Previous Entry | Next Entry

stars
Al Franken, our newest Senator and legal comedian, introduced a law to the Senate making it illegal for any company contracting with the federal government to require its employees to sign a document agreeing not to sue the company should they be raped while they worked for that company.

No, I'm not joking. He really had to come up with a bill because Halliburton really had this document ready for women to sign before they would employ the women. Tim spent a lot of time last night explaining to me why a woman might look at a document like that, which at the very least implies another woman has been raped while under this company's employment in such a way that she thought it justified to sue the company for complicity in her rape, and still sign the paper and take the job. Since he really worked very hard at his explanation, I'm going to let him continue to believe he showed me how there would be a woman who would look at that document, sign it, and go to work.

Moving on from my mental block, behind which I stand shrieking and beating my fists on it, we come to: Al Franken creates the bill and takes it to the Senate. He says, "Here is this infamous company practice; they are as much as setting up the defense that a woman agreed to rape; they are denying her the right to legal recourse, this is nuts." 68 Senators agreed that this was the right bill to pass.

30 Senators, all Republican, voted to allow companies not just to wink at rape, but to give it a legal shield. Thirty men, most of them husbands and fathers.

It's doubtful you'll have heard about this. As the Buzzflash editors point out, the mainstream media, instead of covering that story, chose instead to go after ACORN. Yeah, you know, the organization that empowers poor people and allows them to take part in their own futures. Because one outstation of the organization fouled up (and because Obama seems pretty much bullet proof), Congress pulled their funding. See, poor people shouldn't have money, because some people (::coughGoldman Sachs AIGcough::) might mishandle it, so you have to defund the entire organization (because you can't attack Obama, so get one of the popular groups that supported him (::coughnotBankofAmericaFreddieMaccough::). Poor people having power in the political ring? Crush them. Crush them like you crush those women who complain about being raped by their fellow employees. Don't they know they're hired as "comfort troops"?

I've been reading a lot about women under Islam. Then I come back to shit like this, and think maybe the biggest differences are our clothes and the lie that we're more free.

Yeah, I know they have it a lot worse. They really do. But reading stories like this, and the back-up information (because really, BuzzFlash is a progressive polemical outfit and should be checked), makes me feel weak and dirty.

Tags:

Comments

( 48 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]i_id wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 10:19 pm (UTC)
I'd love to see the actual wording of the contract they had those women sign.
[info]avengangle wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 03:54 pm (UTC)
I believe it said that all allegations of sexual assault will mandatorily go to private arbitration, or something along those lines. I assumed it was a blanket indemnification clause, but my husband was able to show me something that I can't find that said that it really was aimed directly at rape.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:19 pm (UTC)
all allegations of sexual assault will mandatorily go to private arbitration

A) I trust any company that has money they stand to lose, and

B) Rape is not a civil act. By dealing with it by private arbitration the company is breaking the law.
[info]avengangle wrote:
Oct. 19th, 2009 02:40 am (UTC)
Oh, I absolutely, profoundly agree. It's wrong, on so many levels.

Plus, I was wrong -- it's that every dispute between employee and employer goes to arbitration; again, an illegal clause.
[info]avengangle wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 03:56 pm (UTC)
Never mind. See links below. It IS a blanket indemnification (can't sue 'em for anything that goes wrong) clause.
[info]trialia wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 10:44 pm (UTC)
I'm going to let him continue to believe he showed me how there would be a woman who would look at that document, sign it, and go to work.
I can tell you that. If it's take that job or be on the streets...
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:21 pm (UTC)
If it's take that job or be on the streets...

Rape either way? At least on the streets I can pick my ground.
[info]trialia wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 11:28 pm (UTC)
But if you're working, you would at least have money for meds and food, which you wouldn't have if you were out on the street and not doing the prostitution thing - which I doubt anyone would do if they had ditched a job to avoid rape.
[info]dewline wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 11:15 pm (UTC)
You may be interested to know that there is an arm of ACORN in Canada now, specifically on Montreal Road in the Vanier section of Ottawa across from a model kit shop I occasionally frequent for reference books on militaria. They also partook in this year's edition of the Ottawa Labour Day Parade. I was there, with camera in hand, having to shop for batteries on the fly to cover it for a local labour rights museum a friend of mine also on LJ is working to build.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:22 pm (UTC)
there is an arm of ACORN in Canada now,

Gasp! Dangerous cash-sucking militants!

