Batteries not included

Found this on Facebook friend Peter Vickers' page:

So many gifts you can buy to improve the lives of women and children. Gifts that make a difference. Gifts that empower, enrich, enable. Gifts that can change the world.

In many poor countries, the greatest unexploited resource isn’t oil fields or veins of gold; it is the women and girls who aren’t educated and never become a major presence in the formal economy. With education and with help starting businesses, impoverished women can earn money and support their countries as well as their families. They represent perhaps the best hope for fighting global poverty.

Charities are in desperate straits this holiday season as Canadians struggle to pay the mortgage when so many have lost their jobs.But, for all the talk of what's happening in the automotive and media industries, to name two troubled sectors, we never hear about how the non-profit side of the economy is faring.

Make no mistake, non-profits are not unimportant -- and they employ a lot of women.

Which is why I liked this oped by Jill Wyatt, CEO of Calgary's YWCA, brought to my attention by pal Francesca Dobbyn, executive director of the United Way in Bruce Grey.

One of the sectors in which women dominate is the not-for-profit or third sector. Almost 75 per cent of the employees in this third sector are women. But this sector is receiving considerably less media attention than other sectors during this recession, even as our community's needs increase.

<SNIP>

Far from not-for-profit, I believe there is great profit from what we do, but our bottom line is different. We save lives. We make a difference by building human capital. And we try to do more with less and less every single day.

<SNIP>

Believe me when I say you would miss us if we disappeared overnight. There are 161,000 charities in Canada with revenues of $112 billion. We employ 1.2 million people representing 7.2 per cent of the paid workforce--we have 11 times more workers than the automotive sector and two-and-a-half times the number of workers in the construction industry. We contribute 8.5 per cent of Canada's GDP, which is more than the retail, mining, and oil and gas industries combined.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

You know what you have to do.

Does God hate women?

I have to say I, like others, was somewhat underwhelmed by the book Does God Hate Women? which I'd been looking forward to reading since first blogging about it during the summer.

That despite its title being a question I have asked myself since being kicked out of Sunday school for not buying the lines about how women are supposed to behave.

This is not because its co-authors Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom seem obsessed by the grievous sins against women in many Islamic cultures.

Those are fair game, very fair game. There's nothing defensible about treating women like chattel, punishing them for being raped, marrying them off as children to old men, forbidding them from working or driving, restraining their movements, keeping them illiterate -- not to mention all those stoning, female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing horrors.

This is not to say that it's worse than say Christianity since Christianity has its own revolting record of witch-burnings, slavery, genocide in the Americas and such. It's just that Christianity managed to mostly climb out of the Dark Ages, eventually, although it took women's rights several more centuries to catch up.

As for the Catholic church, well, you know there's a reason why AIDS is the number one killer of women today, as reported by a just-published and sickening World Health Organization study (PDF). It doesn't help that the Vatican won't approve of condoms.

(And, as we saw last week, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops stuck its nose in the healthcare reform debate and had a major influence on its outcome: the effective end of government funding for abortion except in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the living incubator unit.)

Which is why I was disappointed by the book. It doesn't mention much about the crimes against women committed -- still -- by the Church. And it barely touches on those whacked out fundamentalist outfits in North America.

But I liked the title.

So I picked up the phone and called Stangroom to get more from him.

Today's treeware effort was the result:

Does God Hate Women? is the bordering-on-inflammatory title of an examination of how religion and culture combine to control and oppress women – even unto the 21st century.

Co-authors Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom, both editors at London-based The Philosophers' Magazine, are politically incorrect in their criticisms, which is why they received an "implicit death threat'' in the U.K. after a recent review.

I reached Stangroom at his home in Toronto. This is an edited version of our conversation.

Q: The book almost completely focuses on Islam: stonings, so-called honour killings, female genital mutilation. Why?

A: That isn't what we set out to do. We set out to look at how various religions treat women. We do talk about Catholicism, the fundamentalists, Mormons and so on. They were all originally developed within social structures that were patriarchal. But our judgment is that Islam has more negative things associated with it than any other religion at this time in history.

Q: You don't write much about the Catholic Church, nothing on contraception for example, nor on AIDS in Africa. You mention abortion, but only briefly.

A: Maybe we should have done. Our basic point is that religion, including Catholicism, makes a claim over a woman's body that not only is an imposition on individual freedom but it can also play out in ways that have horrific and tragic results for health.

Q: What about how religions define the roles of men and women?

A: Catholicism says that men and women are equal before God, but different.

