<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > women</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/women/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:50:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Atlantic takes on the Atlantic&#8217;s take on online dating</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/the_atlantic_takes_on_the_atlantics_take_on_online_dating/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/the_atlantic_takes_on_the_atlantics_take_on_online_dating/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Atlantic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[men]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online dating]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trends]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13161168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's not that complicated]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, the Atlantic <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/a-million-first-dates/309195/" target="_blank">said</a> that online dating is ruining traditional marriage. Then, a day later, they <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/13/01/theres-no-evidence-online-dating-is-threatening-commitment-or-marriage/266797/" target="_blank">said</a> that it wasn't.</p><p>Confused? Of course you are.</p><p>Journalist Dan Slater wrote a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/a-million-first-dates/309195/2/" target="_blank">piece</a> for the Atlantic print edition about a man named Jacob who, through the magic of online dating, has been able to meet and sleep with many women and he is no longer interested in getting married.  In response, Atlantic editor Alexis Madrigal took to the Atlantic's <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/13/01/theres-no-evidence-online-dating-is-threatening-commitment-or-marriage/266797/" target="_blank">website</a> to refute Slater and his "spineless" argument with <em>a lot of data </em>and somewhere around 1,800 words.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/the_atlantic_takes_on_the_atlantics_take_on_online_dating/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/the_atlantic_takes_on_the_atlantics_take_on_online_dating/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can evolution explain high heels?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/can_evolution_explain_high_heeled_shoes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/can_evolution_explain_high_heeled_shoes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Standard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Heels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Femininity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender Roles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13159812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New research offers an unexpected explanation for their allure -- one that has nothing to do with increased height]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.psmag.com/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 0pt 0pt;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/08/PacificStandard.color_1.gif" alt="Pacific Standard" align="left" /></a> Fashions in dress come and go, but a peculiar one has stayed in style for many generations, and shows no sign of fading away. It’s the <a href="http://www.randomhistory.com/1-50/036heels.html" target="_blank">high-heeled shoe</a>, which first became a fashion statement in 16th-century France, and has been a part of the modern woman’s wardrobe since the mid-19thcentury.</p><p>Ask a woman why she endures the awkwardness and discomfort, and she’ll probably respond, “They make me look, and feel, more attractive.” <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513812001225" target="_blank">Newly published research</a> suggests this perception is accurate, but perhaps not for the reason you’d expect.</p><p>It’s not the artificially increased height that turns heads. Rather, it’s how such footwear changes the mechanics of a woman’s gait.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/can_evolution_explain_high_heeled_shoes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/02/can_evolution_explain_high_heeled_shoes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>86</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s wrong with drug testing pregnant women</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/whats_wrong_with_drug_testing_pregnant_women/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/whats_wrong_with_drug_testing_pregnant_women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drug testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pregnancy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13155785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The rights of women are under attack in blue states as well as red ones]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Daily News' new <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/weed-dozen-city-maternity-wards-regularly-test-new-mothers-marijuana-drugs-article-1.1227292">analysis</a> of the drug testing of postpartum women in New York City maternity wards -- and the neglect proceedings that can follow, often targeting low-income communities -- is a reminder that this intersection of the drug war and creeping personhood isn't limited to red states.</p><p>Such testing tends to happen at the discretion of the hospital. "Private hospitals in rich neighborhoods rarely test new mothers for drugs, whereas hospitals serving primarily low-income moms make those tests routine and sometimes mandatory," concludes The News' Oren Yaniv. This is true more broadly. <a href="http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/pregnancy_and_drug_use_the_facts/">According</a> to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, "More than eighteen states now address the issue of pregnant women’s drug use in their civil child neglect laws, and a growing number of these states make it possible to remove a child based on nothing more than a single positive drug test."