The US National Committee for UNIFEM and the National Council for Research on Women Join Forces on a National Conference to Promote Efforts Aimed at Ending Violence against Women. The conference is a collaborative initiative between two preeminent organizations working towards ending this global pandemic.

The US National Committee for the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM USNC), and the National Council for Research on Women (NCRW) have announced plans for a joint-effort to raise awareness about violence against women and girls as well as the latest thinking and strategies on how to confront it. Together the two organizations will produce a national conference, Strategic Imperatives for Ending Violence Against Women: Creating Linkages to Education, Economic Security, and Health, hosted by The Women and Gender Studies Program at Hunter College, CUNY (The City University of New York) in New York City, to take place June 11-12, 2010.

The conference will gather experts and advocates connecting and strategizing to overcome violence against women. By convening leaders from business, academia, philanthropy, advocacy, nonprofit and policy communities, the partners will offer an environment where participants can create action plans while gaining a better understanding of both UNIFEM’s work and the NCRW network’s groundbreaking research. A variety of experts will explore strategies to reduce gender-based violence and their intersections with social investments.

“The most compelling means of demonstrating the immediacy of ending violence against women are the soaring recent statistics on this issue. When 70% of women worldwide are affected by gender-based violence, we must take action.” said Carol Poteat-Buchanan, President of the US National Committee for UNIFEM. “Our upcoming national conference will create a forum for ideas and action plans to enhance our work to end violence against women.”

“We need to look at the myriad circumstances that fuel violence and cultures of violence, including political and economic insecurity, inadequate education, and social inequality,” said Linda Basch, President of the National Council for Research on Women. “In this conference, we want to identify and develop solutions that address these challenges.”

The conference is open to the public. More information as well as online registration can be found later this month on the US National Committee for UNIFEM’s website.

About the partners:

The US National Committee for UNIFEM (UNIFEM USNC) is one of 18 national committees that support the mission of UNIFEM. Chartered in 1983, the US National Committee expands support and raises funds within the United States for UNIFEM. Through the help of the Board of Directors, Advisory Council, local chapters and members, the UNIFEM USNC proudly supports UNIFEM projects in over 100 countries around the globe. Local chapters promote advocacy and education through planned events focused on gaining a broader understanding of issues facing women on a global scale, providing advocacy in the US for issues facing women, and raising funds to support UNIFEM and USNC.

The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) provides financial and technical assistance to innovative programs and strategies to foster women’s empowerment and gender equality. Placing the advancement of women’s human rights at the center of all of its efforts, UNIFEM focuses its activities in four strategic areas: (1) reducing feminized poverty, (2) ending violence against women, (3) reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS among women and girls, and (4) achieving gender equality in democratic governance in times of peace as well as war.

The National Council for Research on Women (NCRW) is a network of 120 leading research, policy, and advocacy centers committed to improving the lives of women and girls. Harnessing the power of more than 2,000 experts in the United States and among its international affiliates, NCRW provides the latest research and information to stimulate fully informed debates, effective policies and inclusive practices. With a Corporate Circle of major companies and a Presidents Circle of leaders in higher education, the Council works in partnership with business, academic, non-profit and philanthropic organizations, to generate transformative change, both nationally and globally.

In the chaos of conflict and disaster, women and girls can suffer unspeakable violence, exploitation and abuse. The odds are against them as they struggle to survive and protect themselves and their families.

Urge Congressional leaders to support the International Violence Against Women Act and ensure that Congress passes it without delay. This legislation will empower women to claim their most fundamental human rights. With the necessary resources for medical care, counseling, economic opportunities and education, women and girls can win in the fight against violence.

To sign the following petition, please click here.

We, the undersigned, support the International Violence Against Women Act. We urge you, as leaders of the Congress, to support this bipartisan legislation to stop violence against women and girls worldwide. We ask your help to ensure Congress passes it quickly.

As a supporter of the International Rescue Committee, I am concerned about violence against women living in conflict zones. I find the horrific abuse of women’s rights in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan and Pakistan an outrage on our conscience. And after natural disasters, such as the terrible earthquake in Haiti, I know that women are vulnerable to violence, exploitation and abuse.

The United States must lead the way to ensure a safer, more secure future for women and girls. This legislation is a critical first step towards curbing violence against women by aiding survivors, protecting those still vulnerable and preventing further violence through desperately needed international programs and foreign policy measures. We have a responsibility to protect and empower women and girls around the world who face unspeakable violence and abuse.

Mezhdunarodnyi den’ rabotnitz, Moscow 1920 — Women’s Day or Working Women’s Day is a day of international solidarity, and a day for reviewing the strength and organisation of proletarian women.

