This ought to be interesting...

Link...

Beanster has the latest. (Money quote: "Relief is in sight.")

From the Washington Post:

As women gain visibility in the blogosphere, they are targets of sexual harassment and threats. Men are harassed too, and lack of civility is an abiding problem on the Web. But women, who make up about half the online community, are singled out in more starkly sexually threatening terms -- a trend that was first evident in chat rooms in the early 1990s and is now moving to the blogosphere, experts and bloggers said.

Stacey X has introduced a pair of interesting bills.

HB995 (PDF format) would require the petitioner (i.e. the person seeking an order of protection) to pay all legal costs if the order of protection is denied.

HB990 (PDF format) would give the respondent (i.e. the person the petitioner is seeking protection from) the right to conduct discovery and to depose the petitioner (the person seeking protection).

Does the second one open up fishing expeditions into matters unrelated to the order of protection and create an opportunity to intimidate the person seeking protection? Does the first one also introduce an element of financial risk that, say, a battered spouse might not be willing or able to take?

Just asking, because I don't know and I haven't studied the law these bills would amend or what problem with the law they are trying to fix.

UPDATE: It occurred to me that the first one might actually be an improvement if the petitioner currently always pays, and this would make it so the respondent has to pay if an order is granted. But I don't know how it works now. Can any lawyers out there explain what this is all about?

UPDATE: Checked the existing law. It says:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the petitioner shall not be required to pay any filing fees, litigation taxes or any other costs associated with the filing, issuance, service or enforcement of an order of protection authorized by this part upon the filing of the petition. The judge shall assess court costs and litigation taxes at the hearing of the petition or upon dismissal of the petition. If the court, after the hearing, issues or extends an order of protection, petitioner's court costs and attorney fees shall be assessed against the respondent.

Here's what Stacey X's bill would make it say:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the petitioner shall not be required to pay any filing fees, litigation taxes or any other costs associated with the filing, issuance, service or enforcement of an order of protection authorized by this part upon the filing of the petition. The judge shall assess court costs and litigation taxes at the hearing of the petition or upon dismissal of the petition. If the court, after the hearing, issues or extends an order of protection, then the petitioner's court costs and attorney fees shall be assessed against the respondent. If the court, after the hearing, dismisses the petition, then the respondent's court costs and attorney fees shall be assessed against the petitioner.

So it looks like under the old law the petitioner only had to pay their own costs if the petition was denied. Now the petitioner would have to pay their own AND the respondent's costs, which could now be even more if they hired expensive lawyers to do $50,000 worth of discovery and depositions.

UPDATE: The third semi-related bill (PDF format) in this trifecta would assess all legal fees of the accused to an accuser if the court finds that the accuser "knowingly" makes false accusations of sexual abuse and the accusations are thrown out, and would also hold the accuser in contempt of court. I suppose "knowingly" is the key here, but again this is a bill that could give an accuser and/or their lawyer pause. And what "the court finds" is a roll of the dice sometimes.

UPDATE: CE Petro already covered this last week. I'm a little behind sometimes.

C.E. Petro has this analysis of Stacy X's controversial bill and what's really behind it.

UPDATE: Joe Powell has more.

UPDATE: Michael Silence weighs in: "The party is hellbent on going down in flames."

Egalia (the real one): "Apparently, there are no women in charge of women's health or reproductive services." Go read about the latest idiocy she's referring to.

As you are probably aware, SJR 127, which calls for a Tennessee constitutional amendment restricting abortion rights, passed overwhelmingly in the Tennessee Senate last month and has moved on to the House. (Nine Senators voted against it, including U.S. Senate candidate Rosalind Kurita.)

The local paper had yet another point-counterpoint editorial feature about it yesterday. As the Mrs. noted, the anti-choice position was presented by a man, who is also the president of state's biggest anti-choice organization. The pro-choice point of view was, of course, presented by a woman. Odd how it always seems to work out that way, huh?

Anyway, the anti-choice advocate reiterates that the amendment is not meant to restrict abortion rights (yeah, right), but rather to prevent "activist judges" from making the decision and instead let the people decide the issue.

Actually, that's a great idea. Let's let the people decide. Specifically, let's "let" women decide for themselves, and keep the courts and the legislature out of it. What is it with these nanny government Republicans that makes that such a difficult concept to comprehend?

The official NCAA Blog has posted a lengthy (18:49) audio interview with Sue Donohoe, the vice president for Division I Women’s Basketball.  I guess it qualifies as a "podcast."  If you have the time, it's a fascinating listen. 

I am still unconvinced that the geographic rationale offered for the Lady Vols' seeding, which is discussed at some length, is the whole story for our team's 2-seed.  (Fast forward to the 11:00 mark if you want to hear the specific Cleveland Bracket/Lady Vols discussion.)  But this is as close as you're likely to get to being inside the room with the Selection Committee.

