it,” a character in The Handmaid’s Tale says. It is at least about that.

The fact is that whether it comes from budding fascists or raving fundamentalists of all denominations, what’s going on right now in America, and elsewhere, is that a few ideological fanatics are attempting to hold their fantasies of political and moral superiority over the rest of us, obsessing all the while about their invented theocracies. As one blogger wrote on www.veracitystew.com, it is “their vision of some sort of Puritanical utopia and should be the only goal for the country: a world where…sex is for making babies, women stay at home barefoot and pregnant rearing the children as they gaze adoringly at their man-hero husband who is the embodiment of God himself, and who is the master of God’s creation. It’s the patriarchal wet dream.”

All over the globe right now, from countries as diverse as Senegal and Saudi Arabia, India and Israel, Afghanistan and Algeria, religious fundamentalisms are fueling political actions that are grossly hostile to women and dangerously oppressive to individuals and organizations not in agreement with their agendas.

Here’s one example. A current draft report on “Traditional Values” prepared by a Russian diplomat for the International Sexual and Reproductive Rights Coalition for the United Nations General Assembly says that “all international human rights agreements…must be based on, not contradict, the traditional values of humankind. If this is not the case, they cannot be considered valid.” In the report, theories and matters of personal opinion are presented as statements of fact or law with no evidentiary support while substantial international sources are overlooked. So too are harmful “traditional values” such as female genital mutilation. There is no room for a plurality of views but there is the suggestion that human dignity can be abrogated. Diversity does not exist.

The comments of Lukasz Kaminski, president of Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance, in The New York Times recently are germane: “In order to defend ourselves in the future against other totalitarian regimes, we have to understand how they worked in the past, like a vaccine.”

Perhaps here in our own country we can begin by asking how it was that McCarthyism flourished for so long, and how it is that right now so few people — in government, the media, and among the general public – are willing to stand up to social conservatives as they wage vicious attacks on women’s reproductive rights (and even The Girl Scouts!).

We can demand that Rick Santorum explain remarks like this one made in 2008: “Satan has his sights on the United States of America. Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that are so deeply rooted in the American tradition.” Or this: “The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America.”

We can make Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin explain why they will be exempt from the wrath of misogynists just because they support Christian conservatives. We can ask them where it leaves them when a Supreme Court Justice (Scalia) adjudicates that women are not covered by the equal rights guaranteed in the 14th amendment. We can ask them how they’d feel about being subjected to state-sanctioned invasions of their person.

Or we could simply say, as one woman does in The Handmaid’s Tale, that we won’t “let the bastards grind [us] down” – and mean it.

What Has Become of the Fourth Estate?

When President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office just over fifty years ago he sounded an alarm about the unhealthy relationship between defense contractors and the U.S. military which he said threatened American democracy. “In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

Today the threat of a media-industrial complex may be even more worrisome.

In the deeply divided political landscape we find ourselves occupying as the next election grows closer, it is important to remember the role played by what Edmund Burke called “the fourth estate.” Burke, a member of the British Parliament, was addressing his colleagues in 1787 as the House of Commons allowed the press to observe its debates for the first time. Burke noted that there were three estates in Parliament: the Lords, the Bishops and the Commons. But, he said, there was a fourth estate “in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, more important by far than them all.”

Burke was acknowledging the importance of the media in a democracy, something that great thinkers as far back as Socrates understood. He was championing freedom of speech and by extension freedom of the press, which has long been recognized as crucial to the process of representative government.

Today, there is growing disillusionment about the role of media in the U.S. and elsewhere, just as there is disenchantment with political leaders and politics generally.

One reason is media consolidation. Given that the media helps shape our beliefs, often alters our perspectives, and has a huge part to play in providing critical information, it is alarming to note that six corporations now control virtually all of the media in this country. Those six big businesses play a huge role in determining which voices are heard and what issues get covered.

The “big six” are General Electric, Walt Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS. Each of them has annual revenues in the billions of dollars. (In 2009, for example, GE’s revenues totaled $157 billion.) Time Warner is the largest media conglomerate in the world, with holdings that include CNN, Turner Broadcasting, TNT, the Cartoon Network, America Online, MapQuest, Moviefone, Warner Bros. Pictures, Castle Rock and New Line Cinema, and 150 magazines.
Edward R. Murrow must be turning in his grave. So must Franklin Delano Roosevelt who claimed that the media had been monopolized by “economic royalists” who were controlling the country.

