Yabberz for AndroidDownload
#WOMEN
Discussions on Women's Rights

The Insidiousness Of Misogyny

18
Posts
495
Points
9
Users

      Some may be tired of hearing this once again, but if we're ever to have true equality, we need to be familiar with the bias against women creeping through our daily lives.

      A new example, highlighting the difference between how men vs. women are treated, has come to the forefront again, with the announcement by Mitt Romney as a candidate for a senate seat in Utah. So far, no one has told him to go home and take up knitting.

      https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/2/16...

      more less

      How The Bicycle Paved The Way For Women's Rights

      5
      Posts
      90
      Points
      2
      Users

          Freedom, it's the American way! But, it wasn't always so for American women trapped inside their Victorian era, stuffy, restrictive couture and in the housewife roles limited them to the interior of their homes. Alas, the bicycle came along and helped pave the way for new women's apparel, which dared to reveal female ankles just a little, and a place out of the roads alongside their male cohorts. It changed the way women experienced the world around them, and began a transition, an exodus, to the great outdoors where women became more integrated into the larger society. It also expanded women's role in athletics, which greatly helped women like me, find their passion and inner-strength.

          Perhaps some things never change. As I ready myself for the coming biking season, I hone in on my breathing skills, weight-lift to keep my legs ready for hill climbing, and stretch out those hamstring muscles to hopefully avoid muscle cramps and stiffness on the ride. The freedom to roam, out onto American trails and roads, is a strong desire for me. For my 25 wedding anniversary, my husband bought me the ultimate gift a bike girl can get -- a Colnago C60. This is like the Ferrari of bikes, made for speed and for long, challenging rides. I have three other bikes including a 'fat tire' that I use to train in the snow. "Black Beauty," "Helga," "The Beast," and "White Lightening" are some of my best friends. Yes, I name my rides. They are the friends that carry me thousands of miles a year and keep my united with a group of guys, and a few women, who are dedicated to the sport of road biking. I have suffered cuts, sprains, wasp and hornet stings, rattle snakes threatening to strike at me, a moose sighting from 7 feet away, falls, and bruises, and yet nothing deters me from seeking that freedom to ride.

          I'm sure other Yabberz members have a passion that drives them to find a way to express their freedom, and I'd love to hear from some who do : )

          Do tell ~


          How the Bicycle Paved the Way for Women's Rights

          The technology craze of the 1890s meant fashion freedom and transportation independence.

          Women cyclists dry themselves off after getting wet during the 1936 N.C.U cyclists rally at Alexandra Palace in London. Corbis Historical / Getty

          The bicycle, when it was still new technology, went through a series of rapid iterations in the 19th century before it really went mainstream. Designers toyed with different-sized front and back wheels, the addition of chains and cranks and pedals, and tested a slew of braking mechanisms.

          By the 1890s, America was totally obsessed with the bicycle—which by then looked pretty much like the ones we ride today. There were millions of bikes on the roads and a new culture built around the technology. People started "wheelmen" clubs and competed in races. They toured the country and compared tricks and stunts.

          The craze was meaningful, especially, for women. Both Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are credited with declaring that "woman is riding to suffrage on the bicycle," a line that was printed and reprinted in newspapers at the turn of the century. The bicycle took "old-fashioned, slow-going notions of the gentler sex," as The Courier (Nebraska) reported in 1895, and replaced them with "some new woman, mounted on her steed of steel." And it gave women a new level of transportation independence that perplexed newspaper columnists across the country. From The San Francisco Call in 1895:

          It really doesn't matter much where this one individual young lady is going on her wheel. It may be that she's going to the park on pleasure bent, or to the store for a dozen hairpins, or to call on a sick friend at the other side of town, or to get a doily pattern of somebody, or a recipe for removing tan and freckles. Let that be as it may. What the interested public wishes to know is, Where are all the women on wheels going? Is there a grand rendezvous somewhere toward which they are all headed and where they will some time hold a meet that will cause this wobbly old world to wake up and readjust itself?