Link...

Probably not the best time to bring this up, but the KNS had an article yesterday saying that UT is negotiating with Pat Summitt for a new contract and that her current compensation package totals $824,500 per year.

Bruce Pearl just got an extended six year contract that averages out to $1.3 million per year after one year at the helm. Based on this season's turnaround alone, Pearl probably deserves that if any college coach does.

But, by that reckoning shouldn't Pat Summitt get at least $1 million? As the article points out, she's the winningest basketball coach in the NCAA. Her Lady Vols just won their second consecutive SEC Championship. She has over 900 career wins. Not to mention six NCAA Championships, 11 SEC Championships, and 13 regular season titles with the Lady Vols. She's a six time SEC Coach of the Year, and seven time NCAA Coach of the Year. She's been head coach at UT for 30+ years.

She's done as much to promote UT sports as any coach ever. What has $2+ million Phil Fulmer done for you lately? And Summitt's players are disciplined on the court, off the court, and in the classroom.

Anyway, Pat Summitt should score a nice contract. Unless there's some kind of "glass ceiling" at work over there. And that would be a shame.

(Does any female college coach in the U.S. currently make $1 million? It would be cool if Pat Summitt was the first.)

UPDATE: KNS reports (registration rquired) that final details of Summitt's contract are being worked out, and that she will become the first women's college coach in the million dollar club.

1776, Abigail Adams writes, "If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

Some may wonder why there is a need for a Women's History Month. This list of women's achievements in just the last century provide insight.

Also, take a look at Thoughts of an Average Woman for additional Women's History Month insight.

1902 - Australian women get the right to vote in all federal elections.

TN House Majority Leader wants to give the equal pay law some teeth.  Right now the law, as written, has baby teeth at best. 

House Majority Leader Kim McMillan wants to "put some teeth" in the state's equal pay law by allowing women to sue for punitive damages in addition to lost wages.

"Women in this state, in all avenues of business, make comparably less for performing the exact same work as men," said McMillan, a Democrat who practices law in Clarksville.

 

Current law allows wage differences based on seniority, merit, quality of production or any "other reasonable differential" other than gender. McMillan would limit the "other" category to "bona fide factors" such as education, training or experience.

Under a 2004 law, employers found to have knowingly violated equal pay rules must make up the difference to their employee. A second violation would lead to a payment of double the difference, and a third violation to triple payments.

The new proposal would give women the additional right to sue for punitive damages beyond the wage difference. Punitive damages are meant to deter and punish misconduct.

Now, you can't expect this amendment to come without opposition.

The KNS has a big full page ad for their Women Today Expo 2006. I could just rerun the same thing I posted about it at that "other blog" for the last three or four years. But that wouldn't be sporting.

This year's featured celebrity speakers include a supermodel talking about "body image and self-esteem" and a home improvement show host talking about "bedroom redesign." There are also, of course, seminars on cooking, fashion, makeup, etc., all designed to help today's woman perform better in the kitchen and look good for her man while performing wifely duties in their newly redesigned and tres chic bedroom.

(The Paula Deen Cooking School actually sounds pretty good, and I might have to attend that myself.)

Exhibitors include the usual lineup of local hair salons, cosmetic reps, department stores, fashion and jewelry stores, liposuction, botox and laser hair/wrinkle/blemish removal clinics, herbal weight-loss products, and more.

I haven't been able to find any seminars on education/job training, career/small business development, dealing with discrimination and sexual harassment on the job or domestic violence at home, reproductive health, establishing credit and planning for financial independence, sources of legal aid for collecting child support from deadbeat dads, or anything like that. A co-host of some network morning show will be there to talk about "Living the American Dream." Maybe she's going to cover all that.

This article by Bonnie Erbe brought this topic back in my thoughts a couple of months after I was asked if I was a feminist:

Link...

I had to stop and think, what is a feminist? What is the definition? I could not immediately come up with the definition, so I asked the person what is their definition for feminist. They could not come up with an answer either.

Problem solved, I did not have to answer the question.

However, I looked up the definition when I got home.
1. a doctrine advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
2. a movement for the attainment of such rights.
3. feminine character.

Thus, yes I guess I could call myself a feminist. I like to work, I like what I do for a living, and yes I like to earn. Growing up with multiple brothers I have always felt equal to men (except physically, of course). I have always tried to achieve equality with men socially, politically, and economically. My husband certainly treats me as an equal. He is the best.

To this day some people think being a feminist is not a good thing. Are feminist too butch? I don't think so. Do feminist hate men? I know I don't. Do feminist want to be independent, equal, safe, and self-supporting? Most definitely.