Q: That's what feminism says!

A: But it's a different kind of different. The "equal in the eyes of God" – spiritually equal, of equal worth, but nevertheless different – turns out in religious terms to be who has final say and what the roles are within the family. Ultimately, what it comes down to is that the man decides. That's the common line in Islam and in Catholicism.

Q: One provocative chapter title is "Honour is Between the Legs of Women." It's not just  honour. It's the biggest battle ground in society. Take abortion, for example.

A: The religious rhetoric around the "unborn child'' is incredibly significant. Obviously, it suits the idea that only God has the power of life and death. The reason women may have a different perspective is because the intersection between self-interest and control of what happens to their own bodies undercuts the religious imperative. This is not the case with men. Women have a much more personal investment in this than men do.

Q: But religion goes beyond abortion, all the way to control of women's sexuality.

A: Yes, absolutely. The Darwinian view is that men don't want to expend energy looking after other men's children. Religion has been co-opted in the service in that evolutionary dynamic. That's one explanation. There's the Marxist perspective, which has to do with ensuring lines of descent. Basically, men are the owners of private property and they want to ensure they're not passing down their property to somebody else's children. The only way they can do that is by confining women and controlling their sexuality. So religion is used for that control.

Q: What is it about women that makes us so devoted to God although God may not be so devoted to us?

A: There are psychological benefits to belief and, I suspect that if you have those, together with the fact that people find it very hard to escape their cultural, political and social milieus, you probably have an explanation, even though, if you're looking from the outside, it seems so bizarre.

Q: Why would you even want to ask if God hates women?

A: It's a metaphor for "Does religion subjugate and, in various ways, denigrate women?" The obvious reason, if you look around historically and cross-culturally, is religion is implicated in an awful lot of stuff that would be considered to be horrendous. People don't talk about this because they don't want to be seen to be making judgments about other cultures.

But Ophelia and I are committed to universal values. We're not ashamed to say that some cultural practices are worse than others.

And neither am I, although the Muslim-bashers are constantly asking where the feminists are on these matters. That's just their own twisted way of denigrating women, but accusing feminists of not standing up for their own while these guys are trying to use the oppressed women of other places to advance their own political agendas.

As if they actually cared about women in these truly God-forsaken places...or anywhere else for that matter.

Hell's Kitchen

Hey, I'm not saying life is easy for the men of Somalia but why is it that a special hell is always reserved for women, not just in this war-torn failed nation but in so many places of the world, particularly Islamic places?

Somalia's hardline al Shabaab insurgents have closed down five humanitarian organisations in Somali southern border town of Balad Hawa, a rebel leader said.

The organisations, most of them women groups were ordered to shut down their offices to allow women to stay home and take care of children.

 And if there are no men -- or only bad men -- to look after the women, how will they feed those children?

“We have taken this step in accordance with Islamic law. Islam does not allow women to go to offices. We recognised the fact that Muslim women need to stay in their homes and take care of their children,” said Maalim Daaud Mohmed, the Al-Shabaab chairman of Balad Hawa.

I think I read that somewhere in the Koran. Yeah. That's it. Women shouldn't operate computers or photocopy machines. I forget which chapter.

He announced the organisations closed as Halgan Businesswomen's Organisation, the Sed Huro Human Rights Organisation and Farhan Woman for Peace and two other groups that support rural and urban women in Balad Hawa.  

All the better to rape them.

Several humanitarian organisations both local and international, which used to operate from Balad Hawo town near the border between Somalia and Kenya have been forced to stop their operations due to intimidation from Islamic militant group, which accuse them of spying for western countries. 

Not to mention handing out contraception, safeguarding maternal health and educating them on everything from hygiene to AIDS prevention.

Bastards.

No wonder Somalia is so messed up.

Thus spake the patriarchs

This makes me so angry I am spitting at my screen.

VATICAN CITY — African cardinals denounced the "cultural imperialism" of wealthy 
countries in their aid, trade and health care policies for Africa, saying Wednesday that the West's promotion of abortion rights and condoms is destroying the continent's moral fabric.

Because rape all over the continent is part of the ''moral fabric?''

And forget ''cultural imperialism.'' What about Catholic imperialism?

African prelates attending the three-week meeting on the role of the Catholic Church in Africa said their countries needed economic development partnerships that are based on trust and fairness, not ones that exploit Africa's natural resources and put conditions on aid.

