A Story in Pictures

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.

Wow. The previous administration didn’t even have any pretensions about giving a damn about women.

That’s just beautiful.

hell yes!

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

Love the red.

Red is the color of my love…for Obama!

This is amazing. I am going to show this to EVERYONE I know!

I’ll add a WOW!

Lookin’ good, ladies.

Next time, a woman in that chair.

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.

the contrast is… striking.

to repeat, ad nausum: WOW

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?

You are aware that despite Obama’s popularity, he is not, in fact, President of Earth?

That really says it all, doesn’t it.

Suoer WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this the beginning of a new era? I sure hope so.

What an incredible visual – thanks for posting this!

And Mel, that was an excellent and concise explanation of the whole “partial-birth abortion” issue.

Well done.

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.

Love this!

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

November 4, 2008 – What a difference a day makes…24 little hours!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

How come all the women except Pilosi are wearing red blazers?

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 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.

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

Powerful post. Love how pictures can convey so much without a single word needed.

The first picture makes me want to hurl. The smugness is painful. Fuckers.

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.