But this is not a special day for women alone. The 8th of March is a historic and memorable day for the workers and peasants, for all the Russian workers and for the workers of the whole world. In 1917, on this day, the great February revolution broke out.[2] It was the working women of Petersburg who began this revolution; it was they who first decided to raise the banner of opposition to the tsar and his associates. And so, working women’s day is a double celebration for us.

But if this is a general holiday for all the proletariat, why do we call it “Women’s Day”? Why then do we hold special celebrations and meetings aimed above all at the women workers and the peasant women? Doesn’t this jeopardise the unity and solidarity of the working class? To answer these questions, we have to look back and see how Women’s Day came about and for what purpose it was organised.

How and why was Women’s Day organised?
Not very long ago, in fact about ten years ago, the question of women’s equality, and the question of whether women could take part in government alongside men was being hotly debated. The working class in all capitalist countries struggled for the rights of working women: the bourgeoisie did not want to accept these rights. It was not in the interest of the bourgeoisie to strengthen the vote of the working class in parliament; and in every country they hindered the passing of laws that gave the right to working women.

Socialists in North America insisted upon their demands for the vote with particular persistence. On the 28th of February, 1909, the women socialists of the USA organised huge demonstrations and meetings all over the country demanding political rights for working women. This was the first “Woman’s Day”. The initiative on organising a woman’s day thus belongs to the working women of America.

In 1910, at the Second International Conference of Working Women, Clara Zetkin [3] brought forward the question of organising an International Working Women’s Day. The conference decided that every year, in every country, they should celebrate on the same day a “Women’s Day” under the slogan “The vote for women will unite our strength in the struggle for socialism”.

During these years, the question of making parliament more democratic, i.e., of widening the franchise and extending the vote to women, was a vital issue. Even before the first world war, the workers had the right to vote in all bourgeois countries except Russia. [4] Only women, along with the insane, remained without these rights. Yet, at the same time, the harsh reality of capitalism demanded the participation of women in the country’s economy. Every year there was an increase in the number of women who had to work in the factories and workshops, or as servants and charwomen. Women worked alongside men and the wealth of the country was created by their hands. But women remained without the vote.

But in the last years before the war the rise in prices forced even the most peaceful housewife to take an interest in questions of politics and to protest loudly against the bourgeoisie’s economy of plunder. “Housewives uprisings” became increasingly frequent, flaring up at different times in Austria, England, France and Germany.

The working women understood that it wasn’t enough to break up the stalls at the market or threaten the odd merchant: they understood that such action doesn’t bring down the cost of living. You have to change the politics of the government. And to achieve this, the working class has to see that the franchise is widened.?It was decided to have a Woman’s Day in every country as a form of struggle in getting working women to vote. This day was to be a day of international solidarity in the fight for common objectives and a day for reviewing the organised strength of working women under the banner of socialism.

The first International Women’s Day
The decision taken at the Second International Congress of Socialist Women was not left on paper. It was decided to hold the first International Women’s Day on the 19th of March, 1911.

This date was not chosen at random. Our German comrades picked the day because of its historic importance for the German proletariat. On the 19th of March in the year of 1848 revolution, the Prussian king recognised for the first time the strength of the armed people and gave way before the threat of a proletarian uprising. Among the many promises he made, which he later failed to keep, was the introduction of votes for women.

After January 11, efforts were made in Germany and Austria to prepare for Women’s Day. They made known the plans for a demonstration both by word of mouth and in the press. During the week before Women’s Day two journals appeared: The Vote for Women in Germany and Women’s Day in Austria. The various articles devoted to Women’s Day – “Women and Parliament”, “The Working Women and Municipal Affairs”, “What Has the Housewife got to do with Politics?”, etc. – analysed thoroughly the question of the equality of women in the government and in society. All the articles emphasised the same point: that it was absolutely necessary to make parliament more democratic by extending the franchise to women.

The first International Women’s Day took place in 1911. Its success exceeded all expectations. Germany and Austria on Working Women’s Day was one seething, trembling sea of women. Meetings were organised everywhere – in the small towns and even in the villages halls were packed so full that they had to ask male workers to give up their places for the women.
This was certainly the first show of militancy by the working woman. Men stayed at home with their children for a change, and their wives, the captive housewives, went to meetings. During the largest street demonstrations, in which 30,000 were taking part, the police decided to remove the demonstrators’ banners: the women workers made a stand. In the scuffle that followed, bloodshed was averted only with the help of the socialist deputies in parliament.

In 1913 International Women’s Day was transferred to the 8th of March. This day has remained the working women’s day of militancy.

Is Women’s Day necessary?
Women’s Day in [North] America and Europe had amazing results. It’s true that not a single bourgeois parliament thought of making concessions to the workers or of responding to the women’s demands. For at that time, the bourgeoisie was not threatened by a socialist revolution.