Agreed on the exploitation part, but, if the conditions they reject include maternal health care and contraceptives, well, these guys are just emissaries from Misogynist Central in the Vatican.

"We want to be helped, but helped in the name of truth, with respect of what we are and what we want for ourselves," Cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr of Dakar, Senegal, told a news conference.

He and Cardinal Wilfred Fox Napier of Durban, South Africa, denounced "hidden" agendas of international aid groups and countries that promote abortion rights and condoms to fight HIV, saying the West was trying to impose its views on Africa.

Their arguments have been echoed during the synod, with repeated criticisms of institutions  that promote "reproductive health care" for women. The Vatican has warned that such programs — often supported by the United Nations — are really just a cover for promoting access to abortions and birth control.

The Vatican opposes abortion and artificial contraception. It has come under heavy criticism for its opposition to condoms as a way of fighting HIV, particularly in hard-hit Africa.

"There are certain cultural norms that are inherent in Africa," Napier said. "One of them is that sexual activity is for bringing babies into the world. It's not so much for enjoyment."

Yeah, well, rape isn't particularly enjoyable.

And neither is giving birth to HIV-positive babies -- and then dying and leaving them orphaned.

But this is what God wants, right?

SHAMELESS PLUG: I am a supporter of this Canadian Christian-mission run orphanage in Uganda.

Yeah, I did say Christian. Surprise, surprise.

The photo (above right) is of two of its wards, Fatuma and Frank.

Please consider a donation.

Thank you.

It's not better in the Bahamas

For serious?

Tongues are wagging over a proposed amendment to the controversial Sexual Offences Act, which has men and women all over The Bahamas sounding off.

The bill, which is designed to outlaw marital rape, was tabled in the House of Assembly last month.

However, many Bahamian men, like taxi driver Pemmie Sutherland, say the bill is "simply unnecessary."

"It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland.

Elvis Russell told the Journal that he does not support the bill either because there is no such thing as rape within a marriage.

"Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape," he said.

Despite popular belief that most women are in support of the bill, there were quite a few Bahamian women who share Mr. Sutherland’s and Mr. Russell’s views.

Deanne Sweeting said that she strongly disagrees with the bill and does not understand why so many women are supporting it.

"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man’s body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?" asked Ms. Sweeting.

It's still legal to attack and rape your wife there?

Cancel my holiday plans.

As PZ Myers says:

It looks to me as if being brought up with a belief in the literal truth of a misogynistic document like the Bible can inculcate the evil idea that women are possessions, and that marriage is an act of handing over a woman's bill of sale to a man. I thought a wife was a partner, not a slave.

Amen, Brother.

H/t to Robert.

Women hold up half the sky

Absolutely. And Nicholas Kristof rocks our world. (Thanks also to his journalist wife, Sheryl WuDunn)

IN THE 19TH CENTURY, the paramount moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was  totalitarianism. In this century, it is the brutality inflicted on so many women and girls around the globe: sex trafficking, acid attacks, bride burnings and mass rape.

Yet if the injustices that women in poor countries suffer are of paramount importance, in an economic and geopolitical sense the opportunity they represent is even greater. “Women hold up half the sky,” in the words of a Chinese saying, yet that’s mostly an aspiration: in a large slice of the world, girls are uneducated and women marginalized, and it’s not an accident that those same countries are disproportionately mired in poverty and riven by fundamentalism and chaos. There’s a growing recognition among everyone from the World Bank to the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to aid organizations like CARE that focusing on women and girls is the most effective way to fight global poverty and extremism. That’s why foreign aid is increasingly directed to women. The world is awakening to a powerful truth: Women and girls aren’t the problem; they’re the solution.

Please please read the rest.

And while you're at it, be sure to click on this slide show.

Which reminds me, here's an interview with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, about how women are the the core of the Obama administration's foreign policy.

Democracy means nothing if half the people can’t vote, or if their vote doesn’t count, or if their literacy rate is so low that the exercise of their vote is in question. Which is why when I travel, I do events with women, I talk about women’s rights, I meet with women activists, I raise women’s concerns with the leaders I’m talking to.

I happen to believe that the transformation of women’s roles is the last great impediment to universal progress — that we have made progress on many other aspects of human nature that used to be discriminatory bars to people’s full participation. But in too many places and too many ways, the oppression of women stands as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to realize people’s full human potential.

Feminism. It's going to save mankind.

Heh.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE (Aug. 21/09): It's a movement! 

(H/t to Doreen.)