I hope they get a better hearing there than they are getting here.
[info]dewline wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:27 pm (UTC)
Well, so far no one's out to run them out of town on a rail, near as I can tell. They're just quietly doing whatever it is they do, barring that parade I mentioned earlier.
[info]kateelliott wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 11:20 pm (UTC)
Good for Al Franken.

I'm with Tim. Here's three reasons I can come up with off the top of my head:
1) the economy is that bad and they need the work (and it's very high pay) that desperately
2) it didn't really happen anyway; that woman was lying to make a buck off Halliburton
3) anyway, even if it did happen, it was because that woman was a slut or dressed wrong or did something to provoke it; it won't happen to me because rape happens to women who asked for it somehow. And my gosh, look at that salary.


And so on. I'm sure there are other reasons as well. It's scary.
[info]lilacsigil wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 01:21 am (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - but I would add that it's not entirely the fault of the woman signing the contract if she can convince herself of #2 and #3. We all live in a culture that encourages magical thinking about rape, dividing women into "good" and "bad" so that we can think it won't happen to us, and so the focus is taken off the actual rapist/s. It's victim-blaming, and it's foul, but it's so damn prevalent.
[info]kateelliott wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 01:34 am (UTC)
I totally agree with you. I'm not saying that to blame the women signing the contract, only to try to figure how they can disassociate themselves with the awful story of what happened to that one woman (and likely more).
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:32 pm (UTC)
1) the economy is that bad and they need the work (and it's very high pay) that desperately
2) it didn't really happen anyway; that woman was lying to make a buck off Halliburton
3) anyway, even if it did happen, it was because that woman was a slut or dressed wrong or did something to provoke it; it won't happen to me because rape happens to women who asked for it somehow. And my gosh, look at that salary.


For a moment my head started to explode. Then I read your clause 3 and calmed down.

Whew! Don't scare me like that!
[info]kateelliott wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 08:03 pm (UTC)
Heh. Sorry. I was trying to be analytical. :)

The 10 minute tape of Franken at the Senate was awesome. I loved how he went out of his way to tell the young woman how courageous and strong he thought she was for doing what she is doing.
[info]cabbitattack wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 11:23 pm (UTC)
They covered it on MSNBC. Olbermann or Maddow. Can't remember which (They kind of blend together in my mind, some nights). Obviously not mainstream, but there you have it.
[info]kateelliott wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 11:27 pm (UTC)
btw, did you see the Jon Stewart take on this? It is scathing.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:33 pm (UTC)
did you see the Jon Stewart take on this? It is scathing.

And magnificent!
[info]dewline wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 11:31 pm (UTC)
As for the main point...damn good work on Sen. Franken's part here, because this kind of contract clause should never be allowed to stand up in any nation's courts.

Ever.

Which makes me wonder about the hidden clauses in the contracts of assorted civilian employees working at Kandahar Air Field...
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:34 pm (UTC)
because this kind of contract clause should never be allowed to stand up in any nation's courts.

I can't believe it was ever allowed to enter the contract in the first place--the men who wrote and approved it should lose their legal licenses.
[info]dewline wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:50 pm (UTC)
May I introduce you to a lawyer and fellow comics fan whom I believe agrees with you on this point?
[info]joshwriting wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 11:32 pm (UTC)
The contract, as far as I can tell, does not specify rape, but has a general arbitration clause which KBR/Halliburton chose to interpret as applicable to rape allegations and KBR's treatment of Jones' rape allegations. It's exhibit 5, on page 26 of 32 (12 of 13 within the contract) from her case against KBR/Halliburton:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/1:2007cv00295/103217/21/1.html

This is the link to the debate on Franken's amendment, bit by bit:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r111:6:./temp/~r111n8hgj6::

The vote is on Page: S10148.