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/whats_wrong_with_drug_testing_pregnant_women/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/28/whats_wrong_with_drug_testing_pregnant_women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>House Republicans&#8217; new Todd Akin moment</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/14/house_republicans_new_todd_akin_moment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/14/house_republicans_new_todd_akin_moment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Todd Akin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Mourdock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Violence Against Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-abortion movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeanne Shaheen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13124936</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Republicans are considering killing a measure that would give raped female soldiers free access to abortions]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there’s one thing this election taught us, it’s that fighting against abortion in the case of rape should be avoided at all costs. And yet, Republicans may come back for another serving of Todd Akin’s humble pie.</p><p>Right now, if you’re a woman in the military, which has startlingly high rates of sexual assault, and you get raped, you face the added insult of having to pay for an abortion out of your own pocket. That’s because the military's health insurance plan is the only one in the federal government that does not cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. It'll only cover the procedure if the woman's life is in danger</p><p>Democrats in the Senate have tried to change this, but House Republicans have so far resisted, thus producing two different bills -- one with the change and one without. Yesterday, the House named its representatives to a bicameral committee that will hammer out the differences between the two bills, including this provision. While killing the amendment could reignite the explosive abortion and rape debate of the summer, Republicans generally oppose the expansion of reproductive rights, even for raped female soldiers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/14/house_republicans_new_todd_akin_moment/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/14/house_republicans_new_todd_akin_moment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t hate me because I&#8217;m beautiful</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/07/dont_hate_her_because_im_beautiful/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/07/dont_hate_her_because_im_beautiful/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beauty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fitness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kickstarter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tavi gevinson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beauty privilege]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13118124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tired of being bullied for her killer abs, Britton Delizia is fighting back -- with bullying of her own]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is hard to be a woman in this country! We still earn, on average, 25 percent <a title="Gender pay gap " href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/24/gender-pay-gap/1652511/" target="_blank">less</a> than our male colleagues. We still do <a title="Women still do most of the housework " href="http://feministing.com/2012/06/26/sixty-percent-of-women-are-primary-breadwinner-but-still-doing-most-of-the-housework/" target="_blank">most</a> of the housework and child-raising. Elected officials still think it is OK to make personal medical choices for us, while others ascribe supernatural <a title="Todd Akin " href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/gop-senate-candidate-akin-says-pregnancy-rare-in-legitimate-rape/" target="_blank">powers </a>to our lady parts. Life is complicated all over. So when Britton Delizia says that she has been bullied because she is naturally skinny and has killer abs, why not believe her? And when she launches a <a title="Britton Delizia Kickstarter" href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/learningtoapologize/im-learning-to-apologise-for-my-metabolism-photo-b" target="_blank">Kickstarter</a> to fund a photography book that celebrates "fitness" and "healthy living"? Sure, feel free.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/07/dont_hate_her_because_im_beautiful/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/07/dont_hate_her_because_im_beautiful/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>54</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Junot Díaz, feminist</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/22/junot_diaz_feminist/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/22/junot_diaz_feminist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dominican Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times Magazine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Is How You Lose Her]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Junot Diaz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Nervous Breakdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13105447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don't be fooled by his protagonist's misogyny. Díaz might identify most strongly with his female characters]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/07/TNB-Bug500.jpeg" alt="The Nervous Breakdown" align="left" /></a> A lot has been written on Junot Díaz lately.  For several weeks starting in September, he appeared in at least twelve publications that showed up at my house.  