What you don't know kills them

So here's one more reason that there was more media hubub over US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's reaction to that sexist question -- which wasn't that dumb -- last week in Congo:

Corporate greed, and the media companies' own bottom lines.

Plus, I hate to say it, our own indifference to why so many Congolese have been slaughtered. (I added the links.)

An astonishing six million people are estimated to have died as a result of the conflict in the Congo – the largest war-related death toll since the Second World War. What is perhaps more appalling to citizens geographically removed from this conflict, is the fact that our consumption of seemingly indispensable high-tech gadgets – cell phones, mp3 players, laptops and video game systems – may have substantially contributed to this holocaust.

The conflict in the Congo is often described as “tribal,” but sober assessments by the United Nations, research organizations and the American government reveal something far more complex. The multimillion dollar trade of the Congo’s natural resources by foreign armies, rebels and militias has played an integral role in fueling the conflict – both by motivating armed groups to wage war, and by providing them with the cash to do so.

<SNIP>

There are four main minerals that link our gadgets to the war. Tin is used as a solder on circuit boards of all electronic products; tantalum, or coltan, is used in capacitors that control the flow of electric current; tungsten makes our cell phones vibrate; and gold, a veteran conflict mineral, is used in many products for its resistance to corrosion.

By controlling these essential minerals within the global economy, rebels and militias – not to mention the governments that have directly supported them (including both the governments of Congo and Rwanda) – generate millions in profit, providing ample funds for armed groups to wage wars and terrorize civilians. Women and girls have disproportionately borne the horrific brunt of this conflict: the level and brutality of the sexual violence pandemic in Congo is unparalleled, affecting hundreds of thousands of women.

A grassroots campaign is developing to help end this war by focusing on its root causes. The targets of this growing movement are the powerful electronics companies that may unwittingly be using conflict minerals in their products. Letter campaigns and the threat of boycotting companies that refuse to investigate their supply chains are raising the level of pressure on markets already in decline as a result of the global recession.

Canada's record is reportedly no cleaner than any other country's.

Canada’s UN commitment to one of the most deadly wars in history was two aircraft and fifty troops in 2003. In September 2006, Liberal Senator Peter Stollery slammed Canada's "disgraceful" military presence in Africa. When it comes to the major recipients of Canadian aid through CIDA, the DRC doesn't even make the top ten.

Ten Canadian companies were implicated in the UN report entitled "Report on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other Forms of Wealth in the Congo,” published in 2002. One of the most comprehensive and damning reports on Western activities in the Congo, the UN report implicated 157 companies and recommended travel bans, legal action and investigation by states where these companies were located.

Though all 10 companies were accused of violating the guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and some were accused of bribing officials in order to have access to land, the Canadian government has failed to investigate the companies’ role in the Congo war, said Mining Watch Canada.

The recommendations from a 2005 report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which call for stricter monitoring of mining companies in hotspots like Congo, Guatemala, Romania, El Salvador, India, the Philippines, Peru and Mexico, have not been adopted.

YAY CANADA!

So how much corporate media reporting on all this did you see last week?

Should I not be shocked that the media would rather focus on Clinton's reaction to the question than the question itself? None of the articles I read about the encounter explained the situation of the International Monetary Fund's debt forgiveness plan for the Congo and how the mineral extraction contracts being discussed between China and the DRC are affecting the status of the World Bank's loans to the country, which are guaranteed by the Congo's mineral reserves.

Isn't it easier to smack Clinton for getting a little snippy than to address the uncomfortable fact that the endemic war in the Congo is primarily being fought over the precious metals that power our cell phones and laptops?

Isn't it more interesting to focus on one diplomat's momentary lapse in politeness rather than the bizarre Ugandan rebel group known as the Lord's Resistance Army, who were recently in the area raping, pillaging and burning entire villages to the ground as they kidnap Congolese youth to restock their brutal child army?

Isn't it simpler to focus on the silly question Clinton didn't answer, rather the the one that came immediately before it (which she did answer), on whether or not the West should apologize for colonialism?

 Precious little was published.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Congo on Monday to push the Congolese government and the United Nations to end the longstanding bloodshed here, taking special aim at the illicit mineral trade that helps fuel the conflict.

“I am particularly concerned about the exploitation of natural resources,” she said, referring to Congo’s vast reserves of diamonds, gold, copper, tin and other minerals.

She said that illegal mining was one of the root causes of Congo’s violence and that armed groups were sustaining themselves off the mineral riches. “There is a lot of money being made in eastern Congo,” Mrs. Clinton said.