          Others, like this Sunday Herald writer in 1891, were decidedly less open minded:

          The bicycle, as a new technology of its time, had become an enormous cultural and political force, and an emblem of women's rights. "The woman on the wheel is altogether a novelty, and is essentially a product of the last decade of the century," wrote The Columbian (Pennsylvania) newspaper in 1895, "she is riding to greater freedom, to a nearer equality with man, to the habit of taking care of herself, and to new views on the subject of clothes philosophy."

          Yes, bicycle-riding required a shift away from the restrictive, modest fashion of the Victorian age, and ushered in a new era of exposed ankles—or at least visible bloomers—that represented such a departure from the laced up, ruffled down fashion that preceded it that bicycling women became a fascination to the (mostly male) newspaper reporters of the time.

          (This article, above has been abbreviated. The original article, in entirely, is accessible below.)

          more less

          My Worst #metoo Experience

          12
          Posts
          330
          Points
          18
          Users


              While I have had #metoo moments over my life, this was the worst work related.

              Years ago, I worked at Sun Microsystems. Our department was assigned a new director. A seemingly nice fellow. At that point I was a lead engineer in my department.

              Soon my manager, a female, told me to interview the director's brother-in-law for an engineering role in our department. The brother-in-law, a 30 year old man, had just gotten out of the military ( this was before the Iraq war ).

              I interviewed him and found that he had zero qualifications for the position. I asked my manager if there was any chance that he would not be hired. She smiled and shook her head, and said "what do you think?"

              He was hired and ended up working with me. He basically did nothing, but schmooze with people. He became very popular, especially among the women. I talked to my manager about it. She told me just to look at him as a boy. What did that mean?

              Then after our manager abruptly left the company, the Director appointed me manager. I was never given the position officially, and never received a pay raise. And now brother-in-law worked for me.

              One day he called in saying that he couldn't come in because his young wife was sick. I could hear her in the background screaming and sobbing. She didn't sound sick, she sounded like she was in extreme distress and pain. Startled, I asked him if she was OK, was he taking her to the hospital? He said no, she just had the flu.

              I was very torn, I was worried that she was hurt, but there was only so much I could legally do as a manager. So I went to the Director with my concern. Perhaps his wife, her sister, could check up on her. It was an awkward conversation, but the Director thanked me and said he would take care of it.

              Then I was sent to a conference to give a technical presentation to the management and executives across the company. Inexplicably, the director sent the brother-in-law and a work friend of his too.

              While at the conference the brother-in-law hit on me. He invited me to his room and said "our business trips could be a lot more interesting" if we had some fun.

              I refused.

              A few days after we got back, I noticed people were looking strangely at me. I soon learned that he had told coworkers that I had been doing drugs at the conference and was loaded the whole time.

              I went to the Director and told him what had happened. He never passed it on to Human Resources. In the end I was told to find a way to get along with the brother-in-law no matter what that takes.

              After that I was constantly harassed and ridiculed by the brother-in-law. He verbally attacked me in meetings. Sun had an "old boy's club" culture anyway and it wasn't long before I was out. I was replaced as manager, without even so much as a heads up, with a female manager hired from outside of the company that echoed the Director. I was told to get along with the brother-in-law and do my job.

              He cozied up to the new manager, while he continued to harrass me. He would frequently comie into my office and tell me that everyone knows that I was a loser. That the Director was going to take away my projects. That I should just give up.

              I couldn't leave the company at the time, since because of the economy no one was hiring.

              But, I was laid off shortly after that.

              The Director had so much power over my life at that time. Being the sole income for our family, I had to cash in everything I had just to make it through that year and keep a roof over our heads for the year it took to find a new job.

              I don't know what became of the brother-in-law, but the Director is now making $2.2 million a year as a executive.

              And as much as I would love to come out about this experience , I still don't dare. I still have to work, and the tech industry is a riduclously small world.