But Women’s Day did achieve something. It turned out above all to be an excellent method of agitation among the less political of our proletarian sisters. They could not help but turn their attention to the meetings, demonstrations, posters, pamphlets and newspapers that were devoted to Women’s Day. Even the politically backward working woman thought to herself: “This is our day, the festival for working women”, and she hurried to the meetings and demonstrations. After each Working Women’s Day, more women joined the socialist parties and the trade unions grew. Organisations improved and political consciousness developed.?Women’s Day served yet another function; it strengthened the international solidarity of the workers. The parties in different countries usually exchange speakers for this occasion: German comrades go to England, English comrades go to Holland, etc. The international cohesion of the working class has become strong and firm and this means that the fighting strength of the proletariat as a whole has grown.

These are the results of working women’s day of militancy. The day of working women’s militancy helps increase the consciousness and organisation of proletarian women. And this means that its contribution is essential to the success of those fighting for a better future for the working class.

Working Women’s Day in Russia
The Russian working woman first took part in “Working Women’s Day” in 1913. This was a time of reaction when tsarism held the workers and peasants in its vice-like a grip. There could be no thought of celebrating “Working Women’s Day” by open demonstrations. But the organised working women were able to mark their international day. Both the legal newspapers of the working class – the Bolshevik Pravda and the Menshevik Looch – carried articles about the International Women’s Day: [5] they carried special articles, portraits of some of those taking part in the working women’s movement and greetings from comrades such as August Bebel and Clara Zetkin.[6]

In those bleak years meetings were forbidden. But in Petrograd, at the Kalashaikovsky Exchange, those women workers who belonged to the [Bolshevik] Party organised a public forum on “The Woman Question”. Entrance was five kopecks. This was an illegal meeting but the hall was absolutely packed. Members of the party spoke. But this animated “closed” meeting had hardly finished when the police, alarmed at such proceedings, intervened and arrested many of the speakers.

It was of great significance for the workers of the world that the women of Russia, who lived under tsarist repression, should join in and somehow manage to acknowledge with actions International Women’s Day. This was a welcome sign that Russia was waking up and the tsarist prisons and gallows were powerless to kill the workers’ spirit of struggle and protest.

In 1914, Working Women’s Day in Russia was better organised. Both the workers’ newspapers concerned themselves with the celebration. Our comrades put a lot of effort into the preparation of Working Women’s Day. Because of police intervention, they didn’t manage to organise a demonstration. Those involved in the planning found themselves in the tsarist prisons, and many were later sent to the cold north. For the slogan “for the working women’s vote” had naturally become in Russia an open call for the overthrow of tsarist autocracy.

Working Women’s Day during the imperialist war
The first world war broke out. The working class in every country was covered with the blood of war. [7] In 1915 and 1916 Working Women’s Day abroad was a feeble affair – left-wing socialist women who shared the views of the Russian Bolshevik Party tried to turn March 8th into a demonstration of working women against the war. But those socialist party traitors in Germany and other countries would not allow the socialist women to organise gatherings; and the socialist women were refused passports to go to neutral countries where the working women wanted to hold international meetings and show that in spite of the desire of the bourgeoisie, the spirit of international solidarity lived on.

In 1915, it was only in Norway that they managed to organise an international demonstration on Women’s Day; representatives from Russia and neutral countries attended. There could be no thought of organising a Women’s Day in Russia, for here the power of tsarism and the military machine was unbridled.

Then came the great, great year of 1917. Hunger, cold and trials of war broke the patience of the women workers and the peasant women of Russia. In 1917, on the 8th of March (23rd of February), on Working Women’s Day, they came out boldly in the streets of Petrograd. The women – some were workers, some were wives of soldiers – demanded “Bread for our children” and “The return of our husbands from the trenches”. At this decisive time the protests of the working women posed such a threat that even the tsarist security forces did not dare take the usual measures against the rebels but looked on in confusion at the stormy sea of the people’s anger.

The 1917 Working Women’s Day has become memorable in history. On this day the Russian women raised the torch of proletarian revolution and set the world on fire. The February Revolution marks its beginning from this day.

Our call to battle
“Working Women’s Day” was first organised ten years ago in the campaign for the political equality of women and the struggle for socialism. This aim has been achieved by the working-class women in Russia. In the soviet republic the working women and peasants don’t need to fight for the franchise and for civil rights. They have already won these rights. The Russian workers and the peasant women are equal citizens – in their hands is a powerful weapon to make the struggle for a better life easier – the right to vote, to take part in the soviets and in all collective organisations. [8]

But rights alone are not enough. We have to learn to make use of them. The right to vote is a weapon which we have to learn to master for our own benefit, and for the good of the workers’ republic. In the two years of soviet power, life itself has not been absolutely changed. We are only in the process of struggling for communism and we are surrounded by the world we have inherited from the dark and repressive past. The shackles of the family, of housework, of prostitution still weigh heavily on the working woman. Working women and peasant women can only rid themselves of this situation and achieve equality in life itself, and not just in law, if they put all their energies into making Russia a truly communist society.