The war in eastern Congo may be Africa’s worst right now, and Mrs. Clinton is hoping that her visit will revitalize efforts to end a dizzyingly complex conflict involving neighboring countries, dozens of rebel groups and a toxic mix of ethnic and commercial interests.

Incidentally, there was much more that slipped between the corporate media cracks.

What was not mentioned on Clinton’s Africa trip was the new US military command for Africa—Africom—established under the Bush administration. Previously US military operations in Africa were divided between the Middle East and the European commands. The decision to establish a separate African command represented an intensification of US strategic interest in Africa.

That Hillary. Just too big for her pantsuit, hunh?

While we're on the subject of Congo, over the weekend I heard from Adolfo Makuntima Makwiza (Ado Makuntima), a writer and musician from Congo now in Canada. (Here's a recent interview with him, en francais.)

And here's a YouTube video of his haunting and beautiful song Congolese Woman, with more information on the war. Be warned. Some of the images are upsetting and, yes, graphic. Of course, you wouldn't see anything like them between the media shots at Clinton.

Blame the victim ... again

Like the U. of Carleton student who was brutally raped, this woman must have asked for it too.

STAMFORD -- A downtown hotel being sued by a woman raped at gunpoint in its parking garage is claiming she was careless, negligent and "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities," according to court documents.

The victim's attorneys also argue the hotel has inadvertently identified her to acquaintances by asking them to testify.

The Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa, along with the firms in charge of managing the hotel and its parking garage, made the claim as part of a list of special defenses filed in state Superior Court in Stamford last month. Such defenses allow defendants in civil suits to argue they are not responsible for damages even if the plaintiff's story is true.

The special defenses, and the plaintiff's argument against them, are a few of the documents filed in a series of arguments and counterarguments as the case heads for trial, scheduled for April.

The woman filed the lawsuit in May 2008, six months after Danbury native Gary Fricker, 56, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after a plea deal in the case.

On Oct. 10, 2006, Fricker stuck a handgun in the back of the then 40-year-old woman and forced her and her children, then 3 and 5, into their minivan as they left the hotel, according to court documents.

She let him go through her wallet and told him he could take it, but Fricker demanded she take off her clothes. Fricker sexually assaulted the woman for several minutes, pointing the gun at her and her children and threatening to sexually assault one of her children.

More from Jezebel:

In the papers recently filed by the hotel in preparation for the April trial, the defense claims they hadn't been notified about Fricker, that the attack was beyond their control, and that the woman and her children didn't properly "mitigate their damages." The hotel has subpoenaed several people who know the woman but were not aware of the attack, including family members, friends, a Pilates instructor, tennis partners, and a baby sitter. Attorneys for the woman, who was only identified as Jane Doe in court documents, say the subpoenas identified her to those people and were only filed in an attempt to intimidate her.

It would seem the decent thing to do (and the smarter public relations move) would have been for Marriott to cooperate with the woman from the start or pay her the damages. The defense could have just argued that no one but Fricker was responsible for the crime, but instead the hotel management is blaming the victim for endangering herself and her children.

You know, because women shouldn't actually leave their homes with the menfolk along to protect them. (Of course, if she's an Afghan woman, she isn't safe at home either.)

Oh but this guy says it even better:   

* If a guy sticks a gun in your back and threatens your kids, it’s your duty to “mitigate the damages.”  I suggest spontaneously developing superpowers.  Freezing time is a good one, as is the ability to generate a magical force field.  Superspeed will do in a pinch.

Just leave that skimpy skin-tight superheroine costume at home, will ya? Cuz otherwise, you're just asking for it.

Pimps

Yes PIMPS.

And, no, that's not too harsh a headline for NATO leaders who sold out Afghan women to keep their puppet Hamid ''Flying Carpet Salesman'' Karzai in power. Because that's what they did.

Turns out that, a couple of weeks ago when I blogged about amendments to that horrendous law that would allow Shia minority men to rape and/or starve their wives who weren't being agreeable, the law was actually being gazetted.

Via Dammit Janet! comes this report in The Guardian:

Afghanistan has quietly passed a law permitting Shia men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation which President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to get permission from their husbands to work.

"It also effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying 'blood money' to a girl who was injured when he raped her," the US charity Human Rights Watch said.

In early April, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown joined an international chorus of condemnation when the Guardian revealed that the earlier version of the law legalised rape within marriage, according to the UN.

Although Karzai appeared to back down, activists say the revised version of the law still contains repressive measures and contradicts the Afghan constitution and international treaties signed by the country.