He was in everything from the unsolicited <em>Time Magazine</em>, apparently intended for my fifteen-year-old son, to <em>Vogue</em>, where Díaz appeared in costume, dressed as a member of Edith Wharton’s circle.  Díaz’s face smiled out from <em>Entertainment Weekly</em>, and he appealed for understanding from the pages of the <em>New York Times Magazine</em>. Online, the <em>Guardian Blog</em> stated that the term “genius” was inadequate praise.  Seemingly everywhere, his big glasses, smooth head, trim beard, and tentative smile greeted me. If Andy Warhol still lived, he would use Junot Diaz as a subject.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/22/junot_diaz_feminist/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/22/junot_diaz_feminist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I like to be objectified</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/i_like_to_be_objectified/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/i_like_to_be_objectified/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Since You Asked]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13101396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I'm independent, I'm a feminist, but I like men to tell me I'm just a sex object]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Dear Cary,</strong></p><p><strong>I'm a young, vibrant woman. A feminist, you could even say. I'm the first to speak out against a womanizer or misogynist. I sign petitions and spread the news about anti-women politicians. I believe in women's rights above anything else. I reject old ideas about gender roles or the customs surrounding them.</strong></p><p><strong>When I'm having sex, all I want is to be objectified.</strong></p><p><strong>It doesn't make any sense. It isn't as if I want a man I'm sleeping with to think I'm nothing more than something for him to use, but I do want him to tell me that. It's puzzling because, like I said, I would classify myself as a feminist. It makes me upset to think I might be just like all the other women out there who allow themselves to be nothing more than an object for men.</strong></p><p><strong>But I can't help what I want -- even if I don't really want it.</strong></p><p><strong>Why are my kinks so not in tune with the rest of my personality? I grew up feeling like the boys around me were all judging me in their heads, and that, for whatever reason, I wasn't good enough for them. I constantly felt -- and still feel, sometimes -- like I'm not good enough for the men I want relationships with. Could that be why my sexual kinks are so off? I'm so sensitive to sexism that I think my view of men has become skewed. </strong></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/i_like_to_be_objectified/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/i_like_to_be_objectified/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Storm volunteers mingle with stars at Glamour fest</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/storm_volunteers_mingle_with_stars_at_glamour_fest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/storm_volunteers_mingle_with_stars_at_glamour_fest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Awards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[From the Wires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Celebrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glamour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/storm_volunteers_mingle_with_stars_at_glamour_fest/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This year's Glamour Women of the Year included NYU nurses, activists and celebrities]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK (AP) — Sandra Kyong Bradbury was star struck. She had just spied Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a few feet away.</p><p>"How can you top that?" asked Bradbury, a New York City neonatal nurse who had helped evacuate infants from a hospital that lost power during the height of Superstorm Sandy. She was amazed that she was being honored at the same event as a Supreme Court justice — the annual Glamour Women of the Year awards, where stars of film, TV, fashion and sports share the stage with lesser-known women who have equally impressive achievements to their name.</p><p>Few events bring together such an eclectic group of honorees, not to mention presenters. At the Carnegie Hall ceremony Monday night, HBO star Lena Dunham, creator of "Girls" and a heroine to a younger generation, was introduced by Chelsea Handler and paid tribute in her speech to Nora Ephron, who died earlier this year. Ethel Kennedy was praised by her daughter, Rory, who has made a film about her famous mother. Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglas, 17, was honored along with swimming phenom Missy Franklin, also 17, and other Olympic athletes, introduced by singer Mary J. Blige and serenaded by American Idol winner Phillip Phillips. Singer-actress Selena Gomez was lauded by her friend, the actor Ethan Hawke.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/storm_volunteers_mingle_with_stars_at_glamour_fest/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/13/storm_volunteers_mingle_with_stars_at_glamour_fest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Businessweek pulls &#8220;attractive female students&#8221; poll after backlash</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/businessweek_pulls_attractive_female_students_poll_after_backlash/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/businessweek_pulls_attractive_female_students_poll_after_backlash/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Businessweek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13069646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After facing overwhelmingly negative reactions, the publication pulled the poll, saying it was "in poor taste"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Friday, Nov. 9, Businessweek asked its Twitter followers to vote on "Which business school has the most attractive female students." Predictably, readers found the tweet and the poll it linked to <a href="http://topsy.com/www.businessweek.com/face-off/2012-11-09/which-business-school-has-the-most-attractive-female-students">offensive</a>. Writer Shelby Knox <a href="https://twitter.com/shelbyknox/status/267107652776099840">replied with sarcasm</a>: "Do women go to B-School to run companies, be on boards? Hell no! For the pleasure of male students," while Jamil Smith <a href="https://twitter.com/jamilsmith/status/267281576268812288">admonished</a> Businessweek, writing, "You'd think <a href="http://topsy.com/twitter/bw">@BW</a> would be above chauvinist crap like this, or should want to be."