And to quicken this coming, we have first to put right Russia’s shattered economy. We must consider the solving of our two most immediate tasks – the creation of a well organised and politically conscious labour force and the re-establishment of transport. If our army of labour works well we shall soon have steam engines once more; the railways will begin to function. This means that the working men and women will get the bread and firewood they desperately need.

Getting transport back to normal will speed up the victory of communism. And with the victory of communism will come the complete and fundamental equality of women. This is why the message of “Working Women’s Day” must this year be: “Working women, peasant women, mothers, wives and sisters, all efforts to helping the workers and comrades in overcoming the chaos of the railways and re-establishing transport. Everyone in the struggle for bread and firewood and raw materials.”
Last year the slogan of the Working Women’s Day was: “All to the victory of the Red Front”. [9] Now we call on working women to rally their strength on a new bloodless front – the labour front! The Red Army defeated the external enemy because it was organised, disciplined and ready for self sacrifice. With organisation, hard work, self-discipline and self-sacrifice, the workers’ republic will overcome the internal foe – the dislocation (of) transport and the economy, hunger, cold and disease. “Everyone to the victory on the bloodless labour front! Everyone to this victory!”

The new tasks of Working Women’s Day
The October Revolution gave women equality with men as far as civil rights are concerned. The women of the Russian proletariat, who were not so long ago the most unfortunate and oppressed, are now in the Soviet Republic able to show with pride to comrades in other countries the path to political equality through the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and soviet power.

The situation is very different in the capitalist countries where women are still overworked and underprivileged. In these countries the voice of the working woman is weak and lifeless. It is true that in various countries – in Norway, Australia, Finland and in some of the states of North America – women had won civil rights even before the war. [10]

In Germany, after the kaiser had been thrown out and a bourgeois republic established, headed by the “compromisers”, [11] thirty-six women entered parliament – but not a single communist!

In 1919, in England, a woman was for the first time elected a member of parliament. But who was she? A “lady”. That means a landowner, an aristocrat. [12]

In France, too, the question has been coming up lately of extending the franchise to women.

But what use are these rights to working women in the framework of bourgeois parliaments? While the power is in the hands of the capitalists and property owners, no political rights will save the working woman from the traditional position of slavery in the home and society. The French bourgeoisie are ready to throw another sop to the working class, in the face of growing Bolshevik ideas amongst the proletariat: they are prepared to give women the vote.[13]

Mr Bourgeois sir – it is too late!
After the experience of the Russian October Revolution, it is clear to every working woman in France, in England and in other countries that only the dictatorship of the working class, only the power of the soviets can guarantee complete and absolute equality, the ultimate victory of communism will tear down the century-old chains of repression and lack of rights. If the task of “International Working Women’s Day” was earlier in the face of the supremacy of the bourgeois parliaments to fight for the right of women to vote, the working class now has a new task: to organise working women around the fighting slogans of the Third International. Instead of taking part in the working of the bourgeois parliament, listen to the call from Russia – “Working women of all countries! Organise a united proletarian front in the struggle against those who are plundering the world! Down with the parliamentarism of the bourgeoisie! We welcome soviet power! Away with inequalities suffer by the working men and women! We will fight with the workers for the triumph of world communism!”

This call was first heard amidst the trials of a new order, in the battles of civil war it will be heard by and it will strike a chord in the hearts of working women of other countries. The working woman will listen and believe this call to be right. Until recently they thought that if they managed to send a few representatives to parliament their lives would be easier and the oppression of capitalism more bearable. Now they know otherwise.

Only the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of soviet power will save them from the world of suffering, humiliations and inequality that makes the life of the working woman in the capitalist countries so hard. The “Working Woman’s Day” turns from a day of struggle for the franchise into an international day of struggle for the full and absolute liberation of women, which means a struggle for the victory of the soviets and for communism!

DOWN WITH THE WORLD OF PROPERTY AND THE POWER OF CAPITAL!?AWAY WITH INEQUALITY, LACK OF RIGHTS AND THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN – THE LEGACY OF THE BOURGEOIS WORLD!?FORWARD TO THE INTERNATIONAL UNITY OF WORKING WOMEN AND MALE WORKERS IN THE STRUGGLE FOR THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT – THE PROLETARIAT OF BOTH SEXES!

Notes
2. Tsarist Russia still used the old “Julian” calendar of the Middle Ages, which was 13 days behind the “Gregorian” calendar used in most of the rest of the world. Thus March 8 was “February 23? in the old calendar. This is why the revolution of March 1917 is called “the February Revolution” and that of November 1917 “the October Revolution.”

3. Clara Zetkin was a leader of the German socialist movement and the main leader of the international working women’s movement. Kollontai was a delegate to the international conference representing the St. Petersburg textile workers.