The reason this is so important is that the Fourth Estate is meant to act as a mediator between the public and the elite. The role of a free press is to be a watchdog, safeguarding the public from lies, political machinations and power grabs. Its job is to tell the truth. But increasingly the media seems to be abrogating its duty, largely because it is owned and controlled by a few people in high (corporate) places who push their own agenda to the detriment of democratic ideals.

We’ve moved a long way away from the days when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times which was brave enough to print them. Think about it: Hardly any mainstream media reported on the Occupy Wall Street movement until police brutality made it sensational. It does, however, report the Tea Party’s activities ad nauseam. One can only wonder what other events and critical issues go un-reported.

If all of this seems alarmist consider this: When President Lyndon B. Johnson told the American people in 1964 that the North Vietnamese had attacked a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin, a lazy and likely controlled press reported the story without vetting it. The Vietnam War was launched. Only years later did we learn that there was no North Vietnamese attack. Johnson simply wanted a reason to increase U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia.

Perhaps if the Fourth Estate had been doing its job, 57,000 young Americans might not have been killed and we might still be able to believe in a free press safeguarding and sharing the truth of our times.

How Hating Women Became a Full Time Job

“The hatred and distrust of women,” Webster’s definition of the word misogyny, has always been insidious, perverse and destructive. Now it is also out of the closet, thanks to Republican fundamentalists in Congress who love attacking women’s human rights instead of tackling tough economic issues. It’s out thanks to men of the cloth who call themselves Christian while hiding behind each other’s black skirts as they destroy women’s lives (and deny their own sexual peccadilloes.) And yes, it’s out because of some nasty women like Karen Handel, the deposed Vice President of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, who mounted such vitriolic attacks on Planned Parenthood and the multitude of women they serve.

Misogyny is nothing new, although it gained ground big time once patriarchy came into vogue. It has existed since early Christianity when men forced women into convents, banned and beheaded their wives, and burned women at the stake for witchcraft. It continued as they locked women away in mental institutions, removed their ovaries at the least sign of active sexuality, and paraded them, trussed like chickens, at Victorian soirees. It was evident when women were tortured for wanting to vote, when they were denied credit in their own names and denied jobs because of their reproductive capacity. It reared its ugly head whenever they sought the pulpit, and again when they were charged with promiscuity upon reporting rape.

Ah, yes, rape. Can’t believe the girls on that one. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) wants to redefine the language of the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape or incest. He wants the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act to read “forcible rape,” because – you know, she might have been wearing a short skirt when she was attacked. Maybe she’d even smiled at her rapist over a beer. But rape is, by definition, forcible sexual assault! More than 150 Republicans signed onto the bill, and so did a few conservative Democrats. The proposed bill also has a provision that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform an abortion even if it threatened a woman’s or girl’s life. This is the party of “family values?” I’d call it the party that hates women. As Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said, it reveals a “heinous disregard for the health and well-being of women in America.”

Of course if lawmakers and the Church have their way, there will be more, not fewer, unintended pregnancies. Even though President Obama revised his plan regarding birth control coverage so that insurance companies, not religious institutions, would provide contraception for all women in their workplace, John Boehner (R- Ohio) and his pals threatened to use legislation to derail the proposal. Nevermind that 99 percent of all women have used contraception or that 58 percent of Catholics responding to polls supported the plan. So do several major Catholic universities and hospitals who already offer contraceptive coverage.

How out of touch – or women hating — can these guys be? Well, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for a broader religious exemption from the new contraceptive coverage rule that removes contraception altogether from the Affordable Care Act. Where do these Neanderthals come from?

Then there’s Rick Santorum’s recent rant: “They are taking faith and crushing it. When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. … What’s left in France became the guillotine. … if we follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.” (Thankfully for Mr. Santorum, psychiatric care is not being debated.)

But it isn’t only women’s human rights and health the Church wants to control. In 2010 the Vatican attempted a decree that made the ordination of women one of the gravest crimes in ecclesiastical law, right up there with–can you believe it–the sexual abuse of minors.

Where, and when, does this misogyny stop?

There is a Chinese proverb: “A wife married is like a pony bought; I’ll ride her and whip her as I like.” An Orthodox Jewish prayer says, “Thank God I was not born a woman.” The philosopher Nietzche declared that “woman was God’s second mistake.” Freud asked “What do women want?”

The answer is so simple and yet so profound. We want not to be bound or whipped. We want to thank God we are women. And we want to be free of the machinations and misogyny of God’s first mistake.

Is that really something to be so afraid of and to hate?