</p><p>But, as Daily Dot's Aja Romano points out, this is not the first year that Businessweek has issued polls <a href="http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20110907/fifty-colleges-with-the-hottest-guys-girls-and-nightlife#slide2">rating the attractiveness</a> of students:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/businessweek_pulls_attractive_female_students_poll_after_backlash/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/businessweek_pulls_attractive_female_students_poll_after_backlash/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CNN removes story about women&#8217;s hormones affecting voting</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/cnn_removes_story_about_womens_hormones_affecting_voting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/cnn_removes_story_about_womens_hormones_affecting_voting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hormones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13051841</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The article based on unpublished research was swiftly decried and mocked online]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following widespread <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/cnn_wonders_do_hormones_drive_womens_votes/">ridicule</a>, CNN has removed a story published online Wednesday about whether hormones could influence female voting choices.</p><p>The piece by Elizabeth Landau looked at unpublished research that suggested female voting behavior was affected by whether a woman was ovulating on Election Day, or as our own Jillian Rayfield <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/cnn_wonders_do_hormones_drive_womens_votes/"> put it</a> Wednesday, whether "their lady parts might be doing the voting for them." As <a href="http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/192847/cnn-removes-story-about-how-hormones-affect-womens-voting/">Poynter noted Thursday</a>, CNN has taken down the post and put up a notice stating that "after further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."</p><p>Poynter notes that CNN has not elaborated on which precise elements in Landau's post fell short of its standards.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/cnn_removes_story_about_womens_hormones_affecting_voting/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/25/cnn_removes_story_about_womens_hormones_affecting_voting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A last-ditch pitch to women</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/a_last_ditch_pitch_to_women/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/a_last_ditch_pitch_to_women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidential debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13049275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama and Romney threw in as many references to women as possible, just in case]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"Governor, the problem is, is that on a whole range of issues, whether it's women, whether it’s women getting equal pay, whether it’s reproductive rights, whether it’s women who are going to vote for me and not you no matter what you say, you’ve been all over the map. I mean, I’m pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of acknowledging women are people and potentially having bilateral discussions with the Republicans to end their war on women."</p><p>OK, so that's not exactly what Barack Obama said. But despite the actual proper nouns having been the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Iranian nuclear program, the president lost no opportunity to bring up the ladies. Both candidates know there's a historic gender gap; both candidates have seen <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/gender-gap-near-historic-highs/">the data</a> that shows that Obama's initially massive lead with women is narrowing while Romney retains a general advantage with men. Are those women happy when they hear that Romney wants "gender equality" (his words, not mine) after the Arab Spring? Might as well try, after the <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/04/obamas_missed_opportunity/">missed opportunities</a> of the first debate and the <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/ladies_night_2/">frantic catch-up</a> of the second.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/a_last_ditch_pitch_to_women/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/a_last_ditch_pitch_to_women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oh, joy! &#8220;Binders full of women&#8221; goes viral</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/oh_joy_binders_full_of_women_goes_viral/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/oh_joy_binders_full_of_women_goes_viral/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tumblr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Going Viral]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13042979</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mitt Romney creates another instant meme, and reveals how clueless he is — again!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a heated, divisive election year, if there's one thing Democrats, Republicans and the undecided can agree on, it's this: We're pretty much just watching the debates for the memes now.