4. This is not accurate. The vast majority of unskilled workers in England, France and Germany could not vote. A smaller percentage of working-class men in the United States could not vote – in particular immigrant men. In the south of the US black men were often prevented from voting. The middle class suffrage movements in all the European countries did not fight to give votes to either working-class women or men.

5. At its 1903 Congress, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party divided into two wings, the Bolsheviks (which means “majority” in Russian) and the Mensheviks (which means “minority”). In the period between 1903 and 1912 (when the division became permanent) the two wings worked together, unified for a while, split again. Many socialists, including entire local organisations, worked with both wings or tried to stay neutral in the disputes. Kollontai, an active socialist and fighter for women’s rights since 1899, was at first independent of the factions, then became a Menshevik for several years. She joined the Bolsheviks in 1915 and became the only woman member of their central committee. She also served as commissar of welfare of the Soviet Republic and head of the women’s section of the Bolshevik Party.

6. August Bebel (1840-1913) was a leader of the German Social-Democratic Party. He was a well-known supporter of the women’s movement and author of a classic book on Marxism and women Die Frauenfrage, translated into English as Woman Under Socialism, which has been translated into many languages.

7. When war broke out in 1914, there was a massive split in the international socialist movement. The majority of the social democrats in Germany, Austria, France and England supported the war. Other socialists, such Kollontai, Lenin, the Bolshevik Party and Leon Trotsky in Russia, Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg in Germany, and Eugene Debs in the United States, to name some of the leaders, denounced the pro-war socialists for being traitors to the working class and to the fight for a workers’ revolution.

8. The word “soviet” means “council”. Soviets, or workers’ councils, are democratic bodies in which delegates are elected in factory and neighbourhood meetings and are controlled by their sister and brother workers. The representatives of the soviets must report back to their constituency and are subject to immediate recall.

9. After the working-class seizure of power in October/November 1917, the Russian workers’ state was faced with two major problems. One was an invasion, including the United States; the second was resistance by the pro-monarchist and pro-capitalist elements in Russia. Primarily under the direction of Leon Trotsky, the soviets created a workers’ and peasants’ army, the Red Army, which defeated the forces of counterrevolution.

10. Women had won the right to vote in several of the states of the United States prior to World War I. A federal amendment guaranteeing all women over 21 the right to vote was passed on August 26, 1920. It was not until the 1960s that the last legal barriers to working-class people voting in the United States were abolished.

11. The “compromisers” Kollontai is referring to are the Social Democratic Party leaders who formed a new capitalist government in Germany after the fall of the kaiser in 1918. They actively supported counterrevolution after coming to office.

12. While the aristocratic Lady Astor was indeed the first woman to serve in the British parliament, the first woman elected to parliament was the Irish revolutionary Constance Markievicz. Together with other members of the Sinn Fein party, she refused to take her seat in the imperial parliament.

13. French women did not finally get the vote until after World War II.

By DORCHEN LEIDHOLDT and JANE MANNING

NEW YORKERS have heard a stream of grave accusations this week that our governor tried to obstruct a domestic assault case against his aide David Johnson. But one element of this story has received less attention than it deserves: After Mr. Johnson’s girlfriend called 911 and reported that he had ripped off her clothes, thrown her against a dresser and choked her, Mr. Johnson was not even arrested.

In this, Mr. Johnson did not receive preferential treatment; the police response would likely have been the same for any defendant, whether he worked for the governor or not. The police wrote up the incident as “harassment in the second degree,” which is not even a misdemeanor but a violation, a trivial charge comparable to disorderly conduct. Incredibly, in New York, choking by compressing someone’s neck is not considered assault unless there is evidence that the victim suffered physical injury.

Advocates for battered women have been working for years to change this. Cutting off someone’s air supply is an agonizing, terrifying and life-threatening form of abuse, and New York needs a statute that makes it a crime to choke someone whether physical injury is evident or not.

Choking is often more dangerous than punching, shoving and other kinds of abuse. If an attacker applies 11 pounds of pressure for just 10 seconds, the victim can be rendered unconscious. With greater pressure, death can occur within minutes. And even after the attacker lets up, a victim can collapse and die hours or even days later because of underlying damage to the neck, or to the brain due to lack of oxygen. Ten percent of violent deaths in the United States are strangulations.
And yet choking very often leaves few or no visible signs. In a study of 100 cases of strangulation, the San Diego District Attorney’s office found that in 62 of them, police officers reported no visible injuries, and in 22 others, signs like redness or scratch marks on the neck were too minor to photograph. The study also found that when a victim’s injuries were not visible or consisted of faint redness, the police treated the attacks as trivial.