              It's more than glass ceilings and pay inequity, these monsters ruin careers and lives.

              more less

              The First Female MD In The US.

              Today's Google Doodle.

              https://qz.com/1197556/elizabeth-blackwell-google-honors-the-first-female-doctor-in-the-us/

              In 1849, Elizabeth Blackwell became the first woman in the US to earn a medical degree when she graduated from Geneva Medical College, a small school in western New York. She only got in because the male students thought her application was part of a hoax.

              By the time Blackwell applied to Geneva, she’d already been rejected from several other schools. When Geneva dean Charles Lee received her application, he and his male faculty decided to let the student body vote on whether to admit a woman. According to PBS News Hour, Lee explained that a single “no” vote from the 150 male students would lead the college to reject Blackwell. Apparently thinking the exercise was a practical joke, every student voted yes.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Blackwell

              more less
              New
              84
              Posts
              2440
              Points
              22
              Users

                  A program in Colorado reduced unplanned pregnancies by 54% while reducing teen abortions by 64% -- not to mention saving the state and federal government about 65 million dollars. Sounds great, right? Not to some of the GOP who feel that the remote chance a zygote or embryo might not be able to implant in a woman's uterus while an IUD is in use is more important that her wish not to become pregnant.

                  Those like Gordon Klingenschmitt, remain unmoved by science or logic and continue to perpetuate myths that demonize women using IUDs. Unfortunately for us here in Colorado, religious, right wing propaganda threatens a successful program actually pleases both parties by reducing abortions.

                  Sometimes I wonder if the GOP has a sincere commitment to reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions at all. There have been moments where I felt they would really rather punish women for their sexuality by forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. How can one explain to the GOP that forced, unwanted births are not a good outcome?

                  Above from:



                  Jason Salzman, Contributor
                  Former Media Critic, Rocky Mountain News

                  Anti-Choice Leaders In Colorado Still Angry About Program That’s Dropped Teen Abortion Rate By 64 Percent

                  12/11/2017 11:49 am ET Updated Dec 11, 2017

                  Colorado officials and pro-abortion advocates are ecstatic over new statistics showing that the teen abortion rate has dropped 64 percent in Colorado over eight years, due mostly to a state-run program offering free or low-cost intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants to women.

                  Teen pregnancies are down 54 percent.

                  Both statistics are in line with previously reported results from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) family planning initiative. From a Rewire post of mine:

                  The figures are a continuation and improvement on impressive results, but state officials were particularly excited about an independent study, conducted this year by the University of Colorado, confirming the state’s family planning initiative potentially saved state and federal programs more than $65 million in labor and delivery costs, other health care, food stamps, and other assistance for women and families from 2009 through 2015.

                  “This is one of the biggest public-health home runs that I’ve seen in my 35-year public-health career,” Dr. John Douglas, director of the Tri-County Health Department, which has six clinics in three Colorado counties, told The Denver Post. “The work that’s happened is really striking.”

                  Democratic state lawmakers, who protected state funding for the program from GOP attacks, would likely agree, as would at least one Republican, State Sen. Don Coram of Durango.

                  But most Republican lawmakers, as well as anti-choice activists, greeted the news with dismay, despite the drop in the abortion rate. That’s because they think the birth control used in the program causes fertilized eggs, also called zygotes, to be destroyed.

                  Gordon Klingenschmitt told the Colorado Times Recorder: There is so much deception by some murderous Colorado government officials who lied to the Denver Post saying “teen abortion rate declined 64 percent in the last eight years.” The truth is, by forcing taxpayers to fund 43,713 abortion-causing IUD intrauterine implants in teenage women, they are not preventing any abortions but instead causing hundreds of thousands more abortions earlier in the pregnancy cycle. Late-term abortions have dropped, simply because early-term abortions have multiplied. Medically speaking these IUD devices do not prevent conception, rather they prevent the implantation of a living child who has already been conceived. They are not contraceptives, because they do not prevent conception, rather they prevent implantation, so logically they should be called contra-implantation devices. As a State Rep I once introduced an amendment to their IUD funding/child-killing scheme to simply define contraceptive as that which actually prevents conception. In killing my proposed amendment the Democrats admitted I was right, that IUD’s do not prevent conception only implantation, but they killed my amendment because they would rather kill more post-conception embryo children with your tax-payer dollars. They just don’t think an embryo is a child, when God now holds them accountable for each embryo child’s blood. But since I spoke my peace, that blood is no longer on my hands.