</p><p>You know it the easily exploitable moment it happens. It's when Mitt Romney trains his cool cyborg eye on Jim Lehrer and says, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/04/you_do_not_mess_with_big_bird/">"I’m sorry, Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS. I love Big Bird."</a> It's when Uncle Joe from Scranton <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/12/joe_bidens_secret_weapon_laughter/ ">cannot keep a straight face</a> around the guy with the <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/11/paul_ryan_flaunts_his_political_muscles/">backward baseball cap</a>. It's when a candidate declares his commitment to moving women forward in the workplace by stating, "We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.  I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Could you help us find folks?' And they brought us whole binders full of women."</p><p>Binders full of women. <em>Whaaaaaa?</em></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/oh_joy_binders_full_of_women_goes_viral/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/oh_joy_binders_full_of_women_goes_viral/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ladies&#8217; night</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/ladies_night_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/ladies_night_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contraception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reproductive Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidential debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13042836</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At last, the robust advocacy for women that Obama supporters were dreaming of in a debate]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lilly Ledbetter. Planned Parenthood. Contraceptive coverage as "not just a health issue; it’s an economic issue for women." No one could say President Obama wasn't making a direct approach to women, the one his allies have been begging him to make. He might have just handed the mic to Sandra Fluke -- or Ledbetter herself.</p><p>And Romney? He had "binders full of women" that became an instant meme for Obama's re-energized voting base, and he blamed single parents -- women, really -- for gun violence.</p><p>The inevitable question about women came, somewhat surprisingly, in the form of a query about the wage gap. Obama was asked by an "undecided voter," "What new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?" (Voters who care about inequality are historically torn!) That gave him the chance to talk, more energetically than he did in the last debate, about his grandmother and the discrimination she suffered, and of signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/ladies_night_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/ladies_night_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Feminine hygiene company responds to viral rant</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/feminine_hygiene_company_responds_to_viral_rant/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/feminine_hygiene_company_responds_to_viral_rant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bodyform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viral Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[periods]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13041924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Digital ad agencies might make note of how Bodyform handled a man's confusion]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bodyform, a British brand of feminine hygiene products, knows how to capitalize on a marketing opportunity. Last week, a man named Richard Neill posted a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Bodyform/posts/10151186887359324">hilarious rant</a> on Bodyform's Facebook page in which he expressed his outrage over having been "lied to" about the reality of women's periods, which commercials depict as "joyous adventurous time." It went predictably viral:</p><blockquote><p>Hi , as a man I must ask why you have lied to us for all these years . As a child I watched your advertisements with interest as to how at this wonderful time of the month that the female gets to enjoy so many things ,I felt a little jealous. I mean bike riding , rollercoasters, dancing, parachuting, why couldn't I get to enjoy this time of joy and 'blue water' and wings !! Dam my penis!! Then I got a girlfriend, was so happy and couldn't wait for this joyous adventurous time of the month to happen .....you lied !! There was no joy , no extreme sports , no blue water spilling over wings and no rocking soundtrack oh no no no. Instead I had to fight against every male urge I had to resist screaming wooaaahhhhh bodddyyyyyyfooorrrmmm bodyformed for youuuuuuu as my lady changed from the loving , gentle, normal skin coloured lady to the little girl from the exorcist with added venom and extra 360 degree head spin. Thanks for setting me up for a fall bodyform , you crafty bugger</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/feminine_hygiene_company_responds_to_viral_rant/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/16/feminine_hygiene_company_responds_to_viral_rant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Devaluing care work &#8212; and women</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/01/devaluing_care_work_and_women/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/01/devaluing_care_work_and_women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[care work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domestic workers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13027266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Protections for care workers and paid sick days are off the political agenda, and women are paying the price]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week, Mitt Romney made a clueless comment that by rights should have been added to the list of "gaffes" guaranteed to widen his wedge with female voters, but went generally unnoticed.