Marianne Møllmann is senior policy advisor with Amnesty International's head-quarters in London. Prior to working with Amnesty International, Ms. Mollmann worked on women's rights for over eight years with Human Rights Watch in New York City. Ms. Mollmann specializes in reproductive rights, women in conflict, economic rights, and anti-discrimination. As co-coordinator of the Women's Working Group of the International Network for Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Marianne was one of the organizers behind the Montreal Principles on equal access to ESC rights for women. She holds an LLM in International Human Rights Law from Essex University.
This month, one of Belgium’s women’s rights organizations, zij-kant, caused quite a stir with their annual “Equal Pay Day” message. Instead of merely high-lighting that women in Belgium, on average, earn 22 percent less than men, the organization launched a video starring porn actress Sasha Grey with the message “Porn is about the only way women can earn more than men—find a better alternative.”
This week’s back-and-forth over Rush Limbaugh’s use of the words “slut” and “prostitute” illustrates our deep discomfort with women’s sexuality.
The point is that the perfection those suffering from eating disorders are longing for in themselves in most cases is neither physical nor real. We will need to overcome our societal inability to see errors for what they are—an opportunity to learn—if we want to deal with eating disorders.
The prosecution of drug use in pregnant women does nothing to fulfill a legitimate policy goal and in fact seems to be racially motivated—at least in the implementation—rather than spurred by a concern for children.
On January 25, the mayor of Los Angeles signed regulation that requires the use of condoms by all performers in adult movies filmed within the city’s borders. Public health advocates have unsurprisingly celebrated the regulation, but there are some reasons why the ordinance may not be as effective as one might hope.
One key reason for the success of state legislatures in restricting women’s right to choose might be that the fight over abortion in the United States historically has been framed as an issue of privacy. And the right to privacy offers poor protection for what is also an issue of life, health, and—above all—discrimination.
Race, class, ethnicity, and sex still determine, to a great degree, how justice is dispensed and whether people are treated justly by the United States legal system. Recent news stories and hard data show just how far we remain from Martin Luther King’s “promised land.”
FGM is often justified with direct reference to fixed gender roles, how women “should” be and the possibilities for financial security FGM supposedly affords. Breast augmentation surgery is carried out for similar reasons with similar risks and results. Both interventions have no discernible health benefits and have potentially negative impact on women’s sexual health, as well as a number of other potential serious health effects. How can we stop them?
![[img src]](http://rhrealitycheck.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/../../files/teaser-images/2011-12-22-unemployment-line-187x125.jpeg)
Since household income has been declining over time (and proportionally fewer individuals earn more than twice the poverty level), the silver lining of the 2008 economic crisis might be that more Americans start seeing poverty for what it is: not something anyone “deserves.”
As a society, the way we think about most social phenomena—including sexual assault—is influenced by both facts and morals. But in the United States, the way we think about rape has, for decades, been operating with an outdated version of both.