                  It was once widely believed that some forms of the pill and IUDs worked by causing the destruction of fertilized eggs. And, in fact, the Supreme Court relied on this view in its 5-4 Hobby Lobby decision.

                  But scientific opinion has significantly changed in recent years, and medical evidence was submitted to the justices showing that long acting reversible contraception (LARC) does not harm fertilized eggs. But the conservative court rejected this.

                  Pro-abortion activists reacted were mostly thrilled with the CDPHE news about teen pregnancy and abortion rates, but some concerns were voiced as well.

                  “Latinas continue to face obstacles to accessing high quality health care,” said Karla Gonzales Garcia, Program and Policy Director for the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR) in a statement.” As a result, we have a higher rate of unintended pregnancy. We know that when women can plan their pregnancies the health outcomes are better for them and their families. That is why the continued funding for the effective Colorado program providing low-income women with access to long acting, effective methods of contraception is so important...” “We have worked hard to support continued funding, but we need to make sure that we do not advocate for contraception for young people in a way that judges or demonizes young parents. Young parents are not incapable. They are not more likely to hurt their children and poverty does not just happen to them. They are more likely to face huge obstacles to completing their education and getting the support and services they need to care for themselves and their children. They are more likely to struggle to find affordable childcare or to find a position that pays a living wage and provide workplace protections to help them juggle the needs of their job and their family thereby increasing the likelihood that they are stuck in a cycle of poverty. This does not just happen. We should continue effective programs like the Colorado Family Planning Initiative that help to close gaps in access to healthcare while also working to break down systems of oppression that make it harder for young people when they face unintended pregnancy and challenge rhetoric about young people and young parents. We need to support people in being able to become parents when they are ready, to ensure access to the reproductive health care that people need, and to support the health of women and families in our state. Continued funding for this program is an important step.”

                  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-choice-l...


                  more less

                  A Revised--much Improved--statement From Hillary Clinton

                  37
                  Posts
                  290
                  Points
                  10
                  Users

                      Hillary Clinton

                      The most important work of my life has been to support and empower women. I’ve tried to do so here at home, around the world, and in the organizations I’ve run. I started in my twenties, and four decades later I’m nowhere near being done. I’m proud that it’s the work I’m most associated with, and it remains what I’m most dedicated to.

                      So I very much understand the question I’m being asked as to why I let an employee on my 2008 campaign keep his job despite his inappropriate workplace behavior.

                      The short answer is this: If I had it to do again, I wouldn’t.

                      Before giving some of the reasons why I made a different choice back then and why looking back I wish I’d done it differently, here’s what happened and what my thinking was at the time.

                      In 2007, a woman working on my campaign came forward with a complaint about her supervisor behaving inappropriately toward her. She and her complaint were taken seriously. Senior campaign staff and legal counsel spoke to both her and the offender. They determined that he had in fact engaged in inappropriate behavior. My then-campaign manager presented me with her findings. She recommended that he be fired. I asked for steps that could be taken short of termination. In the end, I decided to demote him, docking his pay; separate him from the woman; assign her to work directly for my then-deputy-campaign manager; put in place technical barriers to his emailing her; and require that he seek counseling. He would also be warned that any subsequent harassment of any kind toward anyone would result in immediate termination.

                      I did this because I didn’t think firing him was the best solution to the problem. He needed to be punished, change his behavior, and understand why his actions were wrong. The young woman needed to be able to thrive and feel safe. I thought both could happen without him losing his job. I believed the punishment was severe and the message to him unambiguous.

                      I also believe in second chances. I’ve been given second chances and I have given them to others. I want to continue to believe in them. But sometimes they’re squandered. In this case, while there were no further complaints against him for the duration of the campaign, several years after working for me he was terminated from another job for inappropriate behavior. That reoccurrence troubles me greatly, and it alone makes clear that the lesson I hoped he had learned while working for me went unheeded. Would he have done better – been better – if I had fired him? Would he have gotten that next job? There is no way I can go back 10 years and know the answers. But you can bet I’m asking myself these questions right now.

                      Over the years, I have made, directly and indirectly, thousands of personnel decisions – everything from hiring to promoting to disciplining to firing. Most of these decisions worked out well. But I’ve gotten some wrong: I’ve hired the wrong people for the wrong jobs; I’ve come down on people too hard at times. Through it all, I’ve always taken firing very seriously. Taking away someone’s livelihood is perhaps the most serious thing an employer can do. When faced with a situation like this, if I think it’s possible to avoid termination while still doing right by everyone involved, I am inclined in that direction. I do not put this forward as a virtue or a vice – just as a fact about how I view these matters.

                      When The New York Times reported on this incident last week, my first thought was for the young woman involved. So I reached out to her – most importantly, to see how she was doing, but also to help me reflect on my decision and its consequences. It’s never easy when something painful or personal like this surfaces, much less when it appears all over the news. I called her not knowing what I’d hear. Whatever she had to say, I wanted her to be able to say it, and say it to me.

                      She expressed appreciation that she worked on a campaign where she knew she could come forward without fear. She was glad that her accusations were taken seriously, that there was a clear process in place for dealing with harassment, and that it was followed. Most importantly, she told me that for the remainder of the campaign, she flourished in her new role. We talked about her career, policy issues related to the work she’s doing now, and her commitment to public service. I told her how grateful I was to her for working on my campaign and believing in me as a candidate. She’s read every word of this and has given me permission to share it.

                      It was reassuring to hear that she felt supported back then – and that all these years later, those feelings haven’t changed. That again left me glad that my campaign had in place a comprehensive process for dealing with complaints. The fact that the woman involved felt heard and supported reinforced my belief that the process worked – at least to a degree. At the time, I believed the punishment I imposed was severe and fit the offense. Indeed, while we are revisiting whether my decision from a decade ago was harsh enough, many employers would be well served to take actions at least as severe when confronted with problems now – including the very media outlet that broke this story. They recently opted to suspend and reinstate one of their journalists who exhibited similarly inappropriate behavior, rather than terminate him. A decade from now, that decision may not look as tough as it feels today. The norms around sexual harassment will likely have continued to change as swiftly and significantly in the years to come as they have over the years until now.

                      Over the past year, a seismic shift has occurred in the way we approach and respond to sexual harassment, both as a society and as individuals. This shift was long overdue. It occurred thanks to women across industries who stood up and spoke out, from Hollywood to sports to farm workers – to the very woman who worked for me.

                      For most of my life, harassment wasn’t something talked about or even acknowledged. More women than not experience it to some degree in their life, and until recently, the response was often to laugh it off or tough it out. That’s changing, and that’s a good thing. My own decision to write in my memoir about my experiences being sexually harassed and physically threatened early in my career – the first time was in college – was more agonizing than it should have been. I know that I’m one of the lucky ones, and what happened to me seemed so commonplace that I wondered if it was even worth sharing. But in the end, that’s exactly why I chose to write about it: because I don’t want this behavior or these attitudes to be accepted as “normal” for any woman, especially those just starting out in their lives.

                      No woman should have to endure harassment or assault – at work, at school, or anywhere. And men are now on notice that they will truly be held accountable for their actions. Especially now, we all need to be thinking about the complexities of sexual harassment, and be willing to challenge ourselves to reassess and question our own views.

                      In other words, everyone’s now on their second chance, both the offenders and the decision-makers. Let’s do our best to make the most of it.

                      We can’t go back, but we can certainly look back, informed by the present. We can acknowledge that even those of us who have spent much of our life thinking about gender issues and who have firsthand experiences of navigating a male-dominated industry or career may not always get it right.

                      I recognize that the situation on my 2008 campaign was unusual in that a woman complained to a woman who brought the issue to a woman who was the ultimate decision maker. There was no man in the chain of command. The boss was a woman. Does a woman have a responsibility to come down even harder on the perpetrator? I don’t know. But I do believe that a woman boss has an extra responsibility to look out for the women who work for her, and to better understand how issues like these can affect them.

                      I was inspired by my conversation with this young woman to express my own thinking on the matter. You may question why it’s taken me time to speak on this at length. The answer is simple: I’ve been grappling with this and thinking about how best to share my thoughts. I hope that my doing so will push others to keep having this conversation – to ask and try to answer the hard questions, not just in the abstract but in the real-life contexts of our roles as men, women, bosses, employees, advocates, and public officials. I hope that women will continue to talk and write about their own experiences and that they will continue leading this critical debate, which, done right, will lead to a better, fairer, safer country for us all.

                      more less

                      The Not-So-Golden Era Of Hollywood

                      46
                      Posts
                      840
                      Points
                      13
                      Users


                          As if the photo below of a man staring at these women's bodies is not creepy enough, read on about what Clark Gable allegedly did.

                          How Classic Hollywood’s Party Culture Turned Women Into Prey

                          // JANUARY 23, 2018
                          A line-up of women being directed by Sammy Lee during the filming of MGM's 'Revue Of 1930'. (Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

                          MGM’s 1937 sales convention was an affair to remember. There were celebrity meet-and-greets, marching bands, an escort of motorcycle cops. There was a private rail car and plenty of booze and conversation. And, on the night of May 5, 1937, there was a big party, complete with appearances by Laurel and Hardy, the Dandridge Sisters and an open bar.

                          But for Patricia Douglas, a dancer and movie extra, the party was one she wished she could forget. The dancer was one of 120 young women who were told they’d be filming on location that night. Once at the event, they were trapped—and Douglas was stalked by a drunken salesman who forced her to drink alcohol, then raped her.

                          The party was just one facet of a pervasive culture of sexual exploitation that was aided and abetted by the most storied studios of Hollywood’s Golden Age. “Stag parties” like this one—put on by and for Hollywood men—were both common and notoriously dangerous for young women. “I’m going to give you some advice: Don’t go to any parties,” director Sam Wood warned Pauline Wagner, a starlet who was Fay Wray’s stunt double for the 1933 movie King Kong.

                          When a woman was selected to attend a stag party put on by a director or star, she might view it as a compliment. She might also see it as a meal ticket—often, studios and others would pay women to attend parties. When they arrived, they sometimes found they were expected to do more than be a pretty face.

                          Article clippings of Patricia Douglas, featured in 'Girl 27'. (Credit: Girl 27/Everett)Article clippings of Patricia Douglas, featured in ‘Girl 27′. (Credit: Girl 27/Everett)

                          Women extras were at particular risk. Without a contract to protect them, they were viewed as expendable and were often recruited as “party favors” by men on set. “A few of them effectively functioned as pimps,” says filmmaker and Hollywood biographer David Stenn, whose documentary, Girl 27, tracks the story of Douglas’ abuse and its aftermath.

                          Dancers, extras and starlets were regulars at these male-centered affairs. “If you had a stag event, you’d have entertainment, and that would have meant women,” says Stenn. The excesses of the convention party where Douglas was raped, says Stenn, were egged on by the expectations that, while attending conventions away from home, men could—and would—act as they pleased without suffering any consequences.

                          At the time, just a handful of Hollywood studios dominated both the motion picture market and the lives of their employees. Studios like MGM managed the lives of their actors, from their marriage choices to their hairstyles, and demanded complete loyalty from their employees. “It’s probably easiest to think of MGM as a totalitarian state,” says Stenn. “Pretend it’s not a movie studio—pretend it’s a country.”

                          That dictatorship—overseen by studio head Louis B. Mayer—functioned with the help of an army of staffers who moved in lockstep to create some of Hollywood’s most memorable films. And MGM and other studios upheld their positions not just by creating great movies, but by suppressing gossip and “fixing,” or disguising, unsavory stories.

                          Louis B. Mayer, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. (Credit: NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images)

                          The Hollywood dictatorship had a clear underclass: women. From casting to production to their private interactions with stars and studio heads, women were barraged with propositions, assaults, and assumptions that they were sexually available.

                          At the time, there was no concept of workplace harassment, and women were expected to endure scrutiny and sexualization in order to get work. The “casting couch” was ubiquitous, and women were expected to make themselves available to powerful men as dates and, sometimes, more.

                          Take Janis Paige, an actress who was told by her MGM director to go on a date with a man she had never met. When he tried to rape her, she fled—and she kept the incident a secret until recently revealing it at age 95 in an essay in the Hollywood Reporter. Judy Garland also reported being groped by Louis B. Mayer on set when she was still a teenager.

                          Stars and studio employees had plenty of other opportunities for sordid behavior. In 1935, for example, Clark Gable allegedly date-raped co-star Loretta Young while on an overnight train from a studio location to Hollywood. Young became pregnant, hid the pregnancy, and gave birth in secret. After leaving her daughter in an orphanage, she “adopted” her when she was 19 months old.

                          Actors Clark Gable and Loretta Young in the film 'Key to the City,' 1950. (Credit: Mondadori Portfolio by Getty Images)Actors Clark Gable and Loretta Young in the film ‘Key to the City,’ 1950. (Credit: Mondadori Portfolio by Getty Images)

                          Young did not tell her studio about the rape or the pregnancy. But if she had, she may have experienced something like Douglas. When the young dancer told someone at the event about the rape, she was taken to a private hospital staffed by an MGM-paid doctor, Edward Lindquist. Like other studio-paid doctors of the age, he was on hand to provide abortions, treat sexually transmitted diseases, and perform operations stars wished to keep secret. That night, he gave Douglas a botched rape “exam” that removed all physical evidence of the crime.

                          Most Hollywood nobodies would have left it at that and attempted to recover from their trauma without restitution. Douglas, however, sued, battling all the way to federal court until a vicious smear campaign and a dismissal sank her case.

                          For Stenn, who tracked down and interviewed Douglas and other women, her case was part of a bigger pattern of abuse and oppression of women in Hollywood’s Golden Age. “The word these women used most [in their interviews] with me was ‘hunted,’” he says.

                          Yet thanks to the “fixing” that was just as pervasive as Hollywood’s sexual abuse, we’ll never know how many women yearning to be actresses during the era became prey instead.

                          more less

                          Yabberz Search

                          Topics Found

                          Members

                          Posts

                          Load More Posts
                          Hi There,

                          Do you want to quickly add followers, meet new friends, or simply connect with existing contacts to discuss the news?

                          Do you have an email group that shares news items?

                          It's now super easy and rewarding to find and add friends on Yabberz.

                          This post has either already been PowerShared, not eligible for PowerShare or is not your post. Return Home
                          0

                              Click to confirm you are 18 yrs of age or older and open

                              Click to confirm you want to see post

                              more less

                              Posts
                              Points
                              Users
                                  more less
                                  Block User
                                  This user will be blocked and not see your posts when logged in. You will also not see this user's posts when logged in. In order to later unblock this user, visit the blocked user tab found on your about me profile page. Click confirm block to complete.
                                  loading...
                                  Last Heard: a minute ago
                                  Joined: Mar 4' 15
                                  Followers: 100
                                  Points: 100,000