Tag Archives: women

Thursday Open Thread | Trumpcare Demons are Back…Time to pick up the phone

From Balloon Juice:

Time to call the Senate again

by David Anderson

at 2:12 pm on September 6, 2017

MCCAIN says he supports Graham Cassidy healthcare bill. Would vote for it

— Peter Sullivan (@PeterSullivan4) September 6, 2017

Graham-Cassidy would shift money from states that have successfully implemented the ACA to non-expansion states and then ratchet down the block grants.

Time to call the Senate again.

We need to run out the clock to 12:01 October 1, 2017 at which point the healthcare reconciliation instructions expire. Encourage Senate Democrats to submit bills to the CBO for scoring so that they are back-logged and can not rapidly score anything that needs to be scored for reconciliation. Call and encourage the Sanders budget team to go to town with the Parliamentarian. 24 days need to be burned.

Here’s what’s in Graham-Cassidy:

There’s one Obamacare repeal bill left standing. Here’s what’s in it.

By Kim Soffen

Sept. 6, 2017

After a dramatic series of failed Senate votes in July, there’s one repeal-and-replace plan for the Affordable Care Act left standing. Trump is pushing for a vote, per Politico, and John McCain has announced his support, but the bill has yet to gain significant traction.

The proposal, crafted by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), essentially turns control of the health-care markets over to the states. Rather than funding Medicaid and subsidies directly, that money would be put into a block grant that a state could use to develop any health-care system it wants. It also allows states to opt out of many ACA regulations. “If you like Obamacare, you can keep it,” Graham has said, using a common nickname for the health-care law. “If you want to replace it, you can.”

In reality, that may not be true. The Medicaid expansion and subsidy funding would be cut sharply compared to current spending, going to zero in a decade.

“You can’t actually keep the same program if your federal funding is being cut by a third in 2026,” said Aviva Aron-Dine, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And even putting aside the cuts, she said, the block grant structure would fundamentally change the health-care landscape. “[Funding] is capped, so it wouldn’t go up and down with the economy,” when fewer or more people become eligible for subsidies.

These demons continue to want to take away healthcare from the most vulnerable. We must pick up the fight against them once again.
Call your Rep and Senators

Dear Women’s Marchers: DACA’s Gone. Keep Your Promise To Make Trump’s Life Impossible

Last weekend, the Women’s March threatened to make Trump’s life impossible if he ended DACA. Today, Trump’s Attorney General officially announced the end of the program. The lives of 800,000 young immigrants and their families now hang in the balance. Women’s Marchers, I’m asking all five million of you to keep your promise.

First, let’s make sure we’re on the same page about what that’ll mean.

“Making Trump’s life impossible” will not happen by tweeting at the Attorneys General who petitioned Trump to end DACA, or by calling members of Congress to demand that they publicly defend immigrants (as this Twitter thread the Women’s March posted suggests). Sharing a story of “how a DACA recipient has positively contributed to this country” won’t cut it, either. If we’re being honest with ourselves, “breaking the internet with love and support for DACA” won’t even make Trump break a sweat. To borrow from Sister Helen Prejean, “Being kind in an unjust system is not enough.”

The end of DACA calls for less tweeting and more public acts of defiance.

Making Trump’s life impossible means refusing to enforce his agenda on a local level and on an everyday basis. It means allies putting their bodies on the line to defend vulnerable immigrants, including immigrants who don’t fit your image of respectability (i.e., Black, poor, disabled, queer, non-college educated people). It means sustained and collective refusal to comply with his orders to take away DACA, to separate families, to deport parents, and to establish Muslim bans.

In short, making Trump’s life impossible requires nothing short of civil disobedience. Here are a few ways to make it happen:

Teachers and school districts can deny federal immigration agents access to buildings and personnel.

Pilots can refuse to fly airplanes that will deport migrants back to places they fled, or no longer call home.

Ordinary folks can block highways and chain themselves to ICE vehicles to stop inhumane deportations and family separations.

Allies can join community defense and rapid response teams to defend immigrants in emergencies and times of need.

These aren’t hypothetical examples. They’re all actions taken by allies and advocates whose commitment to justice is rooted in an understanding that an unjust law is no law at all.