Islamic law experts and human rights activists say that although the language of the original law has been changed, many of the provisions that alarmed women's rights groups remain, including this one: "Tamkeen is the readiness of the wife to submit to her husband's reasonable sexual enjoyment, and her prohibition from going out of the house, except in extreme circumstances, without her husband's permission. If any of the above provisions are not followed by the wife she is considered disobedient."

<SNIP>

Human Rights Watch, which has obtained a copy of the final law, called on all candidates to pledge to repeal the law, which it says contradicts Afghanistan's own constitution.

The group said that Karzai had "made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election".

Brad Adams, the organisation's Asia director, said: "The rights of Afghan women are being ripped up by powerful men who are using women as pawns in manoeuvres to gain power.

"These kinds of barbaric laws were supposed to have been relegated to the past with the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, yet Karzai has revived them and given them his official stamp of approval."

More from Human Rights Watch here.

So what was that about being in Afghanistan to help secure women's rights???

Do something. Start by writing your MP and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Then go here. And here.

Sexist assault

Today's treeware column picked up on this and this about the sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton's reaction when she was asked her hubby's opinions by a Congolese student.

Lest we forget, one of her goals in Congo was to put the spotlight on the appalling treatment of women there. Obviously, with all the news orgs back home focusing on her -- they all but said ''bitchy,'' didn't they? -- reaction, the true issue got a pathetic amount of coverage.

Which is why I am posting this:

Here is today's column, with linky freshness:

It was 1991, at the Banff Television Festival where, as the Star's TV columnist, I was thrilled to be chatting with a journalistic hero, a man whose cred stretched back to the Vietnam War, a network show host, a big man on the small screen on both sides of the border.

I'd been in the job for a couple of years and, if I do say so myself, had made some waves in the broadcast biz with my reporting. Big Man was very complimentary, admitting he loved my insider gossip.

That's when my (now ex-) husband joined us. Big Man and he were acquainted, as my former mate was himself a TV journalist, producer, director and writer of some note.

When Big Man realized who my husband was, he said, dead seriously, "Oh, now I know where you get all your information."

"Yeah, right," I snapped. "My husband really has time to do my homework for me."

Which brings us to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, despite her education, background, brains, hard work, groundbreaking career and sheer grit in the face of the most persistent and consistent sexist attacks in memory, continues to be the target of media- generated discrimination.

This week, Clinton, nursing a broken elbow while on a gruelling tour through Africa, visiting some of the most hellish countries on Earth, places where thousands of women, children and even men are raped as spoils of war, failed to deflect a question in an acceptably girlie and gracious manner.

At a town hall with Congolese university students, she was asked, in a halting and a supposedly mistranslated way, her husband ex-President Bill Clinton's opinion of the World Bank's and China's dealings in that country.

(Despite initial reports, subsequent analyses reveal that not only was Clinton in fact asked about her husband, a former Congolese basketball star Dikembe Mutombo was also asked for his opinion.)

"Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" she replied, incredulous. "My husband is not the secretary of state. I am. So, you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I'm not going to be channelling my husband."

The subsequent stories and headlines described her reaction as "boiled over," "outraged," "unhinged," "blew up," just about every substitute for "shrieked shrewishly" you can find in a thesaurus.

But watch the video, which of course has gone viral, and you can see, not only does Clinton hesitate nearly 10 seconds before seeking clarification, her response is assertive, forceful.

Or at least that's how it would have been described had she been a man.

But, of course, she would not have been asked that question had she been a man, now would she?

The coverage was so disrespectful one pundit even noted that she was having a bad hair day.

"It had gone all flat and straight, which puts any woman in a bad humor," wrote Tina Brown, former editor of The New Yorker and Vanity Fair.

You mean it wasn't PMS?

True, this media uproar is no more than just another example of the gotcha/trivia journalism all too common today, especially in the U.S.

But, when it comes to Clinton, there is a pattern. Remember how, during her run for the Democratic presidential nomination, her eyes got moist at one event, only to have the headlines describe a woman sobbing out of control?

Of course, because Clinton is taking a different tack from her weak, warmongering predecessors Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, a strategy focused on development and not defence, it's not as newsnet-worthy as "mushroom clouds" and "smoking guns."

And so, rather than report on her mission, and the Obama administration's truly world-changing strategy of focusing on maternal health and women's safety, the media give us reports on how Clinton's work begins at home, with her husband.

Talk about a fail.