Here are the names of the thirty RepublicanU.S. Senators who voted against Senate Amendment No. 2588 to DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010:

Alexander

Barrasso

Bond

Brownback

Bunning

Burr

Chambliss

Coburn

Cochran

Corker

Cornyn

Crapo

DeMint

Ensign

Enzi

Graham

Gregg

Inhofe

Isakson

Johanns

Kyl

McCain

McConnell

Risch

Roberts

Sessions

Shelby

Thune

Vitter

Wicker
[info]guns_in_summer wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 01:45 am (UTC)
Hey, that's how I understood it, too - that the legal issue was actually about arbitration versus litigation as a corporate practice, and that Franken was using that poor woman's story as an example.

Which *also* makes me uncomfortable, that there's the possibility that someone's using such a terrible thing as a convenient way to advance their own political agenda... whether that agenda is right, or wrong.
[info]joshwriting wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 04:03 am (UTC)
"the possibility that someone's using such a terrible thing as a convenient way to advance their own political agenda"

Not what is happening here.

On the House side, a Republican Congressman is the one with this amendment - the one the woman's father called who then got her released.

She was not just gang-raped. She was held in a container for an extended period of time after she reported it - that was a part of the suit.

She is not being used - unless you think she is using herself.

It's not about arbitration vs. litigation as a corporate practice - it is about forcing people into arbitration over civil rights violations and rape and other things that have no business being handled privately - crimes have been committed.
[info]skjaere wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 11:33 pm (UTC)
Saw it on the Daily Show last night. Yes, that's fairly insane. All I can think is that people signing such a document aren't reading the fine print very carefully.
[info]distaff_exile wrote:
Oct. 16th, 2009 11:44 pm (UTC)
Leaves an awful taste in my mouth, and I don't just mean I'm belching tomato and roasted red pepper soup, here. Of course, given just how far the right leans in this country, I can't say I'm surprised that thirty Republican men want women to have even less control over their bodies. This is the same lot that would deny those rape victims abortions, were they to need them!
[info]in_a_tizzy wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 12:05 am (UTC)
Jon Stewart was pretty scathing. He pointed out the hypocrisy of the Acorn/Halliburton divide. My husband just found out when we watched the Daily Show recording. Now he's slamming kitchen cabinets and muttering about moving to Canada.

People sign contracts they don't understand all the time. If the contract didn't explicitly use the word rape and more talked about arbitration I can see how some one who didn't know better would breeze past. I imagine 19 year olds are more likely to do it than your typical employee. My mother taught me from an early age to never sign anything I didn't understand but I work in contract management and I see people do it all the time. I thought it was scary when it was just people's lively-hood at stake.
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:37 pm (UTC)
My mother taught me from an early age to never sign anything I didn't understand but I work in contract management and I see people do it all the time.

Your mom is a wise woman. My friend Bruce Coville always reminds writers to read their contracts. It's boring, but the butt you save may be your own.
[info]mawrter wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 01:07 am (UTC)
Once I got beyond the obvious spluttering about the insanity of a country that needs a bill like that, and the fact that there are people who would vote against it, I couldn't help being furious at those senators for another reason.

I believe it is important to respect the beliefs of other people, and not to assume that just because someone is, say, of another political party, it doesn't mean that their views aren't coming from a position that could be justified if I could put myself in their shoes. I want to believe that Republicans are reasonable, rational, and not evil. When 30 senators vote against an amendment that is so patently the right thing to vote FOR, it's hard for me to believe that it's worth listening to Republicans on anything. (And yes, I do believe there are Republicans who aren't idiots. It's just that it seems there are perishingly FEW of them in government these days.)


And just in case you need something else to fume about, here's a link to the story about Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell, who refuses to officiate at the marriages of interracial marriages out of concern for any children the couple might have.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-denied_n_322784.html
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:39 pm (UTC)
story about Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell, who refuses to officiate at the marriages of interracial marriages out of concern for any children the couple might have.