About half the states in the country have laws specifically addressing choking. But in states that have not enacted such laws, including New York, batterers have an incentive to choose choking and suffocation over other forms of attack. They often escape criminal charges and, perhaps emboldened by their impunity, choke their victims again. A 2008 study of 310 homicides in 11 American cities, published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, found that 43 percent of women who were murdered by intimate partners had experienced at least one episode of choking before their killing.

This tragic statistic, at least, contains a kernel of hope: If we can change our criminal justice system to take choking seriously, we may be able to head off fatal attacks.
On Wednesday, State Senator Eric Schneiderman introduced legislation that would criminalize intentional choking and suffocation in our state. Under this law, choking someone into unconsciousness would be a violent felony. Abusers who terrorize their victims through choking or suffocation without causing unconsciousness or physical injury would face a lower-level felony charge.

New Yorkers looking for some good to come of the latest disgrace in our state capital can find it in Senator Schneiderman’s bill. If enacted, it would ensure that when a victim of choking calls 911, the police can arrest the attacker on serious charges befitting a vicious and dangerous crime.

Dorchen Leidholdt is the director of Sanctuary for Families’ Center for Battered Women’s Legal Services. Jane Manning is the president of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women.

No legal case in American history has been more cited than The Scottsboro Trial. Nine young African American men, aged 13 and up, were jailed in Scottsboro, Alabama to await trial over an accusation that they had raped two white women on a train in the Spring of 1931.

The nature of racism in this instance was not the novelty – indeed, American society was witness to countless false charges brought against the black people. However, The Scottsboro Trial became a landmark via the manner in which racism for the first time was fiercely and openly challenged in the United States.

When the entire country was refusing to take side of Scottsboro Nine, it was the Communist Party which came to aid the young men. International Labor Defense – a coalition formed by the communists to defend Scottsboro Nine benefitted from the active involvement of a black woman on their national board – a pioneering champion of labor classes in America – Lucy Parsons (1853-1942).

Class, Race and Gender
Parsons’ commitments towards freedom of the young Black Communist Angelo Herndon in Georgia, Tom Mooney in California, and for the Scottsoboro Nine in Alabama were unflinching. Parsons recognized the class system in America as the prime factor in perpetuating racism. She was the foremost American feminist to declare that race, gender and sexuality are not oppressed identities by themselves. It is the economic class that determines the level of oppression people of minorities have to confront. Notwithstanding her social location of being a black and a woman, Parsons declared that a black person in America is exploited not because she/he is black. “It is because he is poor. It is because he is dependent. Because he is poorer as a class than his white wage-slave brother of the North.”

Lucy Parsons was a relentless defender of working class rights. To contain her popularity, the media portrayed her more as the wife of Albert Parsons – a Haymarket martyr, who was murdered by the state of Illinois, while demanding for eight-hour working day on November 11, 1887. While identifying her with Albert’s causes, history textbooks – both liberal and conservative – seldom mention Parsons as the radical torchbearer of American communist movement.

Communistic Commitments
Parsons’ commitment to the cause of international communism often embarrassed the United States administration. FBI confiscated her library comprising over 1,500 books and progressive works soon after her accidental death – thus preventing the country of having access to her radicalism. But those that witnessed Parsons‘ oratory and benefitted from her skills of organizing labor knew of Parsons‘ disdain towards anarchism which she felt was not capable of leading the masses onto revolutions.

Following Bolshevik Revolution in Soviet Union, IWW would witness several of its main organizers joining the Communist Party. Parsons, along with Bill Haywood and Elizabeth Flynn were among the pioneering American communists. Parsons not only had officially joined the Communist Party of the United States, she was also vocally opposed to distractions within revolutionary movements.

Parsons condemned celebrated anarchist Emma Goldman for “addressing large middle-class audiences”. Whereas Lucy Parsons‘ feminism considered women’s oppression as a function of capitalism, Emma Goldman was clearly not in favor of a vanguard party taking up feminist causes. Parsons in her dedication towards working class liberation movements never lost sight of her goal, never compromised on her principled stands on the side of the working poor, and never aspired for mere social acceptance or glory.

Voice of Dissent
Parsons was among the first women to join the founding convention of IWW. She thundered: “We, the women of this country, have no ballot even if we wished to use it. But we have our labor. Wherever wages are to be reduced, the capitalist class uses women to reduce them.”

In The Agitator, dated November 1, 1912 she referred to Haymarket martyrs thus: “Our comrades were not murdered by the state because they had any connection with the bombthrowing, but because they were active in organizing the wage-slaves. The capitalist class didn’t want to find the bombthrower; this class foolishly believed that by putting to death the active spirits of the labor movement of the time, it could frighten the working class back to slavery.”

She had no illusions about capitalistic world order. Parsons called for armed overthrow of the American ruling class. She refused to buy into an argument that the origin of racist violence was in racism. Instead, Parsons viewed racism as a necessary byproduct of capitalism. In 1886, she called for armed resistance to the working class: “You are not absolutely defenseless. For the torch of the incendiary, which has been known with impunity, cannot be wrested from you!”