The Women’s March was the largest demonstration in United States history. If organizers and participants actually want to make Trump’s life hell, they must commit to putting their bodies on the line for the most vulnerable among us. There is no other way.

Header image via Twitter.

Woman pulls gun during fight over school supplies at Walmart

Wait for it… when two people do the same and start shooting… it will happen and people will die. And wing-nuts will not care…

Just LOOK at this. Pulling a gun over school supplies? Watch the child’s face. It’s being reported the woman was a license concealed holder. So what? Who cares? Does it make it ok because she’s a license concealed holder? This woman is irresponsible and need to be banned from every Walmart. She’s a fool with a gun.

NOVI, MICH. – Video from a bystander shows a woman pull out a gun during a fight inside a Walmart store in Novi on Monday afternoon.

An argument broke out between two pairs of women over the last notebook on the shelf at the Novi Towne Center store, according to police.

The fight involved two Farmington Hills residents, ages 46 and 32, and a mother and daughter from South Lyon, ages 51 and 20.

WCRZ-FM reports that the two Farmington Hills women were shopping for school supplies, and when one of them reached for the last notebook on the shelf, a South Lyon woman also reached for it. Police told the Free Press that it was the 20-year-old who reached for it.

The two women pulled the 20-year-old’s hair, and the woman’s mother was pushed aside before pulling out a gun, according to Fox2Detroit.

There were 700,000 Google searches for self-inducing an abortion in the US last year

There have been a few studies — and plenty of anecdotal evidence — pointing to an uptick in self-induced abortion attempts as the result of dwindling access to legal abortion in many states. Now an economist at The New York Times looks at what Google search patterns reveal about the trend. 

Last year, there were more than 700,000 Google searches in the United States looking into self-induced abortions. These included about 119,000 searches for the phrase “how to have a miscarriage”; 160,000 for things like “buy abortion pills online” and “free abortion pills”; 4,000 looking for directions on coat hanger abortions, including — horrifyingly — about 1,300 for the exact phrase “how to do a coat hanger abortion.”

These kinds of searches were less common a decade ago but increased by 40 percent in 2011 — the year that state abortion restrictions hit record-breaking levels. Most tellingly, there’s a clear correlation between the states with the least access to legal abortion and the states with the most Google searches for DIY alternatives. “The state with the highest rate of Google searches for self-induced abortions is Mississippi, which now has one abortion clinic. Eight of the 10 states with the highest search rates for self-induced abortions are considered by the Guttmacher Institute to be hostile or very hostile to abortion.”

chart of abortion restrictions and google searches over time

Of course, these numbers can’t be taken as a evidence of how many people actually tried to self-abort, but the author points out there’s a discrepancy between the decrease in the abortion rate in states with fewer clinics and the increase in the birth rate in those states in recent years — perhaps the fact that some women are successfully self-inducing explains some of that gap.

It goes without saying that it’s outrageous that any person, in 2015, in a country where abortion is supposedly a constitutionally protected right, is forced to try to end their pregnancy on their own. However, if you or anyone you know is in that position and googling for things like coat hangers, bleach, and punching yourself in the stomach, know that there is information out there on how to do it safely and effectively: check out this guide or this one.

Image credit: Bill Marsh/The New York Times

Hijab Is Sexist, Not Anti-Racist


When I saw the event titled “Hijab som politiskt motstånd” (hijab as political resistance) and read its description, I realized the importance of demonstrating in front of the place where it would be held so that other voices from Muslim majority countries are heard, and the propaganda presented in the event is not the only information about the subject.