</p><p>“It’s an advantage to have two parents," Romney <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/25/romney-its-better-to-have-a-parent-at-home/">said</a> at NBC News' Education Nation Summit, "but to have one parent to stay closely connected and at home during those early years of education can be very, very important.”</p><p>Important? Maybe. Feasible for the vast majority of American families, be they two-parent or another configuration? <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/praise-of-mitt-romneys-transcribed-laugh.html">Ha, ha, ha</a>, as Romney himself might put it. As the National Organization for Women's Erin Matson <a href="https://twitter.com/erintothemax/status/250778958709264384">tweeted</a> with some understatement, "This is not a gender-neutral statement." Romney's rhetoric, if not his policy prescriptions, was getting at something fundamental, something that even in the mostly substance-free fracas over whether Ann Romney staying at home was "work," hasn't been part of the national discussion.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/01/devaluing_care_work_and_women/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/01/devaluing_care_work_and_women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anne-Marie Slaughter: &#8220;I&#8217;m a card-carrying feminist&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/27/anne_marie_slaughter_im_a_card_carrying_feminist/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/27/anne_marie_slaughter_im_a_card_carrying_feminist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Atlantic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feministing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anne-Marie Slaughter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13023637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The author of the controversial Atlantic story "Why Women Still Can't Have It All" explains her motivations]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.feministing.com"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/07/feministing_logo-1.jpg" alt="Feministing" align="left" /></a> Anne Marie Slaughter is, of course, the author of that now famous (or infamous, depending whom you talk to) <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/">article </a> “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” published in the Atlantic a few months ago to great hullabaloo.</p><p>If you’re a follower of online feminism, you’re most likely familiar with the conversation around the article. It dominated conversations both online and off for weeks, sparking debate and dialogue about a number of issues including work-life balance, maternity and paternity leave, privilege in feminism, and the direction of our movement for equality. If you need a refresher, you can read a roundup of responses to the article <a href="http://feministing.com/2012/06/27/anne-marie-slaughter-websplosion-response-roundup-on-having-it-all-and-tweet-chat/">here</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/27/anne_marie_slaughter_im_a_card_carrying_feminist/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/27/anne_marie_slaughter_im_a_card_carrying_feminist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Naomi Wolf says her critics have problems with female sexuality</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/25/naomi_wolf_misses_the_point_again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/25/naomi_wolf_misses_the_point_again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Naomi Wolf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vagina]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13021478</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The author of "Vagina: A New Biography" defends herself]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a <a href="http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/25/is-female-sexual-pleasure-devalued/?iid=op-main-lede">Time article</a>, author Naomi Wolf shot back at critics who attacked her <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/critics_attack_naomi_wolf/">psuedo-scientific</a>, airy-fairy <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Vagina-New-Biography-Naomi-Wolf/dp/0061989169/saloncom08-20">"Vagina: A New Biography,"</a> for being too pseudo-scientific and airy-fairy. But much of Wolf's self-justifying rebuttal amounts to her complaining that critics don't like her book because people are afraid to talk about women and sex.</p><p>See here:</p><blockquote><p>While many responses to my book were positive, the tone of some of the critiques—from <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/09/goddess-shaped-hole-naomi-wolfs-new-work">“mystic woo woo about the frou frou</a>"  to “<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/13/opinion/la-oe-daum-naomi-wolf-vagina-20120913">bad news for everyone who has one</a>” — suggests to me that our culture, even one in which <em>Fifty Shades of Grey</em> is being devoured by millions of women, still has problems discussing women’s sexuality in a positive, empowering way. And we need — perhaps women especially — to be able to have that conversation.