For Parsons, her personal losses meant nothing; her oppression as a woman meant less. She was dedicated to usher in changes for the entire humanity – changes that would alter the world order in favor of the working poor class.

Even as a founding member of IWW, she was not willing to let the world’s largest labor union function in a romanticized manner. She radicalized the IWW by demanding that women, Mexican migrant workers and even the unemployed become full and equal members.

With her clarity of vision, lifelong devotion towards communist causes, her strict adherence to radical demands for a societal replacement of class structure, Lucy Parsons remains the most shining example of an American woman who turned her disadvantaged social locations of race and gender, to one of formidable strength – raising herself to bring about emancipated working class consciousness.

ABC News reports on Jennifer Paviglianiti’s charges of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Jennifer Paviglianiti vs. Cafe Royale

Bartender in Topless Bar Says She Was Discriminated Against for Being Pregnant
By MARY KATHRYN BURKE and BRENNAN MCCORD

When Jennifer Paviglianiti, 29, of Centereach, N.Y., discovered she was pregnant, she hoped to wait until the three-month mark to tell her boss, John Doxey. But workplace gossip got to him first.

Once Doxey heard the news, Paviglianiti says, he immediately showed he had doubts about her work status.

Now, Paviglianiti says, she has been unfairly let go from her bartending job at the Cafe Royale gentlemen’s club. She has filed charges of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The charges, which were received by the EEOC on February 2, say the “cause of discrimination” is based on “sex, retaliation, perceived disability, and pregnancy.” In the charges, Paviglianiti says she “encountered continual blatant discrimination,” and that Doxey told her customers are “not coming in to see sexy bartenders that are pregnant and bulging out.”

Pushed Out?
“I had a bad feeling from the beginning,” Paviglianiti tells ABC News, “I know John and once you’re on his bad side, you’re on his bad side. Two weeks before they took away my shifts he said, ‘I don’t see you making it through Thanksgiving.’”

Paviglianiti says she knew her pregnancy would put her on Doxey’s bad side. She says Doxey was making her job increasingly incompatible with pregnancy, forcing her to clean the bar with ammonia instead of cleaning fluids that are considered safer for expectant mothers.

“He also put an extra bartender on the shift, severely cutting back what I would bring home at the end of the night. He was doing everything he could to try to make me leave.”

Paviglianiti looked up pregnancy discrimination lawyers and began keeping a tape recorder in her purse at work.
“I researched online how hard it is to prove discrimination,” Paviglianiti says, “I knew if anything were to happen I would at least have a tape. And I caught him saying things out loud so he couldn’t deny it. I made sure he said that I wasn’t in trouble and my registers aren’t short.”

The Tape: Smoking Gun?

Jennifer Paviglianiti :: “I just want him to learn his lesson – he owns a business that is 90 percent women – somebody is going to get pregnant eventually. I shouldn’t have to choose between the job that pays the bills and my child. The car companies don’t care if I get laid off. If he gets away with it then a maybe anyone can get away with it.”

“A pregnant woman behind the bar, in a topless bar, I’m beginning to think that it’s hurting the registers and you’re incapable of fulfilling all of your job duties.” Doxey says on the tape released to ABC News.

“I’m not saying that you’re not trying, OK, but number one, I don’t want nothing to happen to you…they’re not coming in to see sexy bartenders that are pregnant that are bulging out, I’m sorry…”

On the tape, Paviglianiti argues with Doxey to let her stay on the job, saying she is the highest-grossing bartender at the club. Doxey agrees she is doing well but says, “Each week you’re getting bigger and bigger, and uh, more unsexy, unsexy, OK….I’m not saying that you’re not ringing the register, I just said there’s all different things and aspects, customers don’t wanna come in and see a pregnant woman behind the bar. Why can’t you get that through your head, you’re not getting it.”

Paviglianiti says once she got Doxey on tape, she knew she had enough evidence to bring a case. “I went online and typed ‘women’s rights,’” she says.

That search is how Paviglianiti found attorney Jack Tuckner.

Tuckner says Paviglianiti’s decision to tape-record Doxey was both prudent and prescient.
“This kind of thing happens all the time,” Tuckner tells ABC News, “It’s usually difficult to prove. But here we have a smoking gun. It was blatant.”

Recording a conversation, as Jennifer did, is completely legal in the state of New York, falling under the one-party consent statute which simply means that one party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording.

After the Audio

Although Paviglianiti was prepared to be pushed out, she did not believe she would be let go until October 28, when she taped their conversation.