The event is held on 6 March, two days before international women’s day in Mångkulturellt centrum (multi-cultural center) in Fittja. It presents hijab as feminist and anti-racist. I think marketing hijab as such is harmful to women from Muslim families, to the status of women in general and to non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries.
Hijab is marketed in a different way in Muslim majority countries, than it is in the west. Women are compared to objects to be consumed and owned by men. They are told to be like wrapped candy or precious hidden diamonds, while men are questioned on how they cover their cars, but let their women go uncovered, but women are people not objects. Women are ordered to cover up not to arouse men, get themselves raped and corrupt society. The more the sexist ideology behind hijab spreads, the less safe it becomes for all women living in the same society because women and their bodies, unlike men who are viewed as “users of women” are viewed as sexual objects, and they more they cover up, the more they are blamed for being abused and required to give up their rights. When I talk about hijab, I don’t talk about a piece of cloth, but about a complete set of rules for how women should behave, hide and withdraw. A veiled woman wouldn’t for example have freedom of movement or sexual freedom.
Since women are viewed as properties and honor of men, women’s families, relatives, husbands and families of husbands interfere in how women dress. Women are even treated as public properties, so if a woman’s direct family failed to control her, strangers would step in to correct her appearance and behavior with sexual violence.
I met countless women who were forced or pressured to wear hijab, who wanted to take it off but feared incarceration, beatings and/or social rejection. My best friend was locked and tortured in a mental institution after she took off the hijab she was coerced to wear as a child, and was only considered sane enough to be let out when she wore it again against her will, I also know a woman who was locked up at her parent’s home and jumped from second floor to escape the threat of being murdered by her family after she took off the hijab and countless other women who were locked up, beaten, had virginity tests, had their hairs cut and had their books torn up for resisting the obligation to veil. Some women only wear hijab in front of their families, while others only only wear it while taking public transportation. In a society where veiling is the norm, non-veiled women cannot dare to deviate much from that norm without taking a risk. Adding to that being brainwashed since childhood that they must wear hijab or they will hang in hell by their hairs, how much choice do women living in Muslim majority countries or with Muslim families in the west have?
Most people tend to adapt to social norms, and know their places in a social order, that’s why there are women defending sexism, and why there were black people defending slavery or at least living by humiliating rules which take way their dignity, it’s especially true for women to accept sexism, since a society of only women never existed, and most people would rather be accepted in a group than stand up for themselves. That some women defend oppression doesn’t mean it’s fair or it doesn’t hurt women. The fact that more women defend it than oppose it, especially in public, is also associated with the risk of doing the later. Women who take off hijab, or reject living under the control of their country men in any other way such as living alone, not with a male guardian, end up living in shelters or protected addresses and threatened and harassed both by family members and strangers. Those who chose to speak out and help others are at even greater risk. I receive messages from women who complain to me about the oppression they live under daily, but most of them are too scared or considerate about what people would say to change their lives or speak out themselves.
Hijab is an extreme and strict version of the sexist culture western feminists are fighting, but many of them make an exception for hijab and even view it as feminist. Women who demand the same rights for all women are considered to adapt a “western feminism”, but I don’t think such division in feminism is necessary. Instead of focusing on issues specific to Eastern women such as virginity tests, so called “Islamic feminists” focus on issues that are not specific to women such as racism, which is an important issue, but it shouldn’t be prioritized over women rights, and argue preserving some forms of discrimination against eastern women, since, according to them, they don’t need the same rights as their western sisters. Feminist is a movement for change, but they are more conservative than progressive.
When Egypt was colonized by Britain, same women who fought British occupation began to defy the rules to veil and started a feminist movement just as Western women began to demand their rights during the industrial revolution, yet the event presents veiling as anti-colonial, such arguments lead to labeling people who are fighting for women rights or who have different beliefs in Muslim majority countries as traitors, and make it harder for these societies develop the same way western societies developed and are still developing.
While western racists attack Islam and hijab out of rejection for other groups, although they share similar sexist views with those they are attacking, other people, including people from Muslim majority countries attack the same things out of care about the rights of women and individuals in conservative societies and communities. Individuals inside groups from another countries shouldn’t be trumped over in an effort to understand or accept these groups. Some people may think they are accepting diversity in western societies, while in reality they are standing against those who are fighting to make conservative societies more diverse and individualistic.

Zoe Saldana Portraying Nina Simone is a Gross Whitewashing of Unapologetic Blackness

A few months ago, I wrote that I did not support the casting of Zoe Saldana as songstress Nina Simone. And now, with a release date set, and a promotional poster and trailer revealed, I stand — even more ardently — in my assertion that Saldana’s casting is both inappropriate and violent to Simone’s radical pro-Black legacy.