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/25/naomi_wolf_misses_the_point_again/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/25/naomi_wolf_misses_the_point_again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Critics attack Naomi Wolf</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/critics_attack_naomi_wolf/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/critics_attack_naomi_wolf/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Naomi Wolf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Katie Roiphe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13009158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The writer's latest book, "Vagina: A New Biography," has received memorably bad reviews]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's only been one day since Naomi Wolf's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Vagina-New-Biography-Naomi-Wolf/dp/0061989169/saloncom08-20">Vagina: A New Biography</a>" came out, and already <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/pride-and-prejudice/?pagination=false">critics</a> <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/10/120910crbo_books_levy">are</a> <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/09/naomi-wolf-s-vagina-issues.html">jumping</a> on it. At Slate Katie Roiphe (who has her own <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/katie_roiphe_still_doesnt_understand_sexual_harassment/">detractors</a>) describes the book as <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/roiphe/2012/09/naomi_wolf_s_new_book_about_her_vagina_is_ludicrous_.html">self-parody</a>, writing, "I doubt the most brilliant novelist in the world could have created a more skewering satire of Naomi Wolf’s career."<em> </em>And when asked what she wants readers to take away from her book, Wolf told <a href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/authors/interviews/article/53078-reclaiming-the-vagina-pw-talks-with-naomi-wolf.html">Publisher's Weekly</a>, "That the vagina is misunderstood if we see it as a sex organ, reductively. That it’s much better understood as part of the female brain, an extension of the female consciousness, connected to women’s creativity, confidence, and sense of connection to the world." That doesn't sound much better.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/critics_attack_naomi_wolf/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/critics_attack_naomi_wolf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Men aren&#8217;t ending</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/men_arent_ending/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/men_arent_ending/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LA Review of Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hannah Rosin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13007998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hanna Rosin's loosely organized new book makes serious omissions in its presentation of research]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AFTER CENTURIES OF OPPRESSION, women have won the day at last and "pulled decisively ahead [of men] by almost every measure." This is the key argument made by Hanna Rosin in a new book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594488045/?tag=saloncom08-20">The End of Men and the Rise of Women</a></em>. Mainly, it turns out, she means that there are more women enrolling in and graduating from college now than there are men, and that their ranks in the business world, in the professions, and in politics are swelling: natural enough developments in an increasingly egalitarian society that has seen its male-dominated manufacturing sector decimated in recent decades. The big question for this reader is why — at the very moment when we almost have people respecting one another as equals — we would be talking about "The End" of anybody. I don't want anybody to end; I don't buy for an instant that Men are Ending, and I can't bring myself to believe that much of anyone else will, either.</p><p><a href="http://www.lareviewofbooks.org/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/06/LARB_LOGO_RED_LIGHT1.jpg" alt="Los Angeles Review of Books" align="left" /></a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/men_arent_ending/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/men_arent_ending/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Some of Mitt&#8217;s best friends are women</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/31/some_of_mitts_best_friends_are_women/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/31/some_of_mitts_best_friends_are_women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican National Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Susana Martinez]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12997681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ladies get a shout-out in Mitt's speech ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So far tonight, more time has been devoted to wooing Latinos -- in a slightly less tone-deaf way than <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/08/30/what_palin_could_have_been/  ">"You people really know how to party,"</a> unless you count the presence of Callista onstage with Newt Gingrich. (Anyway, they already <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/08/29/ann_romney_love_mitt_please/">ticked that box</a> on Tuesday.) But Mitt Romney's remarks will include an explicit call-out to women too:</p><blockquote><p>When my mom ran for the Senate, my dad was there for her every step of the way. I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice, "Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?"</p> <p>"I wish she could have been here at the convention and heard leaders like Governor Mary Fallin, Governor Nikki Haley, Governor Susana Martinez, Senator Kelly Ayotte and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.</p> <p>"As Governor of Massachusetts, I chose a woman Lt. Governor, a woman chief of staff, half of my cabinet and senior officials were women, and in business, I mentored and supported great women leaders who went on to run great companies.</p></blockquote><p>Again, not a word on policies that specifically affect women. Meanwhile, at a Salute to Pro-Life Women event earlier today, Michele Bachmann (who notably is not on that list of speakers cited by Romney) called Barack Obama "the most anti-woman, anti-life president ever in the history of the United States."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/08/31/some_of_mitts_best_friends_are_women/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/31/some_of_mitts_best_friends_are_women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>