“My jaw hit the table,” Paviglianiti says, “I didn’t think he was going to put me in that position.”
After seeking counsel and confronting Doxey with her claim, Paviglianiti was hired back at the club, but this time as a cashier, making less than half of what she made at the bar. She is a certified New York State teacher, but she has been unable to find a teaching job. When she became pregnant, she needed income more than ever.

“I need to work,” Paviglianiti says, “I need a job. And some money is better than no money.” Paviglianiti says after her daughter is born next month, she hopes to find work at a day care or nursery school. But today, she continues to work the overnight cashier shifts.

Fired for Being Pregnant…Not a New Trend

Jennifer Paviglianiti is not the first woman to file a discrimination lawsuit after being fired for being pregnant. Just this year, Margaret Gibson of Atlanta was awarded $80,000 in a settlement after she claimed that U.S. Security Associates, Inc. fired her for being pregnant.

In 2007 Amanda Wilson, a waitress at a Hooters restaurant in California, was fired after announcing she was pregnant. She claimed Hooters management cut her work week from five days to one, trimmed her supervisory responsibilities, and finally ended her job completely.

Similarly, Christina Nuss sued the owners of the Scotch & Sirloin restaurant where she worked in Wichita, Kan., for discrimination after she was fired in 2007. Nuss became concerned about how women were being treated at work. The lawsuit claimed that “Scotch management had told this waitress that her pregnancy was unattractive and unappealing to the male clientele of the Scotch, and that it did not fit their image.”

What Now?

When reached on his cell phone about Jennifer Paviglianiti’s claim, John Doxey said he would have no comment.
His lawyer, Robert F. Millman, told the ABC News Law & Justice Unit, “we are not prepared to respond to anything.”
As for Paviglianiti, she says she wants Doxey to admit discrimination.

“I just want him to learn his lesson – he owns a business that is 90 percent women – somebody is going to get pregnant eventually. I shouldn’t have to choose between the job that pays the bills and my child. The car companies don’t care if I get laid off. If he gets away with it then a maybe anyone can get away with it.”

After the baby is born, Paviglianiti says she hopes to get her master’s degree in child care. Tuckner, her lawyer, says he is confident that before long, they will be able to prove their case.

“She stands for all women,” Tuckner says, “Why do we have a society that says you are less than because you are growing a baby inside you?”

Litigation aimed at bias against U.S. workers who care for children or aging parents has increased 400% in the past decade and the average verdict now tops $500,000, WorkLife Law says.  Cases have been brought in every state and every industry, and against large and small employers.  Employees prevail in about half of the cases – significantly more frequently than in other types of employment cases.
 
Employer actions that have resulted in verdicts include:
 
·         Selecting an employee for layoff because she was pregnant;
·         Denying a promotion to a female employee because she was the mother of young children;
·         Firing a male employee who was on approved  leave to care for a foster child;
·         Instituting production quotas that could not be met by a male employee on intermittent leave to care for his seriously ill parents, and then firing him for not meeting the quotas.

“Laws are broken when supervisors make assumptions about the value of employees based on their family caregiving responsibilities and then take negative personnel actions, regardless of the employees’ actual performance,” said the report’s author, Cynthia Thomas Calvert, Deputy Director of WorkLife Law. 
 
“Fortunately, employers can protect themselves against these lawsuits,” Calvert continued.  “A good prevention program includes training supervisors so they can recognize the assumptions and be prepared to react in a more appropriate way.” 
 
The report, Family Responsibilities Discrimination: Litigation Update 2010, is based on an analysis of over 2100 cases.  Most cases reviewed were related to pregnancy and maternity leave (67%).  Other cases related to elder care (9.6%), care for sick children (7%), care for ill spouses (4%), time off for newborn care by fathers or adoptive parents (3%), and care for a family member who has a disability (2.4%). Most cases (88%) were filed by women; 12% were filed by men. 

The report is available on WorkLife Law’s website, www.worklifelaw.org.
 
Family responsibilities discrimination is discrimination against employees who have family caregiving obligations, such as pregnant women, mothers and fathers of young children, and workers with sick or aging parents.  Some state and local laws prohibit this kind of discrimination outright.  Employees also use a variety of state and federal anti-discrimination and family leave laws to sue their employers.  Many of the cases studied for the report involved the use of the federal sex discrimination law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. 
 
In 2007, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued enforcement guidance about caregiver discrimination that detailed how Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on family responsibilities.
 
About the Center for WorkLife Law
 
The Center for WorkLife Law is the leading authority on family responsibilities discrimination. It is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization that works with employers, employees, attorneys, legislators, journalists, and researchers to identify and prevent employment discrimination against workers with family caregiving obligations.  WorkLife Law is based at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and is directed by Joan C. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law.  It was founded as the Program on Gender, Work & Family at American University Washington College of Law in 1998.  It is supported by research and program development grants, university funding, and private donations.  More information is available at its website, www.worklifelaw.org.