Nina Simone’s core pro-Black value system is the cornerstone of most of her cultural contributions. As Ruth Feldstein describes in “‘I Don’t Trust You Anymore’: Nina Simone, Culture, and Black Activism in the 1960s,” Nina Simone was radicalized following the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing (1963), and subsequently disavowed gradualism and respectability politics as effective methods towards racial justice.

My country is full of lies/We all gonna die/and die like flies

I don’t trust nobody anymore/They keep on sayin’ ‘Go slow.’

To Nina Simone, doing “things gradually, will bring more tragedy.” And she was right. With the gradual rollback of visible Jim Crow segregation, Black people are now merciless survivors and victims of mass incarceration, poisoned water, and politricks. Gradualism has worked to invisibilize anti-Blackness — its continuing violence conveniently hidden in a massive web of laws, schemes, and bureaucracies.

Nina Simone brilliantly intertwined gender and sexuality politics with her racial justice cultural activism. In many of her records, Nina’s protagonists are Black women, thus allowing space for the artist to masterfully detail the particular struggles and conflicts of Black women forced to live under the suffocating dynamics of white supremacist racism and patriarchy — namely how our sexuality is taboo and inappropriate in times of mass uprising.

In the song “Go Limp,” Nina tells the story of a young woman who decides to march. The protagonist’s mother warns her daughter to remain a nonviolent virgin. Feldstein writes “Simone used humor to suggest that it would not be easy for the young woman to meet these dual goals.”

Oh mother, dear mother, no I’m not afraid/For I’ll go on that march and return a virgin maid

With a brick on my handbag and a scoul on my face/And a barbed wire in my underwear to shed off disgrace.

“Go Limp” is illustrative in its wit and profundity; it’s a politically charged commentary on how respectability is especially (mis)applied when Black women’s sexuality is intrinsically present in Black uprisings.

Nina Simone is an exemplary icon for unapologetic Black cultural activism. She is versatile in her craft, vocal in her womanist radicalism, and authoritative in her self-determined identity. She renounced Eurocentric beauty standards, centered Black freedom over white feelings, and provoked thought through a sex-positive gendered lens.

And then there’s Nina’s appearance. A direct affront to white supremacist beauty standards, her appearance spoke volumes against those racist metrics that deem our natural physical attributes as ugly and unfitting. Nina embodied the mantra “the personal is the political.” Blogger Kirsti-Jewel of She’s.Got.The.Mic writes poignantly:

Nina Simone’s appearance shaped her experience, and view of the world. While she was political for many of her choices, she was inherently political because of her appearance.

And this is why Zoe’s casting as this incredibly complicated, multi-layered, dark-skinned, nappy-haired Black idol is violent.

The whitewashing of Black herstorical icons is standard practice in Hollywood. StonewallExodus: Gods and Kings, and Gods of Egypt are recent, well-publicized examples.

But given the current socio-political climate ushered in by the emergent Black Lives Matter movement, Nina Simone’s necessary depiction requires a significant level of pro-Black understanding. Saldana’s casting is brutal in its obvious whitewashing and racialized tone-deafness.

As a Black Lives Matter community organizer and independent media maker, I care about Nina’s holistically accurate representation. The movement of which I am a part brings to life her Black radical ideal. Our principles are those that are queer, trans*, and female-bodied affirming. We do not uplift the myth of racial gradualism and respectability, and refuse to be manipulated by the dominant political establishment. We are courageous in our justified anger, and vocal in our renunciation of anti-Blackness.

I understand that Zoe Saldana gotta eat. There is an entire scholarship on the lack of diversity in Hollywood, and I am absolutely positive that as an Afro-Latina actress, getting career-making roles is a sparse reality. But the portrayal of Nina Simone isn’t the role for her. The blotchy makeup and prosthetic noses pieces ain’t working. She is simply not fit to depict the icon whose radical socialization was shaped by both appearance and experience.

In this contemporary moment of mass racial upset, Nina’s representation is crucial. She must be embodied with perfection, care, nuance, and sensitivity. She need not be tamed to make her more digestible to a white mainstream audience.

Because it’s not a far guess that she’d be the last one to stand for that.

7 Questions with Gogu Shyamala about Radhika Vemula, Solidarity and Dalit Rights

By Ila Ananya


Dalit writer and activist, Gogu Shyamala is at the Hyderabad Central University when I first call her.Shyamala is the author of the critically acclaimed collection of short stories, Father May Be An Elephant And Mother Only A Small Basket. She sounds tired, as though she has been rushing from place to place, but when I call her back later, she is at home and calmer. She she talks at great length about the formation of the Radhika Vemula Solidarity Committee, for Rohith Vemula’s mother, after his death. She describes him quietly, as someone who “respected knowledge, and wanted a scholarly life,” before the conversation shifts to his mother, and the need for us to know her story. “What is this society?” she repeats over and over, “everything is Brahmanical and patriarchal.”

Perhaps we could start with talking about Radhika Vemula. Until yesterday, we’ve seen far too little about her in all the conversations that started after her son, Rohit Vemula’s, suicide.

Radhika Vemula, a Dalit woman, married a Vaddera man. Now, since we live in a Brahmanical, patriarchal culture, Radhika Vemula isn’t considered as having an identity outside of marriage, and her sons are expected to take on their father’s caste. In Radhika’s case, her husband started harassing her about her caste identity. The violence she faced wasn’t only domestic violence, but caste violence within it. At some point, Radhika left home with her three children because she expected them to be harassed as well, and went to live in a Dalit waada. People here welcomed her, and she could get her children educated, but many others would question her choice to leave her husband, spreading rumours of illegitimate children.

But after Rohith Vemula’s death, Radhika wasn’t given any identity in the entire discussion. This isn’t just Brahmanical upper-caste politics, this is patriarchal politics as well—she has a story of her own, but nobody is interested in it. When Rohith died, she went into a corner mentally—I’m sure she had a lot of desires that got dismantled. “I shouldn’t have sent him to the university,” she would say. The media was busy putting her husband in the limelight, even though he’s an irresponsible father, a drunk, and a womaniser, and was never around. As a woman, as a single mother who fought the violence inflicted on her by her husband and brought her children up, and even as a Dalit woman, Radhika Vemula needs to be heard.

How did the Radhika Vemula Solidarity Committee get formed? What is its aim?

After Rohith Vemula’s death, we realised that a lot of the focus seemed to shift towards debating whether he was a Dalit or Vaddera, but it must be remembered that his experiences were Dalit experiences. Rohith came to Hyderabad Central University because he didn’t want to be a clerk, or work in the fields, but because he respected and wanted knowledge. Radhika’s story needs to be told—I want her to be a woman leader because she is talented and strong, and Indian women need such people, not husbands, fathers, and brothers. We want to learn from her, we don’t want women like Smriti Irani or Sushma Swaraj—they are not thinking like women, they are thinking like men.

Dalit women are constantly asked every time they begin to demand something—“how can you talk like that?”—and are told not to talk to the media. But our aim is to help her talk to the media, the police, to women, and to universities and students. We have challenges; we are not taken seriously as women, and we are Dalits, but we will question universities that don’t give students an education, but kills them instead. This is what her tone must become.

What happened at the public meeting that was held on 4th February in Hyderabad?

It was supposed to be a press meet, because we needed Radhika to also be focussed on in the media. The meeting was held in Lamakaan, and we were joined by many women—K Sajaya, journalist and Vice President of Anveshi Executive Committee, A Suneetha, from Anveshi, and many others. A tribal sarpanch talked about non-tribal women marrying tribal men, and about the identity of the women once they are married, and how they are negotiating their rights. It isn’t only an open dialogue that is necessary, but the complexity of issues surrounding Radhika need to be addressed more deeply, and not peripherally. We called a lot of people from the media, but of course that wasn’t all that successful.

Do you think English language media comprehends these issues, or do Telugu newspapers have different things to say? Who would the committee want to address?

The problem is that we want the English language media to start writing more about these issues. We want them to realise that this is not only about Radhika Vemula, but also about women, single women, the rights of women, and how they negotiate and deal with patriarchal rules. She is a context to the woman question. English language papers don’t cover enough. What is this society? The Telugu media has channels that will give Manikumar Vemula a chance to speak, but only because they have made their decisions about the issue and know what they want to present—they want to support the BJP and dilute the issue by questioning Rohith’s Dalit identity. Where is Radhika Vemula’s chance to speak?

Do you think it’s true that it is usually Dalits who are identified/perceived as anti-national?”

Those in the government are only playing games. In modern times, they begin to call Dalits as anti-national, and before this, they called them untouchables. With the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, any form of discrimination became punishable. So all the government could do was to change their strategy, and begin to call them anti-nationals.

What seems to be happening to our educational institutions, to our universities right now? 

Very often, the government’s target becomes anything that is knowledge based, and not based on belief. For BJP, India need not represent any form of knowledge, but must represent mythologies, beliefs. They want the image of a crying Sita, or a Kali, to show such women, and these images of crying Sita become the norm. They will not show strong Indian women like Savitribai Phule. Knowledge is something that can’t be restricted only to the Brahmins like it used to be, and so all this changes into an intolerance and phobia, which makes the government begin to use terms like anti-national. The government thus attacks educational institutions, and very often uses the ABVP to create problems for students. They begin to target student leaders by calling them anti-national, as in Kanhaiya Kumar’s case in JNU. But the attack also becomes on the representation of India around the world, not just individual universities.

What are the ways in which this compromises and affects Dalit rights? 

Lots of Dalit students are entering universities and they’ve had to face threats or violence. The argument is that even though someone like Rohith Vemula, who had so much knowledge, had made his way to a university like HCU, why should professors focus on them, or grant them PhDs? They can just be watchmen or labourers like the members of their family have been. They closed all the ways of Rohith’s study. As it is, many Dalit students come into universities with an inferiority complex, and language barriers, and now everyone else makes it harder for them. Everyone else is out to humiliate, silence, and suppress, because nobody wants to allow Dalits into positions of knowledge.

The Dalit movement in Andhra Pradesh was a community movement, it was about a Dalit voice, education, and rights. I feel, being a part of the Ambedkar Students Association (ASA), Rohith Vemula should have turned to his community, and taken lessons from the movement. I think, this is sometimes the gap between the Dalit movement at grass root levels, and Dalit scholars. There is so much literature by Dalits about their stories, their history, and so much can be learnt from these movements, about the politics of education and untouchability. This community movement needs to be understood, I think.


I wish Rohith Vemula had turned to his mother. She taught her children everything she could from her experiences, and how to navigate society, and perhaps he underestimated her strength.

Image credit: Screenshot via Dalitcamera Ambedkar


The post 7 Questions with Gogu Shyamala about Radhika Vemula, Solidarity and Dalit Rights appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

89 Gold, 37 Silver, 13 Bronze: Indian Women At the South Asian Games

Woman boxer practising.

Indian boxer Sarita Devi, who won a gold at the South Asian Games 2016.

I’ve heard, you’ve heard, we’ve all heard the news: yesterday, India was wayyy ahead of everyone else as the overall winner at the South Asian Games. We were left with 188 gold, 90 silver, and 30 bronze medals – a grand total of 308 medals on our hands. And out of that, our women won 89 gold, 37 silver and 13 bronze – that’s a total of … 1, 2, … a whopping hundred and thirty-nine medals. Can we please all take a minute to think of their hard work, their mental toughness, and the 139 or so obstacles in an Indian sportswoman’s career?

Aaaand here are the medal-count-swelling and heart-swelling numbers in the women’s competitions. (Needless to say, Mary Kom is one of the three boxing golds.) Enjoy!