I did hear about this. I'm sure he thinks, in his redneck cracker way, he's doing a good thing. It looks also like he's going to lose his job, and I think that is a good thing. The Klan years are over, old man.
[info]shadowspun wrote:
Oct. 21st, 2009 01:59 am (UTC)
I told my Mom about this one the other day and you should have heard her explode. This is the woman who has her own very large moments of bigotry. It was beautiful to watch.
[info]vixenmage wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 01:11 am (UTC)
It always struck me as ironic that the sort of people shouting so loudly about those EVIL ISLAMIC TERRORIST OH NOES often cite the treatment of Muslim women as a major reason why Islam is THE EVIL RELIGION, because often they're the same people advocating horrendous treatment of women, because they have to defend against THE EVIL FEMINISTS.

And if you try to point this out, you are an EVIL LIBERAL SCUM. And probably a COMMUNIST. OH. Oh no. God save us all from liberal communists.
[info]vixenmage wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 01:18 am (UTC)
(for the record, I meant hardcore Republicans conservatives. Not you. Your observations on the horrendous treatment of women are notably not hate-filled.)
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:41 pm (UTC)
often they're the same people advocating horrendous treatment of women

You noticed that, didn't you? I've been reading a lot about the lives of women under Islam, and this just made me queasy.
[info]vixenmage wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 08:32 pm (UTC)
It's pretty sickening. I remember reading on (I think) [info]goldjadeocean's journal-- I don't remember exactly what the post was about-- the sentence "My white male hetero privilege, let me show you it."

And it was so apt, and so true (despite the numerous decent white, male, hetero guys in the world), and so sad. By and large, that part of the political circle sees anyone who doesn't fit those three criteria as inferior.
[info]raisedbymoogles wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 01:14 am (UTC)
Brb, need to go kill something.
[info]starletfallen wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 01:24 am (UTC)
God, I hadn't heard about that until I watched Jon Stewart the other day. And thank gods for him, too, may I say, because I've found him to be the most rational, factual, and reliable news source on television these days - and he's a fucking COMEDIAN.

Just... like he pointed out - when to protect Haliburton, you have to side AGAINST RAPE VICTIMS, there's a BIG PROBLEM. And yet they did anyway, the bastards.
[info]ndgmtlcd wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 02:43 am (UTC)
Suddenly, everything bad that I've read about Hal Franken has now become relatively unimportant.
[info]slashfairy wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 03:48 am (UTC)
damn bastards. thanks for bringing this to my attention this way. may i link?
[info]tammy212 wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 07:42 pm (UTC)
may i link?

Always!
[info]aubergine_pilot wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 04:51 am (UTC)
I'm starting to think Yoko Ono was right when she said that one phrase that provoked her husband to write a song that's been banned multiple times... and that's an uncomfortable feeling.

I'm not sure if you've seen this comic or not, but it's kind of cheering. Not very much in the face of stuff like this, but a little bit, at least?
[info]hobbit_em wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 12:55 pm (UTC)
I'm starting to think Yoko Ono was right when she said that one phrase that provoked her husband to write a song that's been banned multiple times... and that's an uncomfortable feeling.

?

Also, love the comic! :)
[info]avengangle wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 04:01 pm (UTC)
[info]aubergine_pilot wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 04:58 pm (UTC)
"Woman is the [N-bomb] of the world", meaning women are the one group it's now entirely acceptable for everybody not them to treat like shit. You can see why I feel tremendously awkward admitting that, now, right? (And she apparently said this in 1968.) The song that inspired is more catchy than it should be....

If you keep going forward through the blog it's posted on, she and Babbage have Adventures. And there are historical notes! And it's awesome!
[info]kiwiria wrote:
Oct. 17th, 2009 08:32 am (UTC)
Good grief! If I was asked to sign such a paper, I'd turn around and seek employment somewhere else. Insane!
[info]allaboutm_e wrote:
Oct. 18th, 2009 11:21 pm (UTC)
AZ really needs new senators.
[info]shadowspun wrote:
Oct. 21st, 2009 02:15 am (UTC)
I'm just glad Pennsylvania got rid of Santorum a few years back. Casey is soooo much better. Now if we can just keep Specter.
( 48 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2009
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow