>> THIS WEEK ON "TO THE >> THIS WEEK ON "TO THE CONTRARY" >> THIS WEEK ON "TO THE CONTRARY" FIRST, DO CORPORATIONS' CONTRARY" FIRST, DO CORPORATIONS' RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TRUMP WOMEN'S FIRST, DO CORPORATIONS' RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TRUMP WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGEN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TRUMP WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGEN THEN, A CELEBRITY CUSTODY BATTLE RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGEN THEN, A CELEBRITY CUSTODY BATTLE PITS A MOTHER AGAINST HER OWN THEN, A CELEBRITY CUSTODY BATTLE PITS A MOTHER AGAINST HER OWN FETUS.
PITS A MOTHER AGAINST HER OWN FETUS.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES: EDGY, FETUS.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES: EDGY, SNARKY AND SMART, JEZEBEL.COM'SE BEHIND THE HEADLINES: EDGY, SNARKY AND SMART, JEZEBEL.COM'SE CONTRIBUTION TO WOMEN'S MEDIA.CO HELLO, I'M BONNIE ERBE.
HELLO, I'M BONNIE ERBE.
WELCOME TO "TO THE CONTRARY," A HELLO, I'M BONNIE ERBE.
WELCOME TO "TO THE CONTRARY," A DISCUSSION OF NEWS AND SOCIAL WELCOME TO "TO THE CONTRARY," A DISCUSSION OF NEWS AND SOCIAL TRENDS FROM DIVERSE DISCUSSION OF NEWS AND SOCIAL TRENDS FROM DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.
TRENDS FROM DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.
UP FIRST, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PERSPECTIVES.
UP FIRST, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VERSUS BIRTH CONTROL.
UP FIRST, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VERSUS BIRTH CONTROL.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR A VERSUS BIRTH CONTROL.
THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR A CHALLENGE TO OBAMACARE'S THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR A CHALLENGE TO OBAMACARE'S CONTRACEPTION MANDATE.
CHALLENGE TO OBAMACARE'S CONTRACEPTION MANDATE.
UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, CONTRACEPTION MANDATE.
UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, PRIVATE COMPANIES MUST PROVIDE UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, PRIVATE COMPANIES MUST PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE THAT INCLUDES PRIVATE COMPANIES MUST PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE THAT INCLUDES CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE FOR ALL HEALTH INSURANCE THAT INCLUDES CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE FOR ALL FEMALE EMPLOYEES.
CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE FOR ALL FEMALE EMPLOYEES.
BUT SOME BUSINESSES OBJECT ON FEMALE EMPLOYEES.
BUT SOME BUSINESSES OBJECT ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS.
BUT SOME BUSINESSES OBJECT ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS.
THE CRAFT STORE HOBBY LOBBY AND RELIGIOUS GROUNDS.
THE CRAFT STORE HOBBY LOBBY AND A CHAIN OF CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES THE CRAFT STORE HOBBY LOBBY AND A CHAIN OF CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES SUED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A CHAIN OF CHRISTIAN BOOKSTORES SUED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYING THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SUED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYING THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS BEING VIOLATED.
SAYING THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS BEING VIOLATED.
ONE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IS BEING VIOLATED.
ONE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT AGREED, BUT THREE OTHERS SAID ONE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT AGREED, BUT THREE OTHERS SAID THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE AGREED, BUT THREE OTHERS SAID THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE OWNERS TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE.T THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE OWNERS TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE.T NOW THE SUPREME COURT WILL OWNERS TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE.T NOW THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE IF FOR-PROFIT NOW THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE IF FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS CAN USE RELIGION TO DECIDE IF FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS CAN USE RELIGION TO OBJECT TO A FEDERAL LAW.RA CORPORATIONS CAN USE RELIGION TO OBJECT TO A FEDERAL LAW.RA SO CONGRESSWOMAN NORTON, DO OBJECT TO A FEDERAL LAW.RA SO CONGRESSWOMAN NORTON, DO CORPORATIONS HAVE A RIGHT TO SO CONGRESSWOMAN NORTON, DO CORPORATIONS HAVE A RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THEIR CORPORATIONS HAVE A RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THEIR BELIEFS?
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THEIR BELIEFS?
>> NO.
BELIEFS?
>> NO.
CORPORATIONS DON'T WORSHIP, THEY >> NO.
CORPORATIONS DON'T WORSHIP, THEY DON'T PRAY, THEY DON'T MEDITATE.
CORPORATIONS DON'T WORSHIP, THEY DON'T PRAY, THEY DON'T MEDITATE.
THEY'RE THERE TO MAKE MONEY.
DON'T PRAY, THEY DON'T MEDITATE.
THEY'RE THERE TO MAKE MONEY.
>> WELL THE SUPREME COURT IN THE THEY'RE THERE TO MAKE MONEY.
>> WELL THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CITIZENS UNITED CASE SAID THAT >> WELL THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CITIZENS UNITED CASE SAID THAT THEY HAD AT LEAST PARTIAL FIRST CITIZENS UNITED CASE SAID THAT THEY HAD AT LEAST PARTIAL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITH POLITICAL THEY HAD AT LEAST PARTIAL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITH POLITICAL SPEECH NOW WE'LL SEE IF THEY AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITH POLITICAL SPEECH NOW WE'LL SEE IF THEY REALLY MEANT IT.
SPEECH NOW WE'LL SEE IF THEY REALLY MEANT IT.
>> IN THAT CASE SAID THAT REALLY MEANT IT.
>> IN THAT CASE SAID THAT DONATIONS WERE FREE SPEECH, THAT >> IN THAT CASE SAID THAT DONATIONS WERE FREE SPEECH, THAT CORPORATIONS WERE INDIVIDUAL SO DONATIONS WERE FREE SPEECH, THAT CORPORATIONS WERE INDIVIDUAL SO YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT COULD CORPORATIONS WERE INDIVIDUAL SO YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
>> I HATE TO GIVE THE TOUGH LOVE HAPPEN.
>> I HATE TO GIVE THE TOUGH LOVE HERE BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, >> I HATE TO GIVE THE TOUGH LOVE HERE BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
HERE BUT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> WELL, SHOULD A CORPORATION GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> WELL, SHOULD A CORPORATION JUST BECAUSE THE CREATOR OF A >> WELL, SHOULD A CORPORATION JUST BECAUSE THE CREATOR OF A CORPORATION HAS CERTAIN JUST BECAUSE THE CREATOR OF A CORPORATION HAS CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DOES THAT MEAN CORPORATION HAS CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DOES THAT MEAN THAT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DOES THAT MEAN THAT US BELIEFS DOES THAT MEAN THAT THAT US BELIEFS DOES THAT MEAN THAT HIS CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE US BELIEFS DOES THAT MEAN THAT HIS CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE THOSE BELIEFS AND BE ABLE TO HIS CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE THOSE BELIEFS AND BE ABLE TO VIOLATE OTHERWISE COMPLETELY THOSE BELIEFS AND BE ABLE TO VIOLATE OTHERWISE COMPLETELY VALID FEDERAL LAW TO PURSUE VIOLATE OTHERWISE COMPLETELY VALID FEDERAL LAW TO PURSUE THOSE BELIEFS?
VALID FEDERAL LAW TO PURSUE THOSE BELIEFS?
>> HERE IS THE THING ABOUT A THOSE BELIEFS?
>> HERE IS THE THING ABOUT A CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE, EVERYBODY >> HERE IS THE THING ABOUT A CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE, EVERYBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT HOBBY LOBBY.
CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE, EVERYBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT HOBBY LOBBY.
VERY BIG CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT HOBBY LOBBY.
VERY BIG CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE WHERE I LIVE.
VERY BIG CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE WHERE I LIVE.
EVERYONE WHO LIVES THERE KNOWS WHERE I LIVE.
EVERYONE WHO LIVES THERE KNOWS IT'S A CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE.
EVERYONE WHO LIVES THERE KNOWS IT'S A CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WORK IT'S A CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WORK AT A CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WORK AT A CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE THEN BE SURPRISED THEY PUSH THEIR AT A CHRISTIAN BOOK STORE THEN BE SURPRISED THEY PUSH THEIR CHRISTIAN BELIEF ON YOU.
BE SURPRISED THEY PUSH THEIR CHRISTIAN BELIEF ON YOU.
>> PEOPLE WORK AT CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN BELIEF ON YOU.
>> PEOPLE WORK AT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS -- >> PEOPLE WORK AT CATHOLIC HOSPITALS -- >> SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED THAT HOSPITALS -- >> SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED THAT -- >> SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED THAT -- >> BUT I ALSO -- -- >> BUT I ALSO -- >> ELEANOR, I DON'T UNDERSTAND >> BUT I ALSO -- >> ELEANOR, I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING HERE.
>> ELEANOR, I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING HERE.
DIDN'T THE OBAMA -- DIDN'T THE SOMETHING HERE.
DIDN'T THE OBAMA -- DIDN'T THE WHITE HOUSE MAKE IT SO THEY.
DIDN'T THE OBAMA -- DIDN'T THE WHITE HOUSE MAKE IT SO THEY.
THE CORPORATIONS DON'T PURCHASE WHITE HOUSE MAKE IT SO THEY.
THE CORPORATIONS DON'T PURCHASE THIS INSURANCE IT'S MADE THE CORPORATIONS DON'T PURCHASE THIS INSURANCE IT'S MADE AVAILABLE FREE.
THIS INSURANCE IT'S MADE AVAILABLE FREE.
>> THEY DON'T PURCHASE IT.
AVAILABLE FREE.
>> THEY DON'T PURCHASE IT.
THEY DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO IT.
>> THEY DON'T PURCHASE IT.
THEY DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO IT.
THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEY DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO IT.
THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DELIVERING THE CONCENTER STEPS.
THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH DELIVERING THE CONCENTER STEPS.
>> DO THEY HAVE -- SHOULD THEY DELIVERING THE CONCENTER STEPS.
>> DO THEY HAVE -- SHOULD THEY HAVE STANDING THEN?
>> DO THEY HAVE -- SHOULD THEY HAVE STANDING THEN?
>> I'M NOT SURE HOW -- THEY GOT HAVE STANDING THEN?
>> I'M NOT SURE HOW -- THEY GOT THIS FAR, THROUGH TWO COURSE OF >> I'M NOT SURE HOW -- THEY GOT THIS FAR, THROUGH TWO COURSE OF APPEALS.
THIS FAR, THROUGH TWO COURSE OF APPEALS.
JUST A MOMENT.
APPEALS.
JUST A MOMENT.
THE RIGHT TO SPEECH WHICH IS A JUST A MOMENT.
THE RIGHT TO SPEECH WHICH IS A RIGHT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE RIGHT TO SPEECH WHICH IS A RIGHT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM SAYING THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE RIGHT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM SAYING THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
SAYING THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE WHOLE BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE WHOLE BILL OF RIGHTS.
AND SPEECH, THE COURT FOUND, WAS THE WHOLE BILL OF RIGHTS.
AND SPEECH, THE COURT FOUND, WAS WAS -- THE CONTRIBUTION WAS A AND SPEECH, THE COURT FOUND, WAS WAS -- THE CONTRIBUTION WAS A FORM OF SPEECH.
WAS -- THE CONTRIBUTION WAS A FORM OF SPEECH.
NOW, I DEFY YOU TO FIND A FORM FORM OF SPEECH.
NOW, I DEFY YOU TO FIND A FORM OF WORSHIP THAT COMES FROM A NOW, I DEFY YOU TO FIND A FORM OF WORSHIP THAT COMES FROM A CORPORATION, ANY PERSON, NOT THE OF WORSHIP THAT COMES FROM A CORPORATION, ANY PERSON, NOT THE PERSON WHO MAY BE ONE OF THOSE CORPORATION, ANY PERSON, NOT THE PERSON WHO MAY BE ONE OF THOSE WHO STARTED THE BOOK STORE BUT PERSON WHO MAY BE ONE OF THOSE WHO STARTED THE BOOK STORE BUT NOW HAD STARTED THE CORPORATION.
WHO STARTED THE BOOK STORE BUT NOW HAD STARTED THE CORPORATION.
>> LET ME STEP IN HERE BECAUSE I NOW HAD STARTED THE CORPORATION.
>> LET ME STEP IN HERE BECAUSE I PROBABLY AM THE ONLY PERSON WHO >> LET ME STEP IN HERE BECAUSE I PROBABLY AM THE ONLY PERSON WHO SITS ON A CORPORATE BOARD OF PROBABLY AM THE ONLY PERSON WHO SITS ON A CORPORATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON THIS TABLE.
SITS ON A CORPORATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON THIS TABLE.
AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT FIRST DIRECTORS ON THIS TABLE.
AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT FIRST OF ALL YOU'RE WRONG, ELEANOR, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT FIRST OF ALL YOU'RE WRONG, ELEANOR, CORPORATIONS DO IN FACT PURCHASE OF ALL YOU'RE WRONG, ELEANOR, CORPORATIONS DO IN FACT PURCHASE INSURANCE.
CORPORATIONS DO IN FACT PURCHASE INSURANCE.
AND MANY CORPORATIONS TODAY SELF INSURANCE.
AND MANY CORPORATIONS TODAY SELF INSURE SO THAT THEY MAY USE BLUE AND MANY CORPORATIONS TODAY SELF INSURE SO THAT THEY MAY USE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OR SOME OTHER INSURE SO THAT THEY MAY USE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OR SOME OTHER -- CROSS BLUE SHIELD OR SOME OTHER -- >> CONTRACEPTION IS WHAT SHE WAS -- >> CONTRACEPTION IS WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
>> CONTRACEPTION IS WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO PURCHASE THE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO PURCHASE THE CONTRACEPTION PART OF THE THEY DON'T HAVE TO PURCHASE THE CONTRACEPTION PART OF THE INSURANCE.
CONTRACEPTION PART OF THE INSURANCE.
>> THEY HAVE TO PURCHASE THE INSURANCE.
>> THEY HAVE TO PURCHASE THE COVERAGE THAT GUARANTEES THE >> THEY HAVE TO PURCHASE THE COVERAGE THAT GUARANTEES THE CONTRACEPTION.
COVERAGE THAT GUARANTEES THE CONTRACEPTION.
NOW, LOOK, I THINK CORPORATIONS CONTRACEPTION.
NOW, LOOK, I THINK CORPORATIONS AND EMPLOYERS SHOULD NOT BE IN NOW, LOOK, I THINK CORPORATIONS AND EMPLOYERS SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF ANYTHING TO DO AND EMPLOYERS SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF ANYTHING TO DO WITH INSURANCE.
THE BUSINESS OF ANYTHING TO DO WITH INSURANCE.
I THINK EVERYONE OUGHT TO HAVE WITH INSURANCE.
I THINK EVERYONE OUGHT TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE, I THINK EVERYONE OUGHT TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE, CORPORATIONS SHOULD NOT BE THE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE, CORPORATIONS SHOULD NOT BE THE CONDUIT THROUGH WHICH THEY GET CORPORATIONS SHOULD NOT BE THE CONDUIT THROUGH WHICH THEY GET INSURANCE.
CONDUIT THROUGH WHICH THEY GET INSURANCE.
BUT THAT ISSUE, I MEAN THEY HAVE INSURANCE.
BUT THAT ISSUE, I MEAN THEY HAVE PUT IT ON THE TABLE NOW BY BUT THAT ISSUE, I MEAN THEY HAVE PUT IT ON THE TABLE NOW BY REQUIRING THAT CERTAIN PUT IT ON THE TABLE NOW BY REQUIRING THAT CERTAIN PROCEDURES BE COVERED.
REQUIRING THAT CERTAIN PROCEDURES BE COVERED.
SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND PROCEDURES BE COVERED.
SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT AND WHETHER OR NOT YOUR SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT AND WHETHER OR NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF PART OF THE OUT AND WHETHER OR NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLYING TO INTERPRETATION OF PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLYING TO CORPORATIONS IS CORRECT OR FIRST AMENDMENT APPLYING TO CORPORATIONS IS CORRECT OR WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPREME COURT CORPORATIONS IS CORRECT OR WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPREME COURT BELIEVES THAT THE ENTIRE PART OF WHETHER OR NOT THE SUPREME COURT BELIEVES THAT THE ENTIRE PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE ENTIRE BELIEVES THAT THE ENTIRE PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE ENTIRE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH INCLUDES THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE ENTIRE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH INCLUDES FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES APPLY FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH INCLUDES FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES APPLY TO CORPORATIONS.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES APPLY TO CORPORATIONS.
WE'LL FIND OUT.
TO CORPORATIONS.
WE'LL FIND OUT.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
WE'LL FIND OUT.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> I LOOKED UP JUSTICE STEVENS' I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> I LOOKED UP JUSTICE STEVENS' DISSENT ON CITIZENS UNITED I >> I LOOKED UP JUSTICE STEVENS' DISSENT ON CITIZENS UNITED I THOUGHT HE MADE A REALLY GOOD DISSENT ON CITIZENS UNITED I THOUGHT HE MADE A REALLY GOOD POINT THAT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU THOUGHT HE MADE A REALLY GOOD POINT THAT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CONSIDER A CORPORATION AND POINT THAT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CONSIDER A CORPORATION AND INDIVIDUAL AND PROVIDE THE SAME CONSIDER A CORPORATION AND INDIVIDUAL AND PROVIDE THE SAME FREEDOMS TO A CORPORATION IS INDIVIDUAL AND PROVIDE THE SAME FREEDOMS TO A CORPORATION IS THAT THEY HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE.
FREEDOMS TO A CORPORATION IS THAT THEY HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE.
THAT CERTAINLY WOULD APPLY HERE THAT THEY HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE.
THAT CERTAINLY WOULD APPLY HERE WHERE A COMPANY WOULD BE THAT CERTAINLY WOULD APPLY HERE WHERE A COMPANY WOULD BE EXERCISING THIS FREEDOM OF WHERE A COMPANY WOULD BE EXERCISING THIS FREEDOM OF RELIGION PERHAPS AND WHAT WOULD EXERCISING THIS FREEDOM OF RELIGION PERHAPS AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION PERHAPS AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAPPEN TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR THE EMPLOYEES WHO WORK THERE.
RELIGION FOR THE EMPLOYEES WHO WORK THERE.
THAT IT WOULD TRUMP THEIR WORK THERE.
THAT IT WOULD TRUMP THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS.
THAT IT WOULD TRUMP THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS.
>> WHAT I DON'T GET ABOUT THIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS.
>> WHAT I DON'T GET ABOUT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT AT ALL, >> WHAT I DON'T GET ABOUT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT AT ALL, I MUST SAY, I'M GLAD PROFESSOR FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT AT ALL, I MUST SAY, I'M GLAD PROFESSOR YOU EXPLAINED IT, ELEANOR I MUST SAY, I'M GLAD PROFESSOR YOU EXPLAINED IT, ELEANOR TEACHES AT MY LAW SCHOOL ALMA YOU EXPLAINED IT, ELEANOR TEACHES AT MY LAW SCHOOL ALMA MATER, GEORGETOWN, TEACHES AT MY LAW SCHOOL ALMA MATER, GEORGETOWN, WHEN I STUDIED THE FIRST MATER, GEORGETOWN, WHEN I STUDIED THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RELIGIOUS WHEN I STUDIED THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PART IT HAD TO DO WITH AMENDMENT AND THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PART IT HAD TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT NOT BEING ABLE FREEDOM PART IT HAD TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT NOT BEING ABLE THE TELL YOU HOW OR WHAT TO DO THE GOVERNMENT NOT BEING ABLE THE TELL YOU HOW OR WHAT TO DO OR WHAT TO WORSHIP.
THE TELL YOU HOW OR WHAT TO DO OR WHAT TO WORSHIP.
THAT MEANS LIKE, GOING BACK TO OR WHAT TO WORSHIP.
THAT MEANS LIKE, GOING BACK TO THE FOUNDERS, THAT MEANS THE THAT MEANS LIKE, GOING BACK TO THE FOUNDERS, THAT MEANS THE CROWN NOT BEING ABLE TO FORCE THE FOUNDERS, THAT MEANS THE CROWN NOT BEING ABLE TO FORCE YOU TO BE CROWN NOT BEING ABLE TO FORCE YOU TO BE EPISCOPALIAN AND TO TAX YOU AS YOU TO BE EPISCOPALIAN AND TO TAX YOU AS SUCH.
EPISCOPALIAN AND TO TAX YOU AS SUCH.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUCH.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THIS MINUTE AREA A IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THIS MINUTE AREA A COMPANY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO WHETHER THIS MINUTE AREA A COMPANY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU HAVE TO COMPANY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY MY RELIGION.
TELL SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY MY RELIGION.
THAT IS TYRANNY -- ABIDE BY MY RELIGION.
THAT IS TYRANNY -- >> FRANCESCA HAS THE MAIN POINT THAT IS TYRANNY -- >> FRANCESCA HAS THE MAIN POINT THAT IS THAT NO ONE FORCES YOU >> FRANCESCA HAS THE MAIN POINT THAT IS THAT NO ONE FORCES YOU AND THAT IS THAT NO ONE FORCES THAT IS THAT NO ONE FORCES YOU AND THAT IS THAT NO ONE FORCES YOU TO WORK FOR ANY PARTICULAR AND THAT IS THAT NO ONE FORCES YOU TO WORK FOR ANY PARTICULAR EMPLOYER.
YOU TO WORK FOR ANY PARTICULAR EMPLOYER.
YOU ARE IN FACT ABLE TO -- EMPLOYER.
YOU ARE IN FACT ABLE TO -- >> DO YOU THINK -- BUT LET ME YOU ARE IN FACT ABLE TO -- >> DO YOU THINK -- BUT LET ME ASK YOU -- LET'S SAY YOU WORKED >> DO YOU THINK -- BUT LET ME ASK YOU -- LET'S SAY YOU WORKED FOR A WICKEN ORGANIZATION THEY ASK YOU -- LET'S SAY YOU WORKED FOR A WICKEN ORGANIZATION THEY STARTED TELL YOU YOU HAD TO FOR A WICKEN ORGANIZATION THEY STARTED TELL YOU YOU HAD TO OBSERVE THEIR RULES.
STARTED TELL YOU YOU HAD TO OBSERVE THEIR RULES.
>> I WOULD NEVER WORK FOR -- OBSERVE THEIR RULES.
>> I WOULD NEVER WORK FOR -- >> I WOULD LEAVE.
>> I WOULD NEVER WORK FOR -- >> I WOULD LEAVE.
>> BUT YOU THINK EVERY PERSON >> I WOULD LEAVE.
>> BUT YOU THINK EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS -- I THINK THEY HAD >> BUT YOU THINK EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS -- I THINK THEY HAD 15,000 EMPLOYEES EVERYBODY WHO WHO WORKS -- I THINK THEY HAD 15,000 EMPLOYEES EVERYBODY WHO WORKS, APPLIES FOR A JOB AT 15,000 EMPLOYEES EVERYBODY WHO WORKS, APPLIES FOR A JOB AT THEIR LOCAL HOBBY LOBBY KNOWS WORKS, APPLIES FOR A JOB AT THEIR LOCAL HOBBY LOBBY KNOWS THAT IT'S A CHRISTIAN THEIR LOCAL HOBBY LOBBY KNOWS THAT IT'S A CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION?
THAT IT'S A CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION?
I DON'T THINK SO.
ORGANIZATION?
I DON'T THINK SO.
>> I AGREE THAT THEY MIGHT NOT I DON'T THINK SO.
>> I AGREE THAT THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT.
>> I AGREE THAT THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT.
BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE TYRANNY KNOW THAT.
BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE TYRANNY OF TELLING THESE PEOPLE THAT BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE TYRANNY OF TELLING THESE PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE THE OF TELLING THESE PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE.
THEY CAN'T HAVE THE CONTRACEPTION MANDATE.
HERE IS THE -- CONTRACEPTION MANDATE.
HERE IS THE -- >> THAT'S RELIGIOUS TYRANNY.
HERE IS THE -- >> THAT'S RELIGIOUS TYRANNY.
YOU'RE TELLING SOMEBODY WHO MAY >> THAT'S RELIGIOUS TYRANNY.
YOU'RE TELLING SOMEBODY WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE A MEMBER OF YOUR YOU'RE TELLING SOMEBODY WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE A MEMBER OF YOUR RELIGION THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE OR MAY NOT BE A MEMBER OF YOUR RELIGION THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
RELIGION THAT THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
>> TYRANNY IS THE GOVERNMENT BY YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
>> TYRANNY IS THE GOVERNMENT SAYING TO >> TYRANNY IS THE GOVERNMENT SAYING TO BUSINESSES THAT YOU HAVE TO NOT SAYING TO BUSINESSES THAT YOU HAVE TO NOT ONLY PROVIDE CONTRACEPTION WITH BUSINESSES THAT YOU HAVE TO NOT ONLY PROVIDE CONTRACEPTION WITH INSURANCE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ONLY PROVIDE CONTRACEPTION WITH INSURANCE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT INSURANCE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT PEOPLE MAY NOT NEED.
ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT PEOPLE MAY NOT NEED.
THAT IS SOMETHING THE -- PEOPLE MAY NOT NEED.
THAT IS SOMETHING THE -- >> THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF THE THAT IS SOMETHING THE -- >> THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF THE SUBJECT.
>> THAT'S COMPLETELY OFF THE SUBJECT.
LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
SUBJECT.
LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTRACEPTION.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTRACEPTION.
90% OF WOMEN IN AMERICA AT SOME CONTRACEPTION.
90% OF WOMEN IN AMERICA AT SOME POINT WILL HAVE USED BIRTH 90% OF WOMEN IN AMERICA AT SOME POINT WILL HAVE USED BIRTH CONTROL.
POINT WILL HAVE USED BIRTH CONTROL.
AND, BY THE WAY, BIRTH CONTROL CONTROL.
AND, BY THE WAY, BIRTH CONTROL PILLS -- AND, BY THE WAY, BIRTH CONTROL PILLS -- >> 98% OF CATHOLICS.
PILLS -- >> 98% OF CATHOLICS.
WOMEN AND MEN.
>> 98% OF CATHOLICS.
WOMEN AND MEN.
>> EXACTLY.
WOMEN AND MEN.
>> EXACTLY.
AND JUST UNDER 50% OF THE USE OF >> EXACTLY.
AND JUST UNDER 50% OF THE USE OF BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE FOR AND JUST UNDER 50% OF THE USE OF BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE FOR OTHER THINGS, NOT BIRTH CONTROL.
BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE FOR OTHER THINGS, NOT BIRTH CONTROL.
LIKE ENDEMETRIOSIS, IT'S THE OTHER THINGS, NOT BIRTH CONTROL.
LIKE ENDEMETRIOSIS, IT'S THE GO-TO DRUG FOR TAKING CARE OF LIKE ENDEMETRIOSIS, IT'S THE GO-TO DRUG FOR TAKING CARE OF SYMPTOMS OF ENDEMETRIOSIS.
GO-TO DRUG FOR TAKING CARE OF SYMPTOMS OF ENDEMETRIOSIS.
DO WE REALLY WANT TO GO DOWN SYMPTOMS OF ENDEMETRIOSIS.
DO WE REALLY WANT TO GO DOWN WHEN YOU TYRANNY, 90% OF THE DO WE REALLY WANT TO GO DOWN WHEN YOU TYRANNY, 90% OF THE WOMEN COUNT ON THIS, THERE IS A WHEN YOU TYRANNY, 90% OF THE WOMEN COUNT ON THIS, THERE IS A ‸ TYRANNY TO IT.
WOMEN COUNT ON THIS, THERE IS A ‸ TYRANNY TO IT.
>> IF THEY WANT TO -- IF THEY ‸ TYRANNY TO IT.
>> IF THEY WANT TO -- IF THEY WANT TO SAY THAT THEY ENGAGE IN >> IF THEY WANT TO -- IF THEY WANT TO SAY THAT THEY ENGAGE IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION WANT TO SAY THAT THEY ENGAGE IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD SAY.
THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD SAY.
THEN ESSENTIALLY THEY WOULD BE THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD SAY.
THEN ESSENTIALLY THEY WOULD BE SAYING THAT A BODY CREATED BY THEN ESSENTIALLY THEY WOULD BE SAYING THAT A BODY CREATED BY LAW IS EXERCISING RELIGION.
SAYING THAT A BODY CREATED BY LAW IS EXERCISING RELIGION.
THE CORPORATION WHEN IT GIVES LAW IS EXERCISING RELIGION.
THE CORPORATION WHEN IT GIVES A CONTRIBUTION IS GIVING THAT IN THE CORPORATION WHEN IT GIVES A CONTRIBUTION IS GIVING THAT IN THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION.
A CONTRIBUTION IS GIVING THAT IN THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION.
THERE FOR YOU CAN SEE IF YOU THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION.
THERE FOR YOU CAN SEE IF YOU WANT TO THE -- IT'S VERY HARD TO THERE FOR YOU CAN SEE IF YOU WANT TO THE -- IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE HOW YOU COULD ARGUE THAT WANT TO THE -- IT'S VERY HARD TO SEE HOW YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THIS BODY CREATED BECAUSE THEY SEE HOW YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THIS BODY CREATED BECAUSE THEY ASKED TO BE CREATED AS A THIS BODY CREATED BECAUSE THEY ASKED TO BE CREATED AS A CORPORATION.
ASKED TO BE CREATED AS A CORPORATION.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO.
CORPORATION.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO.
THEY ASKED TO BE CREATED AS A THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO.
THEY ASKED TO BE CREATED AS A CORPORATION.
THEY ASKED TO BE CREATED AS A CORPORATION.
COULD MAKE OUT THE CASE THAT CORPORATION.
COULD MAKE OUT THE CASE THAT THIS LEGAL ENTITY CREATED BY THE COULD MAKE OUT THE CASE THAT THIS LEGAL ENTITY CREATED BY THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP.
THIS LEGAL ENTITY CREATED BY THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP.
>> AGAIN THE SIMPLEST WAY IS TO STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP.
>> AGAIN THE SIMPLEST WAY IS TO GET BUSINESSES OUT OF THE >> AGAIN THE SIMPLEST WAY IS TO GET BUSINESSES OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF DELIVERING GET BUSINESSES OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF DELIVERING INSURANCE.
BUSINESS OF DELIVERING INSURANCE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
INSURANCE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.
>> ALL RIGHT.
LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.
PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.
PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @BONNIEERBE.
PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @BONNIEERBE.
AND @TOTHECONTRARY.
@BONNIEERBE.
AND @TOTHECONTRARY.
FROM CONTRACEPTION TO CUSTODY.
AND @TOTHECONTRARY.
FROM CONTRACEPTION TO CUSTODY.
ARE COURTS PITTING PREGNANT FROM CONTRACEPTION TO CUSTODY.
ARE COURTS PITTING PREGNANT WOMEN AGAINST THEIR FETUSES?
ARE COURTS PITTING PREGNANT WOMEN AGAINST THEIR FETUSES?
ONE CELEBRITY CUSTODY BATTLE WOMEN AGAINST THEIR FETUSES?
ONE CELEBRITY CUSTODY BATTLE SHOWS THINGS MAY BE HEADING THAT ONE CELEBRITY CUSTODY BATTLE SHOWS THINGS MAY BE HEADING THAT WAY.
SHOWS THINGS MAY BE HEADING THAT WAY.
THE CASE INVOLVES OLYMPIC GOLD WAY.
THE CASE INVOLVES OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL SKIER BODE MILLER, HIS THE CASE INVOLVES OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL SKIER BODE MILLER, HIS EX-LOVER AND THEIR 9-MONTH OLD MEDAL SKIER BODE MILLER, HIS EX-LOVER AND THEIR 9-MONTH OLD SON.
EX-LOVER AND THEIR 9-MONTH OLD SON.
SARA MCKENNA IS A FORMER MARINE SON.
SARA MCKENNA IS A FORMER MARINE AND FIREFIGHTER WHO CONCEIVED SARA MCKENNA IS A FORMER MARINE AND FIREFIGHTER WHO CONCEIVED DURING A BRIEF RELATIONSHIP WITH AND FIREFIGHTER WHO CONCEIVED DURING A BRIEF RELATIONSHIP WITH MILLER.
DURING A BRIEF RELATIONSHIP WITH MILLER.
AT FIRST HE SENT HER A TEXT MILLER.
AT FIRST HE SENT HER A TEXT MESSAGE SAYING HE DID NOT WANT AT FIRST HE SENT HER A TEXT MESSAGE SAYING HE DID NOT WANT HER TO BRING THE PREGNANCY TO MESSAGE SAYING HE DID NOT WANT HER TO BRING THE PREGNANCY TO TERM.
HER TO BRING THE PREGNANCY TO TERM.
LATER SHE MOVED FROM CALIFORNIA TERM.
LATER SHE MOVED FROM CALIFORNIA TO NEW YORK TO ATTEND COLUMBIA LATER SHE MOVED FROM CALIFORNIA TO NEW YORK TO ATTEND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ON THE GI BILL.
TO NEW YORK TO ATTEND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ON THE GI BILL.
THEN, MILLER FILED A DECLARATION UNIVERSITY ON THE GI BILL.
THEN, MILLER FILED A DECLARATION OF PATERNITY.
THEN, MILLER FILED A DECLARATION OF PATERNITY.
HE WON PRIMARY CUSTODY AFTER A OF PATERNITY.
HE WON PRIMARY CUSTODY AFTER A NEW YORK COURT SAID MCKENNA'S HE WON PRIMARY CUSTODY AFTER A NEW YORK COURT SAID MCKENNA'S "APPROPRIATION OF THE CHILD NEW YORK COURT SAID MCKENNA'S "APPROPRIATION OF THE CHILD WHILE IN-UTERO WAS IRRESPONSIBLE "APPROPRIATION OF THE CHILD WHILE IN-UTERO WAS IRRESPONSIBLE AND REPREHENSIBLE".
WHILE IN-UTERO WAS IRRESPONSIBLE AND REPREHENSIBLE".
A NEW YORK APPEALS COURT AND REPREHENSIBLE".
A NEW YORK APPEALS COURT DISAGREED REJECTING THE A NEW YORK APPEALS COURT DISAGREED REJECTING THE SUGGESTION THAT "THE MOTHER DISAGREED REJECTING THE SUGGESTION THAT "THE MOTHER NEEDED TO SOMEHOW ARRANGE HER SUGGESTION THAT "THE MOTHER NEEDED TO SOMEHOW ARRANGE HER RELOCATION WITH THE FATHER WITH NEEDED TO SOMEHOW ARRANGE HER RELOCATION WITH THE FATHER WITH WHOM SHE HAD ONLY A BRIEF RELOCATION WITH THE FATHER WITH WHOM SHE HAD ONLY A BRIEF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP."
WHOM SHE HAD ONLY A BRIEF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP."
THE COURT GRANTED TEMPORARY ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP."
THE COURT GRANTED TEMPORARY CUSTODY BACK TO THE MOTHER, BUT THE COURT GRANTED TEMPORARY CUSTODY BACK TO THE MOTHER, BUT THE CROSS COUNTRY LEGAL BATTLE CUSTODY BACK TO THE MOTHER, BUT THE CROSS COUNTRY LEGAL BATTLE CONTINUES.
THE CROSS COUNTRY LEGAL BATTLE CONTINUES.
SO, SHOULD A PREGNANT WOMEN, CONTINUES.
SO, SHOULD A PREGNANT WOMEN, LINDA CHAVEZ BE ABLE TO BE SO, SHOULD A PREGNANT WOMEN, LINDA CHAVEZ BE ABLE TO BE ORDERED AROUND BY THE FATHER OF LINDA CHAVEZ BE ABLE TO BE ORDERED AROUND BY THE FATHER OF THEIR CHILDREN WHERE THEY SHOULD ORDERED AROUND BY THE FATHER OF THEIR CHILDREN WHERE THEY SHOULD LIVE.
THEIR CHILDREN WHERE THEY SHOULD LIVE.
>> WELL, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS LIVE.
>> WELL, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS REALLY THREW ME BACK ABOUT 40 >> WELL, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS REALLY THREW ME BACK ABOUT 40 YEARS AGO WHEN I LIVED IN LOS REALLY THREW ME BACK ABOUT 40 YEARS AGO WHEN I LIVED IN LOS ANGELES AND THOUGHT I WAS A YEARS AGO WHEN I LIVED IN LOS ANGELES AND THOUGHT I WAS A RESIDENT THERE BUT MY HUSBAND ANGELES AND THOUGHT I WAS A RESIDENT THERE BUT MY HUSBAND HAPPENED TO MOVE TO WASHINGTON, RESIDENT THERE BUT MY HUSBAND HAPPENED TO MOVE TO WASHINGTON, D.C. AND AT THE TIME BECAUSE HIS HAPPENED TO MOVE TO WASHINGTON, D.C. AND AT THE TIME BECAUSE HIS RESIDENCY CHANGED SO DID MINE.
D.C. AND AT THE TIME BECAUSE HIS RESIDENCY CHANGED SO DID MINE.
AND I WENT FROM BEING AN RESIDENCY CHANGED SO DID MINE.
AND I WENT FROM BEING AN IN-STATE STUDENT TO BEING OUT OF AND I WENT FROM BEING AN IN-STATE STUDENT TO BEING OUT OF STATE STUDENT EVEN THOUGH I IN-STATE STUDENT TO BEING OUT OF STATE STUDENT EVEN THOUGH I NEVER STEPPED FOOT IN STATE STUDENT EVEN THOUGH I NEVER STEPPED FOOT IN WASHINGTON, D.C. NEVER STEPPED FOOT IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THAT USED TO BE THE WAY WE USED WASHINGTON, D.C. THAT USED TO BE THE WAY WE USED TO THINK THINGS, THE FATHERS THAT USED TO BE THE WAY WE USED TO THINK THINGS, THE FATHERS DETERMINED OR HUSBANDS TO THINK THINGS, THE FATHERS DETERMINED OR HUSBANDS DETERMINED EVERYTHING.
DETERMINED OR HUSBANDS DETERMINED EVERYTHING.
THIS IS TOTALLY BIZARRE AND DETERMINED EVERYTHING.
THIS IS TOTALLY BIZARRE AND FRANKLY I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS TOTALLY BIZARRE AND FRANKLY I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS THAT THE COURTS COULD FRANKLY I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT IS THAT THE COURTS COULD INTERVENE IN THIS CASE AND TAKE IT IS THAT THE COURTS COULD INTERVENE IN THIS CASE AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO BE INTERVENE IN THIS CASE AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO BE ABLE TO MOVE BECAUSE SHE HAPPENS AWAY THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO BE ABLE TO MOVE BECAUSE SHE HAPPENS TO BE PREGNANT.
ABLE TO MOVE BECAUSE SHE HAPPENS TO BE PREGNANT.
SHE'S NOT EVEN MARRIED TO THE TO BE PREGNANT.
SHE'S NOT EVEN MARRIED TO THE FATHER OF THE CHILD AND I THINK SHE'S NOT EVEN MARRIED TO THE FATHER OF THE CHILD AND I THINK IT'S TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
FATHER OF THE CHILD AND I THINK IT'S TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
>> ISN'T IT A PRODUCT OF ALL IT'S TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.
>> ISN'T IT A PRODUCT OF ALL THIS LITIGATION BY SO-CALLED PRO >> ISN'T IT A PRODUCT OF ALL THIS LITIGATION BY SO-CALLED PRO LIFE GROUPS WHO WANT TO GIVE THIS LITIGATION BY SO-CALLED PRO LIFE GROUPS WHO WANT TO GIVE FETUSES RIGHTS.
LIFE GROUPS WHO WANT TO GIVE FETUSES RIGHTS.
NOW -- FETUSES RIGHTS.
NOW -- >> IT'S GIVING THE FATHER THE NOW -- >> IT'S GIVING THE FATHER THE RIGHT.
>> IT'S GIVING THE FATHER THE RIGHT.
>> BUT IT'S ALSO CREATING THE RIGHT.
>> BUT IT'S ALSO CREATING THE FETUS AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND >> BUT IT'S ALSO CREATING THE FETUS AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PITTING THAT INDIVIDUAL AGAINST FETUS AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PITTING THAT INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE WOMAN WHO IS CREATING.
PITTING THAT INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE WOMAN WHO IS CREATING.
>> I THINK IT'S PITTING -- I THE WOMAN WHO IS CREATING.
>> I THINK IT'S PITTING -- I THINK THIS IS MORE SORT OF IN TO >> I THINK IT'S PITTING -- I THINK THIS IS MORE SORT OF IN TO THE FATHER, GIVING FATHER'S THINK THIS IS MORE SORT OF IN TO THE FATHER, GIVING FATHER'S RIGHTS AND FRANKLY THE OLD DAYS THE FATHER, GIVING FATHER'S RIGHTS AND FRANKLY THE OLD DAYS THE FATHER WAS PRESUMED TO BE RIGHTS AND FRANKLY THE OLD DAYS THE FATHER WAS PRESUMED TO BE THE HUSBAND BECAUSE SO MANY THE FATHER WAS PRESUMED TO BE THE HUSBAND BECAUSE SO MANY CHILDREN WERE BORN OUT OF THE HUSBAND BECAUSE SO MANY CHILDREN WERE BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK NOW WE'VE TOTALLY CHILDREN WERE BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK NOW WE'VE TOTALLY DISASSOCIATED MARRIAGE FROM ALL WEDLOCK NOW WE'VE TOTALLY DISASSOCIATED MARRIAGE FROM ALL OF THIS.
DISASSOCIATED MARRIAGE FROM ALL OF THIS.
THIS IS A BIZARRE RULING I THINK OF THIS.
THIS IS A BIZARRE RULING I THINK ULTIMATELY BE THROWN OUT.
THIS IS A BIZARRE RULING I THINK ULTIMATELY BE THROWN OUT.
>> THIS IS A SPITE FIGHT, ULTIMATELY BE THROWN OUT.
>> THIS IS A SPITE FIGHT, REALLY.
>> THIS IS A SPITE FIGHT, REALLY.
THIS IS NOT -- REALLY.
THIS IS NOT -- >> BUT IT HAS MUCH LARGER THIS IS NOT -- >> BUT IT HAS MUCH LARGER IMPLICATIONS.
>> BUT IT HAS MUCH LARGER IMPLICATIONS.
PREGNANT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
IMPLICATIONS.
PREGNANT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
>> I THINK LINDA IS RIGHT, HE PREGNANT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
>> I THINK LINDA IS RIGHT, HE IS -- THE LINE THAT HE IS >> I THINK LINDA IS RIGHT, HE IS -- THE LINE THAT HE IS TREADING IS THE FATHERS WHO NOW IS -- THE LINE THAT HE IS TREADING IS THE FATHERS WHO NOW ARE INCREASINGLY CLAIMING THEIR TREADING IS THE FATHERS WHO NOW ARE INCREASINGLY CLAIMING THEIR OWN RIGHTS.
ARE INCREASINGLY CLAIMING THEIR OWN RIGHTS.
BY THE WAY, I'M PLEASED TO SEE OWN RIGHTS.
BY THE WAY, I'M PLEASED TO SEE THAT.
BY THE WAY, I'M PLEASED TO SEE THAT.
I DON'T THINK THINK HE CARES THAT.
I DON'T THINK THINK HE CARES BEANS ABOUT THIS KID.
I DON'T THINK THINK HE CARES BEANS ABOUT THIS KID.
HE'S ASSERTING HIS RIGHTS, THE BEANS ABOUT THIS KID.
HE'S ASSERTING HIS RIGHTS, THE APPEALS COURT SAW WHAT HE'S HE'S ASSERTING HIS RIGHTS, THE APPEALS COURT SAW WHAT HE'S REALLY AFTER WAS AFTER THE APPEALS COURT SAW WHAT HE'S REALLY AFTER WAS AFTER THE MOTHER.
REALLY AFTER WAS AFTER THE MOTHER.
THIS IS A FIGHT BETWEEN A MOTHER MOTHER.
THIS IS A FIGHT BETWEEN A MOTHER AND A PRESUMPTIVE FATHER AND THE THIS IS A FIGHT BETWEEN A MOTHER AND A PRESUMPTIVE FATHER AND THE THE MOTHER AND THE FETUS IS UPS AND A PRESUMPTIVE FATHER AND THE THE MOTHER AND THE FETUS IS UPS DENTAL TO IT ALL.
THE MOTHER AND THE FETUS IS UPS DENTAL TO IT ALL.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT IT WOULD DENTAL TO IT ALL.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW IF THEY I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW IF THEY FILED OR MAY HAVE -- BE INTERESTING TO KNOW IF THEY FILED OR MAY HAVE -- >> WHERE DID THIS WHOLE LEGAL -- FILED OR MAY HAVE -- >> WHERE DID THIS WHOLE LEGAL -- >> I'M NOT SURE MY AMICUS IN >> WHERE DID THIS WHOLE LEGAL -- >> I'M NOT SURE MY AMICUS IN THIS CASE.
>> I'M NOT SURE MY AMICUS IN THIS CASE.
>> BUT AREN'T THEY RESPONSIBLE THIS CASE.
>> BUT AREN'T THEY RESPONSIBLE OF THE GOLD DOCTRINE AROUND >> BUT AREN'T THEY RESPONSIBLE OF THE GOLD DOCTRINE AROUND UNBORN CHILDREN THAT HAS LED TO OF THE GOLD DOCTRINE AROUND UNBORN CHILDREN THAT HAS LED TO THIS CASE.
UNBORN CHILDREN THAT HAS LED TO THIS CASE.
>> I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT.
THIS CASE.
>> I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT.
WHEN YOU READ WHAT THIS WOMAN >> I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT.
WHEN YOU READ WHAT THIS WOMAN SAID IN THE FAMILY COURT THAT WHEN YOU READ WHAT THIS WOMAN SAID IN THE FAMILY COURT THAT THIS MARINE, THIS WOMAN WHO IS SAID IN THE FAMILY COURT THAT THIS MARINE, THIS WOMAN WHO IS ON THE GI BILL, SHE WAS TRYING THIS MARINE, THIS WOMAN WHO IS ON THE GI BILL, SHE WAS TRYING TO GET HERSELF A FABULOUS IVY ON THE GI BILL, SHE WAS TRYING TO GET HERSELF A FABULOUS IVY LEAGUE EDUCATION CALLING HER TO GET HERSELF A FABULOUS IVY LEAGUE EDUCATION CALLING HER IRRESPONSIBLE AND REPREHENSIBLE LEAGUE EDUCATION CALLING HER IRRESPONSIBLE AND REPREHENSIBLE BEHAVIOR, IT WAS JUST -- FLIES IRRESPONSIBLE AND REPREHENSIBLE BEHAVIOR, IT WAS JUST -- FLIES IN THE FACE OF COMMON SENSE.
BEHAVIOR, IT WAS JUST -- FLIES IN THE FACE OF COMMON SENSE.
AMONG OTHER THINGS.
IN THE FACE OF COMMON SENSE.
AMONG OTHER THINGS.
AND IT'S VERY MUCH IRRESPONSIBLE AMONG OTHER THINGS.
AND IT'S VERY MUCH IRRESPONSIBLE IN ITSELF.
AND IT'S VERY MUCH IRRESPONSIBLE IN ITSELF.
I WAS GLAD TO SEE THAT IT WAS IN ITSELF.
I WAS GLAD TO SEE THAT IT WAS OVERTURNED.
I WAS GLAD TO SEE THAT IT WAS OVERTURNED.
BUT THERE IS CLEARLY A SENSE ON OVERTURNED.
BUT THERE IS CLEARLY A SENSE ON THE PART OF THAT JUDGE IN THAT BUT THERE IS CLEARLY A SENSE ON THE PART OF THAT JUDGE IN THAT FAMILY COURT THAT FATHERS SHOULD THE PART OF THAT JUDGE IN THAT FAMILY COURT THAT FATHERS SHOULD SOMEHOW BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE FAMILY COURT THAT FATHERS SHOULD SOMEHOW BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE MOTHER OF THEIR CHILDREN EVEN SOMEHOW BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE MOTHER OF THEIR CHILDREN EVEN BEFORE THE BABY IS BORN.
MOTHER OF THEIR CHILDREN EVEN BEFORE THE BABY IS BORN.
>> I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT BEFORE THE BABY IS BORN.
>> I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE ON CASE BY CASE BASIS.
>> I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE ON CASE BY CASE BASIS.
BECAUSE IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE THESE ON CASE BY CASE BASIS.
BECAUSE IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE YOU SAID YOU DON'T THINK THAT BECAUSE IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE YOU SAID YOU DON'T THINK THAT THE FATHER CARES ABOUT THIS YOU SAID YOU DON'T THINK THAT THE FATHER CARES ABOUT THIS CHILD.
THE FATHER CARES ABOUT THIS CHILD.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK THAT HE DID NOT CHILD.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S LIFE YOU HAVE TO LOOK THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S LIFE AT ALL, BEFORE THIS CHILD WAS WANT TO BE IN THE CHILD'S LIFE AT ALL, BEFORE THIS CHILD WAS BORN.
AT ALL, BEFORE THIS CHILD WAS BORN.
SO THAT IS PART OF THE REASON BORN.
SO THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WHY I THINK IT'S BROAD SO THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WHY I THINK IT'S BROAD IMPLICATIONS ON THIS VERY WHY I THINK IT'S BROAD IMPLICATIONS ON THIS VERY SPECIFIC CASE.
IMPLICATIONS ON THIS VERY SPECIFIC CASE.
THE REASON WHY THE MOTHER WANTED SPECIFIC CASE.
THE REASON WHY THE MOTHER WANTED TO HAVE THE CHILD AND WHY THE THE REASON WHY THE MOTHER WANTED TO HAVE THE CHILD AND WHY THE COURT DECIDED THEY DID WAS TO HAVE THE CHILD AND WHY THE COURT DECIDED THEY DID WAS PARTIALLY BASED ON THE TESTIMONY COURT DECIDED THEY DID WAS PARTIALLY BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE PARTIALLY BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED UNTIL NOW.
THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED UNTIL NOW.
>> IMAGINE THIS PREGNANT WOMAN INVOLVED UNTIL NOW.
>> IMAGINE THIS PREGNANT WOMAN WOULD BE TETHERED TO THE FATHER >> IMAGINE THIS PREGNANT WOMAN WOULD BE TETHERED TO THE FATHER THEY -- WOULD BE TETHERED TO THE FATHER THEY -- >> THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.
THEY -- >> THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.
>> FRANKLY I AGREE IT'S >> THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.
>> FRANKLY I AGREE IT'S WONDERFUL WHEN FATHERS WANT TO >> FRANKLY I AGREE IT'S WONDERFUL WHEN FATHERS WANT TO BE INVOLVED BUT MARRIAGE IS THE WONDERFUL WHEN FATHERS WANT TO BE INVOLVED BUT MARRIAGE IS THE VEHICLE TO DO THAT.
BE INVOLVED BUT MARRIAGE IS THE VEHICLE TO DO THAT.
FRANKLY ESTABLISHING THAT YOU VEHICLE TO DO THAT.
FRANKLY ESTABLISHING THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT, IF YOU AND THE FRANKLY ESTABLISHING THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT, IF YOU AND THE MOTHER ARE NOT MARRIED TO ME I HAVE A RIGHT, IF YOU AND THE MOTHER ARE NOT MARRIED TO ME I THINK YOU ARE COMPLICATING THE MOTHER ARE NOT MARRIED TO ME I THINK YOU ARE COMPLICATING THE MATTER AND I DON'T THINK -- THINK YOU ARE COMPLICATING THE MATTER AND I DON'T THINK -- >> ON VERY SLIM GROUND.
MATTER AND I DON'T THINK -- >> ON VERY SLIM GROUND.
THAT HE IS NOT MARRIED TO THIS >> ON VERY SLIM GROUND.
THAT HE IS NOT MARRIED TO THIS WOMAN HE'D HAVE STRONGER CASE, THAT HE IS NOT MARRIED TO THIS WOMAN HE'D HAVE STRONGER CASE, NOT A GOOD CASE BUT STRONGER WOMAN HE'D HAVE STRONGER CASE, NOT A GOOD CASE BUT STRONGER CASE IF THEY WERE MARRIED.
NOT A GOOD CASE BUT STRONGER CASE IF THEY WERE MARRIED.
>> BUT WHAT WILL THE OUTCOME OF CASE IF THEY WERE MARRIED.
>> BUT WHAT WILL THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE DO TO PREGNANT WOMEN?
>> BUT WHAT WILL THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE DO TO PREGNANT WOMEN?
RIGHT NOW SHE HAS TEMPORARY THIS CASE DO TO PREGNANT WOMEN?
RIGHT NOW SHE HAS TEMPORARY CUSTODY ANYWAY.
RIGHT NOW SHE HAS TEMPORARY CUSTODY ANYWAY.
BUT DOWN THE ROAD IF HE GETS CUSTODY ANYWAY.
BUT DOWN THE ROAD IF HE GETS ANOTHER SYMPATHETIC JUDGE BUT DOWN THE ROAD IF HE GETS ANOTHER SYMPATHETIC JUDGE SOMEWHERE WON'T IT MAKE -- WON'T ANOTHER SYMPATHETIC JUDGE SOMEWHERE WON'T IT MAKE -- WON'T THAT SAY TO PREGNANT WOMEN, YOU SOMEWHERE WON'T IT MAKE -- WON'T THAT SAY TO PREGNANT WOMEN, YOU BETTER BE GETTING ALONG WITH THE THAT SAY TO PREGNANT WOMEN, YOU BETTER BE GETTING ALONG WITH THE FATHER OF YOUR CHILD OR YOU MAY BETTER BE GETTING ALONG WITH THE FATHER OF YOUR CHILD OR YOU MAY HAVE TO MOVE COAST TO COAST.
FATHER OF YOUR CHILD OR YOU MAY HAVE TO MOVE COAST TO COAST.
YOU MAY HAVE TO LIMIT YOUR HAVE TO MOVE COAST TO COAST.
YOU MAY HAVE TO LIMIT YOUR OPPORTUNITY.
YOU MAY HAVE TO LIMIT YOUR OPPORTUNITY.
>> DON'T FORGET THAT JUDGE HAS OPPORTUNITY.
>> DON'T FORGET THAT JUDGE HAS BEEN OVERTURNED.
>> DON'T FORGET THAT JUDGE HAS BEEN OVERTURNED.
THAT'S THE LAW NOW.
BEEN OVERTURNED.
THAT'S THE LAW NOW.
THE ARE YOU THAT SHE HAS A THAT'S THE LAW NOW.
THE ARE YOU THAT SHE HAS A RIGHT -- THE ARE YOU THAT SHE HAS A RIGHT -- >> WHEN ALL FOUR OF US HERE RIGHT -- >> WHEN ALL FOUR OF US HERE AGREE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, SURELY >> WHEN ALL FOUR OF US HERE AGREE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, SURELY THAT WON'T HAPPEN.
AGREE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, SURELY THAT WON'T HAPPEN.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THAT WON'T HAPPEN.
>> ALL RIGHT.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES: >> ALL RIGHT.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES: JEZEBEL.COM.
BEHIND THE HEADLINES: JEZEBEL.COM.
IT'S AN EDGY FEMINIST BLOG THAT JEZEBEL.COM.
IT'S AN EDGY FEMINIST BLOG THAT GENERATES MORE THAN 32 MILLION IT'S AN EDGY FEMINIST BLOG THAT GENERATES MORE THAN 32 MILLION HITS EACH MONTH.
GENERATES MORE THAN 32 MILLION HITS EACH MONTH.
WE SPOKE WITH FOUNDER ANNA HITS EACH MONTH.
WE SPOKE WITH FOUNDER ANNA HOLMES ABOUT WHY SHE TOOK ON THE WE SPOKE WITH FOUNDER ANNA HOLMES ABOUT WHY SHE TOOK ON THE CHALLENGE.
HOLMES ABOUT WHY SHE TOOK ON THE CHALLENGE.
AUTHOR AND "NEW YORK TIMES" CHALLENGE.
AUTHOR AND "NEW YORK TIMES" BOOK REVIEWER AUTHOR AND "NEW YORK TIMES" BOOK REVIEWER ANNA HOLMES HAS NEVER SHIED AWAY BOOK REVIEWER ANNA HOLMES HAS NEVER SHIED AWAY FROM FEMINISM, SHE EMBRACED IT.
ANNA HOLMES HAS NEVER SHIED AWAY FROM FEMINISM, SHE EMBRACED IT.
SO AFTER TWO YEARS AT "GLAMOUR" FROM FEMINISM, SHE EMBRACED IT.
SO AFTER TWO YEARS AT "GLAMOUR" MAGAZINE, FRUSTRATED OVER THE SO AFTER TWO YEARS AT "GLAMOUR" MAGAZINE, FRUSTRATED OVER THE STATUS QUO IN WOMEN'S MEDIA SHE MAGAZINE, FRUSTRATED OVER THE STATUS QUO IN WOMEN'S MEDIA SHE HELPED CREATE JEZEBEL FOR ONLINE STATUS QUO IN WOMEN'S MEDIA SHE HELPED CREATE JEZEBEL FOR ONLINE MEDIA FIRM GAWKER.
HELPED CREATE JEZEBEL FOR ONLINE MEDIA FIRM GAWKER.
>> I WASN'T SEEING A LOT OF MEDIA FIRM GAWKER.
>> I WASN'T SEEING A LOT OF DISCUSSION OF GENDER POLITICS OR >> I WASN'T SEEING A LOT OF DISCUSSION OF GENDER POLITICS OR FEMINIST ISSUES AND THE CULTURE DISCUSSION OF GENDER POLITICS OR FEMINIST ISSUES AND THE CULTURE IN GENERAL, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE FEMINIST ISSUES AND THE CULTURE IN GENERAL, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE THERE REALLY NEEDED TO BE A IN GENERAL, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE THERE REALLY NEEDED TO BE A FEMINIST ANALYSIS OR ANALYSES OF THERE REALLY NEEDED TO BE A FEMINIST ANALYSIS OR ANALYSES OF ESPECIALLY POP CULTURE.
FEMINIST ANALYSIS OR ANALYSES OF ESPECIALLY POP CULTURE.
SO RATHER THAN REJECTING POP ESPECIALLY POP CULTURE.
SO RATHER THAN REJECTING POP CULTURE ALTOGETHER, I FIGURED SO RATHER THAN REJECTING POP CULTURE ALTOGETHER, I FIGURED THAT IT MIGHT BE A WAY TO CULTURE ALTOGETHER, I FIGURED THAT IT MIGHT BE A WAY TO PROVIDE AN ENTRY POINT INTO THAT IT MIGHT BE A WAY TO PROVIDE AN ENTRY POINT INTO REPRESENTATIONS OF WOMEN, OR PROVIDE AN ENTRY POINT INTO REPRESENTATIONS OF WOMEN, OR MEDIA CRITICISM, OR FEMINISM.
REPRESENTATIONS OF WOMEN, OR MEDIA CRITICISM, OR FEMINISM.
>> FEMINISM IS DEFINED AS THE MEDIA CRITICISM, OR FEMINISM.
>> FEMINISM IS DEFINED AS THE BELIEF THAT MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD >> FEMINISM IS DEFINED AS THE BELIEF THAT MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS.
BELIEF THAT MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS.
BUT A POLL EARLIER THIS YEAR HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS.
BUT A POLL EARLIER THIS YEAR REVEALED ONLY ONE IN FIVE BUT A POLL EARLIER THIS YEAR REVEALED ONLY ONE IN FIVE AMERICANS IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS REVEALED ONLY ONE IN FIVE AMERICANS IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS FEMINISTS.WHILE 82% BELIEVE THAT AMERICANS IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS FEMINISTS.WHILE 82% BELIEVE THAT MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD BE EQUAL FEMINISTS.WHILE 82% BELIEVE THAT MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD BE EQUAL SOCIALLY, POLITICALLY AND MEN AND WOMEN SHOULD BE EQUAL SOCIALLY, POLITICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY.
HOLMES STRIVES TO SOCIALLY, POLITICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY.
HOLMES STRIVES TO DIMINISH THE LABEL'S NEGATIVE ECONOMICALLY.
HOLMES STRIVES TO DIMINISH THE LABEL'S NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS.
DIMINISH THE LABEL'S NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS.
>> I DID FEEL THAT IF WE TALKED CONNOTATIONS.
>> I DID FEEL THAT IF WE TALKED ABOUT FEMINISM IN A VERY >> I DID FEEL THAT IF WE TALKED ABOUT FEMINISM IN A VERY UNAPOLOGETIC MATTER-OF-FACT WAY, ABOUT FEMINISM IN A VERY UNAPOLOGETIC MATTER-OF-FACT WAY, IF WE SELF-IDENTIFIED AS UNAPOLOGETIC MATTER-OF-FACT WAY, IF WE SELF-IDENTIFIED AS FEMINISTS IN AN UNAPOLOGETIC IF WE SELF-IDENTIFIED AS FEMINISTS IN AN UNAPOLOGETIC MATTER OF FACT WAY AND REPEATED FEMINISTS IN AN UNAPOLOGETIC MATTER OF FACT WAY AND REPEATED THE WORD ENOUGH, WHEN WARRANTED, MATTER OF FACT WAY AND REPEATED THE WORD ENOUGH, WHEN WARRANTED, YOU KNOW IN HEADLINES OR IN THE THE WORD ENOUGH, WHEN WARRANTED, YOU KNOW IN HEADLINES OR IN THE CONTENT OF POSTS, THAT FOR SOME YOU KNOW IN HEADLINES OR IN THE CONTENT OF POSTS, THAT FOR SOME READERS, MAYBE IT WOULD LOSE CONTENT OF POSTS, THAT FOR SOME READERS, MAYBE IT WOULD LOSE SOME OF ITS ICK, YOU KNOW, SOME READERS, MAYBE IT WOULD LOSE SOME OF ITS ICK, YOU KNOW, SOME OF ITS ICKY FACTOR.
SOME OF ITS ICK, YOU KNOW, SOME OF ITS ICKY FACTOR.
>> WHEN HOLMES LAUNCHED THE SITE OF ITS ICKY FACTOR.
>> WHEN HOLMES LAUNCHED THE SITE SHE DID SHOW TO FILL WHAT SHE >> WHEN HOLMES LAUNCHED THE SITE SHE DID SHOW TO FILL WHAT SHE WAS OPEN NICHE.
SHE DID SHOW TO FILL WHAT SHE WAS OPEN NICHE.
MONTHLY WOMEN'S WAS OPEN NICHE.
MONTHLY WOMEN'S MAGAZINES STRUGGLED TO STAY MONTHLY WOMEN'S MAGAZINES STRUGGLED TO STAY RELEVANT AND FAILED TO REPRESENT MAGAZINES STRUGGLED TO STAY RELEVANT AND FAILED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS AND DIVERSITY OF RELEVANT AND FAILED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS AND DIVERSITY OF THE CONTEMPORARY WOMAN.
THE INTERESTS AND DIVERSITY OF THE CONTEMPORARY WOMAN.
THE MEDIA'S STEREOTYPES OF WOMEN THE CONTEMPORARY WOMAN.
THE MEDIA'S STEREOTYPES OF WOMEN NARROWED DISCOURSE ON BIGGER THE MEDIA'S STEREOTYPES OF WOMEN NARROWED DISCOURSE ON BIGGER ISSUES.
NARROWED DISCOURSE ON BIGGER ISSUES.
SO IN 2008 WHEN JEZEBEL'S PAGES ISSUES.
SO IN 2008 WHEN JEZEBEL'S PAGES FILLED WITH DEEP POLITICAL SO IN 2008 WHEN JEZEBEL'S PAGES FILLED WITH DEEP POLITICAL DISCUSSION AROUND THE FILLED WITH DEEP POLITICAL DISCUSSION AROUND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IT SERVED DISCUSSION AROUND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IT SERVED AS ONE OF HOLMES' PROUDEST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IT SERVED AS ONE OF HOLMES' PROUDEST MOMENTS.
AS ONE OF HOLMES' PROUDEST MOMENTS.
>> IF YOU'D LOOK ON THE SITE AT MOMENTS.
>> IF YOU'D LOOK ON THE SITE AT ANY GIVEN DAY AROUND THE YEAR >> IF YOU'D LOOK ON THE SITE AT ANY GIVEN DAY AROUND THE YEAR 2008, AND EVEN BEYOND BUT ANY GIVEN DAY AROUND THE YEAR 2008, AND EVEN BEYOND BUT ESPECIALLY THEN THEY WOULD HAVE 2008, AND EVEN BEYOND BUT ESPECIALLY THEN THEY WOULD HAVE PROVED TO YOU, THE READERS, JUST ESPECIALLY THEN THEY WOULD HAVE PROVED TO YOU, THE READERS, JUST HOW INVESTED THEY WERE IN PROVED TO YOU, THE READERS, JUST HOW INVESTED THEY WERE IN TALKING ABOUT POLITICS.
HOW INVESTED THEY WERE IN TALKING ABOUT POLITICS.
AND NOT JUST ELECTORAL POLITICS, TALKING ABOUT POLITICS.
AND NOT JUST ELECTORAL POLITICS, BUT GENDER POLITICS.
AND NOT JUST ELECTORAL POLITICS, BUT GENDER POLITICS.
AND IT WAS SUCH AN AMAZING TIME BUT GENDER POLITICS.
AND IT WAS SUCH AN AMAZING TIME JUST TO LIVE THROUGH.
AND IT WAS SUCH AN AMAZING TIME JUST TO LIVE THROUGH.
IT WAS HISTORIC.
JUST TO LIVE THROUGH.
IT WAS HISTORIC.
>> HOLMES SAYS THE INTERNET IT WAS HISTORIC.
>> HOLMES SAYS THE INTERNET SERVES AS A GUIDING LIGHT TO >> HOLMES SAYS THE INTERNET SERVES AS A GUIDING LIGHT TO PRINT MAGAZINES DEFINING THEIR SERVES AS A GUIDING LIGHT TO PRINT MAGAZINES DEFINING THEIR FUTURES.
PRINT MAGAZINES DEFINING THEIR FUTURES.
>> I THINK THAT WOMEN'S FUTURES.
>> I THINK THAT WOMEN'S MAGAZINES ARE TRYING >> I THINK THAT WOMEN'S MAGAZINES ARE TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES AND MAGAZINES ARE TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES AND THEY ARE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES AND THEY ARE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TAKING A PAGE FROM THE WAYS THAT THEY ARE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TAKING A PAGE FROM THE WAYS THAT A LOT OF WOMEN'S MEDIA TAKING A PAGE FROM THE WAYS THAT A LOT OF WOMEN'S MEDIA PROPERTIES ON THE INTERNET HAVE A LOT OF WOMEN'S MEDIA PROPERTIES ON THE INTERNET HAVE BEEN BEHAVING.
PROPERTIES ON THE INTERNET HAVE BEEN BEHAVING.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A BEEN BEHAVING.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL BUT THEY DO SEEM TO BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL BUT THEY DO SEEM TO BE TRYING TO INNOVATE A LITTLE CRYSTAL BALL BUT THEY DO SEEM TO BE TRYING TO INNOVATE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THEY USED TO.
BE TRYING TO INNOVATE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THEY USED TO.
>> HOLMES CHAMPIONS THE INTERNET BIT MORE THAN THEY USED TO.
>> HOLMES CHAMPIONS THE INTERNET AS A PLATFORM THAT GIVES VOICE >> HOLMES CHAMPIONS THE INTERNET AS A PLATFORM THAT GIVES VOICE TO YOUNG WOMEN ONCE MARGINALIZED AS A PLATFORM THAT GIVES VOICE TO YOUNG WOMEN ONCE MARGINALIZED BY TRADITIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS.
TO YOUNG WOMEN ONCE MARGINALIZED BY TRADITIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS.
AND AS A BLOGGER SHE'S AN AVID BY TRADITIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS.
AND AS A BLOGGER SHE'S AN AVID USER OF SOCIAL MEDIA.
AND AS A BLOGGER SHE'S AN AVID USER OF SOCIAL MEDIA.
BUT SHE ALSO SEES DAMAGE DONE BY USER OF SOCIAL MEDIA.
BUT SHE ALSO SEES DAMAGE DONE BY THE NETWORKING TOOL.
BUT SHE ALSO SEES DAMAGE DONE BY THE NETWORKING TOOL.
>> I'M REALLY GLAD THAT FACEBOOK THE NETWORKING TOOL.
>> I'M REALLY GLAD THAT FACEBOOK WASN'T AROUND WHEN I WAS 13.
>> I'M REALLY GLAD THAT FACEBOOK WASN'T AROUND WHEN I WAS 13.
THAT IT WASN'T A PLACE WHERE I WASN'T AROUND WHEN I WAS 13.
THAT IT WASN'T A PLACE WHERE I WAS GOING TO TRY AND SHOW OFF THAT IT WASN'T A PLACE WHERE I WAS GOING TO TRY AND SHOW OFF OR THAT WOULD BE A REPOSITORY OF WAS GOING TO TRY AND SHOW OFF OR THAT WOULD BE A REPOSITORY OF ALL THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE UM OR THAT WOULD BE A REPOSITORY OF ALL THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE UM AS A TEENAGER.
ALL THE MISTAKES I HAD MADE UM AS A TEENAGER.
AND I THINK THAT IT JUST ADDS A AS A TEENAGER.
AND I THINK THAT IT JUST ADDS A LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE TO A TIME AND I THINK THAT IT JUST ADDS A LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE TO A TIME IN ONE'S LIFE THAT IS ALREADY LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE TO A TIME IN ONE'S LIFE THAT IS ALREADY TOTALLY DIFFICULT.
IN ONE'S LIFE THAT IS ALREADY TOTALLY DIFFICULT.
>> HOLMES IS BUSY PROMOTING "THE TOTALLY DIFFICULT.
>> HOLMES IS BUSY PROMOTING "THE BOOK OF JEZEBEL" >> HOLMES IS BUSY PROMOTING "THE BOOK OF JEZEBEL" SHE LEFT JEZEBEL IN 2010, AND BOOK OF JEZEBEL" SHE LEFT JEZEBEL IN 2010, AND HAS NO PLANS TO RETURN, BUT SHE LEFT JEZEBEL IN 2010, AND HAS NO PLANS TO RETURN, BUT MIGHT START ANOTHER WEBSITE.
HAS NO PLANS TO RETURN, BUT MIGHT START ANOTHER WEBSITE.
>> WELL I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO MIGHT START ANOTHER WEBSITE.
>> WELL I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING LIKE JEZEBEL ONLY >> WELL I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING LIKE JEZEBEL ONLY BECAUSE I WOULD FEEL LIKE I WAS BE ANYTHING LIKE JEZEBEL ONLY BECAUSE I WOULD FEEL LIKE I WAS REPEATING MYSELF AND I DON'T BECAUSE I WOULD FEEL LIKE I WAS REPEATING MYSELF AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
REPEATING MYSELF AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
>> HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT HAS WANT TO DO THAT.
>> HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT HAS JEZEBEL HAD ON YOUNG WOMEN.
>> HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT HAS JEZEBEL HAD ON YOUNG WOMEN.
>> THERE ARE WHOLE GENERATIONS JEZEBEL HAD ON YOUNG WOMEN.
>> THERE ARE WHOLE GENERATIONS OF MILLENNIAL, IS THAT EMBRACE >> THERE ARE WHOLE GENERATIONS OF MILLENNIAL, IS THAT EMBRACE THIS IDEA OF FEMINISM THAT SEEMS OF MILLENNIAL, IS THAT EMBRACE THIS IDEA OF FEMINISM THAT SEEMS LADEN POP CULTURE AND SMART AND THIS IDEA OF FEMINISM THAT SEEMS LADEN POP CULTURE AND SMART AND HAS A LOT OF MOXIE.
LADEN POP CULTURE AND SMART AND HAS A LOT OF MOXIE.
I LIKE IT.
HAS A LOT OF MOXIE.
I LIKE IT.
BECAUSE I THINK OUR GENERATION I LIKE IT.
BECAUSE I THINK OUR GENERATION OF FEMINISM WE FOCUSED ON BECAUSE I THINK OUR GENERATION OF FEMINISM WE FOCUSED ON ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL EQUALITY.
OF FEMINISM WE FOCUSED ON ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL EQUALITY.
WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL EQUALITY.
WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT SORT OF IN WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT SORT OF IN THE D.N.A.
OF OUR CULTURE.
SOMETHING ELSE THAT SORT OF IN THE D.N.A.
OF OUR CULTURE.
IT'S STANDARDS, IT'S IMAGES THAT THE D.N.A.
OF OUR CULTURE.
IT'S STANDARDS, IT'S IMAGES THAT DON'T REINFORCE THE PROPER KIND IT'S STANDARDS, IT'S IMAGES THAT DON'T REINFORCE THE PROPER KIND OF MESSAGE FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.
DON'T REINFORCE THE PROPER KIND OF MESSAGE FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.
AND THEY'RE GOING AT IT HEAD ON.
OF MESSAGE FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.
AND THEY'RE GOING AT IT HEAD ON.
MY DAUGHTER IS ACTUALLY PART OF AND THEY'RE GOING AT IT HEAD ON.
MY DAUGHTER IS ACTUALLY PART OF THIS, SHE STARTED SOMETHING MY DAUGHTER IS ACTUALLY PART OF THIS, SHE STARTED SOMETHING CALLED FEMINIST TAYLOR SWIFT SHE THIS, SHE STARTED SOMETHING CALLED FEMINIST TAYLOR SWIFT SHE TAKES A LINE FROM A TAYLOR SWIFT CALLED FEMINIST TAYLOR SWIFT SHE TAKES A LINE FROM A TAYLOR SWIFT SONG LIKE "SHE WEARS SHORT TAKES A LINE FROM A TAYLOR SWIFT SONG LIKE "SHE WEARS SHORT SKIRTS I WEAR T-SHIRTS NEITHER SONG LIKE "SHE WEARS SHORT SKIRTS I WEAR T-SHIRTS NEITHER ONE OF US IS ASKING FOR IT."
SKIRTS I WEAR T-SHIRTS NEITHER ONE OF US IS ASKING FOR IT."
IN A WEEK SHE HAD 100,000 ONE OF US IS ASKING FOR IT."
IN A WEEK SHE HAD 100,000 FOLLOWERS.
IN A WEEK SHE HAD 100,000 FOLLOWERS.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD FOLLOWERS.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD SIGN, IT'S SHOWING THAT I THINK I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD SIGN, IT'S SHOWING THAT I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO REBRAND SIGN, IT'S SHOWING THAT I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO REBRAND FEMINISM AND BASICALLY SAY, THEY'RE GOING TO REBRAND FEMINISM AND BASICALLY SAY, LOOK, THIS IS ABOUT ALL OF US FEMINISM AND BASICALLY SAY, LOOK, THIS IS ABOUT ALL OF US BEING EQUAL.
LOOK, THIS IS ABOUT ALL OF US BEING EQUAL.
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
BEING EQUAL.
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING ALL THAT NEW ABOUT I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING ALL THAT NEW ABOUT JEZEBEL.
ANYTHING ALL THAT NEW ABOUT JEZEBEL.
I MEAN IT'S STILL VERY LIBERAL, JEZEBEL.
I MEAN IT'S STILL VERY LIBERAL, VERY SORT OF LEFT ORIENTED I MEAN IT'S STILL VERY LIBERAL, VERY SORT OF LEFT ORIENTED POLITICALLY.
VERY SORT OF LEFT ORIENTED POLITICALLY.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE OUT POLITICALLY.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE OUT THERE, I DON'T CALL MYSELF A THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE OUT THERE, I DON'T CALL MYSELF A FEMINIST BUT EVERYONE LAUGHS THERE, I DON'T CALL MYSELF A FEMINIST BUT EVERYONE LAUGHS WHEN I SAY THAT BECAUSE I'M A FEMINIST BUT EVERYONE LAUGHS WHEN I SAY THAT BECAUSE I'M A PROFESSIONAL WOMAN, WORKED ALL WHEN I SAY THAT BECAUSE I'M A PROFESSIONAL WOMAN, WORKED ALL MY LIFE.
PROFESSIONAL WOMAN, WORKED ALL MY LIFE.
MOST EVER TOOK OFF WHEN MY KIDS MY LIFE.
MOST EVER TOOK OFF WHEN MY KIDS WERE BORN WAS THREE WEEKS BACK MOST EVER TOOK OFF WHEN MY KIDS WERE BORN WAS THREE WEEKS BACK IN THE WORKPLACE THREE WEEKS WERE BORN WAS THREE WEEKS BACK IN THE WORKPLACE THREE WEEKS AFTER BIRTH.
IN THE WORKPLACE THREE WEEKS AFTER BIRTH.
AND YET FEMINISTS SEEM TO NOT AFTER BIRTH.
AND YET FEMINISTS SEEM TO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO ATTRACT SOMEONE AND YET FEMINISTS SEEM TO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO ATTRACT SOMEONE LIKE ME WHO ALSO HOLDS VERY HAVE ANYTHING TO ATTRACT SOMEONE LIKE ME WHO ALSO HOLDS VERY CONSERVATIVE VIEWS.
LIKE ME WHO ALSO HOLDS VERY CONSERVATIVE VIEWS.
AS LONG AS FEMINISTS -- FEMINISM CONSERVATIVE VIEWS.
AS LONG AS FEMINISTS -- FEMINISM IS SAYING NO TO PEOPLE WHO AS LONG AS FEMINISTS -- FEMINISM IS SAYING NO TO PEOPLE WHO POLITICALLY DISAGREE AND MAY BE IS SAYING NO TO PEOPLE WHO POLITICALLY DISAGREE AND MAY BE POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE IT'S POLITICALLY DISAGREE AND MAY BE POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A VERY POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A VERY WELCOMING.
NOT GOING TO BE A VERY WELCOMING.
>> I'M AMAZED THE CONSERVATIVES WELCOMING.
>> I'M AMAZED THE CONSERVATIVES HAVEN'T STARTED THEIR OWN BRAND.
>> I'M AMAZED THE CONSERVATIVES HAVEN'T STARTED THEIR OWN BRAND.
BECAUSE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
HAVEN'T STARTED THEIR OWN BRAND.
BECAUSE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
I SEE THERE ARE -- FEMINISTS IN BECAUSE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
I SEE THERE ARE -- FEMINISTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, I SEE THERE ARE -- FEMINISTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPUBLICANS, ALTHOUGH, THIS IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPUBLICANS, ALTHOUGH, THIS IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT JEZEBEL.
REPUBLICANS, ALTHOUGH, THIS IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT JEZEBEL.
SHE IS LIKE TRADITIONAL FEMINISM WHAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT JEZEBEL.
SHE IS LIKE TRADITIONAL FEMINISM IN THE SENSE THAT SHE'S VERY SHE IS LIKE TRADITIONAL FEMINISM IN THE SENSE THAT SHE'S VERY SERIOUS ABOUT EQUALITY.
IN THE SENSE THAT SHE'S VERY SERIOUS ABOUT EQUALITY.
SHE TALKS ABOUT POLITICAL ISSUES SERIOUS ABOUT EQUALITY.
SHE TALKS ABOUT POLITICAL ISSUES AND SHE'S MADE FEMINISM TRENDY SHE TALKS ABOUT POLITICAL ISSUES AND SHE'S MADE FEMINISM TRENDY AGAIN.
AND SHE'S MADE FEMINISM TRENDY AGAIN.
ACTUALLY, FEMINISM WAS QUITE AGAIN.
ACTUALLY, FEMINISM WAS QUITE TRENDY WHEN IT STARTED UP IN THE ACTUALLY, FEMINISM WAS QUITE TRENDY WHEN IT STARTED UP IN THE '60S THEN IT -- THEN WOMEN -- TRENDY WHEN IT STARTED UP IN THE '60S THEN IT -- THEN WOMEN -- >> RUSH LIMBAUGH CAME ALONG AND '60S THEN IT -- THEN WOMEN -- >> RUSH LIMBAUGH CAME ALONG AND FEMINIZED -- >> RUSH LIMBAUGH CAME ALONG AND FEMINIZED -- >> HAVING REVERTED TO, BEING FEMINIZED -- >> HAVING REVERTED TO, BEING SEEN AS A FEMINIST ISN'T QUITE >> HAVING REVERTED TO, BEING SEEN AS A FEMINIST ISN'T QUITE WITH IT.
SEEN AS A FEMINIST ISN'T QUITE WITH IT.
BUT SHE HAS -- THEY'RE SAYING WITH IT.
BUT SHE HAS -- THEY'RE SAYING YOU CAN BE A LIBERATED FEMINIST BUT SHE HAS -- THEY'RE SAYING YOU CAN BE A LIBERATED FEMINIST AND BE IN TO ALL THE OTHER YOU CAN BE A LIBERATED FEMINIST AND BE IN TO ALL THE OTHER THINGS LIKE BOYS, MEN AS WELL.
AND BE IN TO ALL THE OTHER THINGS LIKE BOYS, MEN AS WELL.
I THINK IT'S GREAT.
THINGS LIKE BOYS, MEN AS WELL.
I THINK IT'S GREAT.
>> I'M SORRY BUT AS A YOUNG I THINK IT'S GREAT.
>> I'M SORRY BUT AS A YOUNG WOMAN WHO RUNS A PUBLICATION >> I'M SORRY BUT AS A YOUNG WOMAN WHO RUNS A PUBLICATION THAT'S ABOUT POLITICS AND USES WOMAN WHO RUNS A PUBLICATION THAT'S ABOUT POLITICS AND USES POP CULTURE I'M VERY OFFENDED BY THAT'S ABOUT POLITICS AND USES POP CULTURE I'M VERY OFFENDED BY JEZEBEL.
POP CULTURE I'M VERY OFFENDED BY JEZEBEL.
I THINK THEY'RE GIVING FEMINISM JEZEBEL.
I THINK THEY'RE GIVING FEMINISM A BAD NAME.
I THINK THEY'RE GIVING FEMINISM A BAD NAME.
LAST WEEK THERE WAS AN ABORTION A BAD NAME.
LAST WEEK THERE WAS AN ABORTION FUNDRAISER CALLED TEXAS WOMEN LAST WEEK THERE WAS AN ABORTION FUNDRAISER CALLED TEXAS WOMEN FOREVER.
FUNDRAISER CALLED TEXAS WOMEN FOREVER.
ABORTION FUNDRAISER AT WHICH FOREVER.
ABORTION FUNDRAISER AT WHICH SARAH SILVERMAN WIPED A NAPKIN ABORTION FUNDRAISER AT WHICH SARAH SILVERMAN WIPED A NAPKIN IN BETWEEN HER UNDER AREA AND SARAH SILVERMAN WIPED A NAPKIN IN BETWEEN HER UNDER AREA AND THEY AUCTIONED IT OFF.
IN BETWEEN HER UNDER AREA AND THEY AUCTIONED IT OFF.
MY PUBLICATION WROTE ABOUT HOW THEY AUCTIONED IT OFF.
MY PUBLICATION WROTE ABOUT HOW UNCLASSY IT IS.
MY PUBLICATION WROTE ABOUT HOW UNCLASSY IT IS.
EVEN IF YOU PRO ABORTION.
UNCLASSY IT IS.
EVEN IF YOU PRO ABORTION.
JEZEBEL TRASHES US.
EVEN IF YOU PRO ABORTION.
JEZEBEL TRASHES US.
WHEN YOU DO SORTS OF JEZEBEL TRASHES US.
WHEN YOU DO SORTS OF THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT MAKES ME WHEN YOU DO SORTS OF THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT MAKES ME FEEL THAT YOU ARE GETTING THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT MAKES ME FEEL THAT YOU ARE GETTING FEMINISM A BAD NAME AND YOUR FEEL THAT YOU ARE GETTING FEMINISM A BAD NAME AND YOUR BRAND A BAD NAME I THINK THAT FEMINISM A BAD NAME AND YOUR BRAND A BAD NAME I THINK THAT SOMEONE COULD START A BETTER BRAND A BAD NAME I THINK THAT SOMEONE COULD START A BETTER PUBLICATION THAT PUSHES FOR SOMEONE COULD START A BETTER PUBLICATION THAT PUSHES FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS ABOUT DOING IT IN PUBLICATION THAT PUSHES FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS ABOUT DOING IT IN AN UNCLASSY WAY.
WOMEN'S RIGHTS ABOUT DOING IT IN AN UNCLASSY WAY.
>> UNCLASSY, UNHYGIENIC AND AN UNCLASSY WAY.
>> UNCLASSY, UNHYGIENIC AND GROSS, I'M SORRY.
>> UNCLASSY, UNHYGIENIC AND GROSS, I'M SORRY.
>> IT WAS MY PBS VERSION.
GROSS, I'M SORRY.
>> IT WAS MY PBS VERSION.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DEFEND THAT >> IT WAS MY PBS VERSION.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DEFEND THAT AT ALL.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DEFEND THAT AT ALL.
I WILL SAY AT ALL.
I WILL SAY WE STILL ONLY HAVE 16% WOMEN ON I WILL SAY WE STILL ONLY HAVE 16% WOMEN ON BOARD.
WE STILL ONLY HAVE 16% WOMEN ON BOARD.
WE STILL ONLY HAVE 4% C.E.O.
IN BOARD.
WE STILL ONLY HAVE 4% C.E.O.
IN THE FORTUNE 500.
WE STILL ONLY HAVE 4% C.E.O.
IN THE FORTUNE 500.
THERE IS SOMETHING IN OUR THE FORTUNE 500.
THERE IS SOMETHING IN OUR CULTURE THAT WE HAVE YET TO THERE IS SOMETHING IN OUR CULTURE THAT WE HAVE YET TO ADDRESS AND I THINK THAT -- CULTURE THAT WE HAVE YET TO ADDRESS AND I THINK THAT -- >> STILL HAVEN'T HAD A WOMAN ADDRESS AND I THINK THAT -- >> STILL HAVEN'T HAD A WOMAN PRESIDENT.
>> STILL HAVEN'T HAD A WOMAN PRESIDENT.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT BUGS ME.
PRESIDENT.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT BUGS ME.
>> NOT GOING TO GET ONE UNLESS THAT'S THE ONE THAT BUGS ME.
>> NOT GOING TO GET ONE UNLESS FEMINISM BECOMES MORE OF THE >> NOT GOING TO GET ONE UNLESS FEMINISM BECOMES MORE OF THE STYLE OF WOMEN.
FEMINISM BECOMES MORE OF THE STYLE OF WOMEN.
NOT JUST HOW THEY THINK, NOT STYLE OF WOMEN.
NOT JUST HOW THEY THINK, NOT JUST WHAT THEY WANT, IT'S NOT JUST HOW THEY THINK, NOT JUST WHAT THEY WANT, IT'S SOMETHING IN THE STYLE AND IN JUST WHAT THEY WANT, IT'S SOMETHING IN THE STYLE AND IN THE CULTURE AND SOMETHING THAT SOMETHING IN THE STYLE AND IN THE CULTURE AND SOMETHING THAT CROSSES GENERATIONS.
THE CULTURE AND SOMETHING THAT CROSSES GENERATIONS.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
CROSSES GENERATIONS.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A >> ABSOLUTELY.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A PUBLICATION OUT THERE THAT DEALS I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A PUBLICATION OUT THERE THAT DEALS WITH THESE ISSUES IN A PUBLICATION OUT THERE THAT DEALS WITH THESE ISSUES IN A NONPOLITICAL WAY.
WITH THESE ISSUES IN A NONPOLITICAL WAY.
>> THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S NONPOLITICAL WAY.
>> THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM, WHOSE MEMBERS WE USE >> THE INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM, WHOSE MEMBERS WE USE QUITE FREQUENTLY ON THIS SHOW, FORUM, WHOSE MEMBERS WE USE QUITE FREQUENTLY ON THIS SHOW, THAT'S A -- QUITE FREQUENTLY ON THIS SHOW, THAT'S A -- >> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THAT'S A -- >> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS MORE FEMINISTS WITH SENSES OF >> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS MORE FEMINISTS WITH SENSES OF HUMOR.
MORE FEMINISTS WITH SENSES OF HUMOR.
NOW, SOMETIMES WE GET THAT, BUT HUMOR.
NOW, SOMETIMES WE GET THAT, BUT I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA OF HAVING NOW, SOMETIMES WE GET THAT, BUT I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA OF HAVING A SENSE OF HUMOR, BEING A LITTLE I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA OF HAVING A SENSE OF HUMOR, BEING A LITTLE BIT LIGHT, ALSO LEARNING NOT TO A SENSE OF HUMOR, BEING A LITTLE BIT LIGHT, ALSO LEARNING NOT TO TREAT EACH OTHER, BECAUSE WE BIT LIGHT, ALSO LEARNING NOT TO TREAT EACH OTHER, BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER AS TREAT EACH OTHER, BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER AS ENEMIES.
DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER AS ENEMIES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
ENEMIES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> TRY MY DAUGHTER'S TWITTER >> ALL RIGHT.
>> TRY MY DAUGHTER'S TWITTER ACCOUNT.
>> TRY MY DAUGHTER'S TWITTER ACCOUNT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
ACCOUNT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION OF >> ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION OF "TO THE CONTRARY."
THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION OF "TO THE CONTRARY."
PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER "TO THE CONTRARY."
PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @BONNIEERBE AND @TOTHECONTRARY PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @BONNIEERBE AND @TOTHECONTRARY AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE, @BONNIEERBE AND @TOTHECONTRARY AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE, PBS.ORG/TOTHECONTRARY, WHERE THE AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE, PBS.ORG/TOTHECONTRARY, WHERE THE DISCUSSION CONTINUES.
PBS.ORG/TOTHECONTRARY, WHERE THE DISCUSSION CONTINUES.
WHETHER YOU AGREE OR THINK, TO DISCUSSION CONTINUES.
WHETHER YOU AGREE OR THINK, TO THE CONTRARY, PLEASE JOIN US WHETHER YOU AGREE OR THINK, TO THE CONTRARY, PLEASE JOIN US NEXT TIME.
FOUNDATION.
FOUNDATION.
FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR TO SEE AN FOUNDATION.
FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR TO SEE AN ONLINE VERSION OF THIS EPISODE FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR TO SEE AN ONLINE VERSION OF THIS EPISODE OF "TO THE CONTRARY" PLEASE ONLINE VERSION OF THIS EPISODE OF "TO THE CONTRARY" PLEASE VISIT OUR PBS WEBSITE AT