# Sport Event Gold Silver Bronze
1 ARCHERY Recurve Team 1 0 0
2 ARCHERY Recurve Individual 0 1 0
3 ARCHERY Recurve Individual 1 0 0
4 ARCHERY Compound 0 1 0
5 ARCHERY Compound 1 0 0
6 ARCHERY Compound Team 1 0 0
7 ATHLETICS Marathon 1 0 0
8 ATHLETICS 4 x 400 M Relay 1 0 0
9 ATHLETICS 200 M 0 1 0
10 ATHLETICS 200 M 1 0 0
11 ATHLETICS 10000 M 0 1 0
12 ATHLETICS 10000 M 1 0 0
13 ATHLETICS 1500 M 1 0 0
14 ATHLETICS Javelin Throw 0 1 0
15 ATHLETICS Javelin Throw 1 0 0
16 ATHLETICS 400 M Hurdles 0 1 0
17 ATHLETICS 400 M Hurdles 1 0 0
18 ATHLETICS 4 x 100 M Relay 0 1 0
19 ATHLETICS 400 M 1 0 0
20 ATHLETICS Triple Jump 0 0 1
21 ATHLETICS Triple Jump 1 0 0
22 ATHLETICS High Jump 0 1 0
23 ATHLETICS High Jump 1 0 0
24 ATHLETICS 100 M Hurdles 0 1 0
25 ATHLETICS 100 M Hurdles 1 0 0
26 ATHLETICS 100 M 0 0 1
27 ATHLETICS 100 M 0 1 0
28 ATHLETICS Long Jump 0 1 0
29 ATHLETICS Long Jump 1 0 0
30 ATHLETICS Shotput 0 1 0
31 ATHLETICS Shotput 1 0 0
32 ATHLETICS 5000 M 0 1 0
33 ATHLETICS 5000 M 1 0 0
34 ATHLETICS 800 M 0 0 1
35 BADMINTON Doubles 0 1 0
36 BADMINTON Doubles 1 0 0
37 BADMINTON Singles 0 1 0
38 BADMINTON Singles 1 0 0
39 BADMINTON Team 1 0 0
40 BOXING 75 Kg 1 0 0
41 BOXING 60 Kg 1 0 0
42 BOXING 51 Kg 1 0 0
43 CYCLING 80 Km Ind. Road Race 0 0 1
44 CYCLING 80 Km Ind. Road Race 0 1 0
45 CYCLING 80 Km Ind. Road Race 1 0 0
46 CYCLING 40 Km Team Time Trial 1 0 0
47 CYCLING 40 Km Criterium 0 1 0
48 CYCLING 40 Km Criterium 1 0 0
49 CYCLING 30 Km Individual Time Trial 0 1 0
50 CYCLING 30 Km Individual Time Trial 1 0 0
51 FOOTBALL Team Event 1 0 0
52 HANDBALL Team Event 1 0 0
53 HOCKEY Team Event 1 0 0
54 JUDO 78 Kg 0 1 0
55 JUDO 70 Kg 1 0 0
56 JUDO 63 Kg 0 1 0
57 JUDO 57 Kg 1 0 0
58 JUDO 52 Kg 1 0 0
59 JUDO 48 Kg 1 0 0
60 KABADDI Team Event 1 0 0
61 KHO KHO Team Event 1 0 0
62 SHOOTING 10 M Pistol 1 0 0
63 SHOOTING 10 M Pistol 0 0 1
64 SHOOTING 10 M Pistol 0 1 0
65 SHOOTING 10 M Pistol 1 0 0
66 SHOOTING 50 M Rifle 3 Position 1 0 0
67 SHOOTING 50 M Rifle 3 Position 0 0 1
68 SHOOTING 50 M Rifle 3 Position 0 1 0
69 SHOOTING 50 M Rifle 3 Position 1 0 0
70 SHOOTING 25 M Sports Pistol 1 0 0
71 SHOOTING 25 M Sports Pistol 0 0 1
72 SHOOTING 25 M Sports Pistol 0 1 0
73 SHOOTING 25 M Sports Pistol 1 0 0
74 SHOOTING 50 M Rifle Prone 0 0 1
75 SHOOTING 50 M Rifle Prone 0 1 0
76 SHOOTING 50 M Rifle Prone 1 0 0
77 SHOOTING 50 M Rifle Prone 1 0 0
78 SHOOTING 10 M Air Rifle 0 0 1
79 SHOOTING 10 M Air Rifle 0 1 0
80 SHOOTING 10 M Air Rifle 1 0 0
81 SHOOTING 10 M Rifle 1 0 0
82 SQUASH Team 1 0 0
83 SQUASH Individual 1 0 0
84 SWIMMING Medley – 4×100 M 1 0 0
85 SWIMMING Butterfly Stroke – 50 M 1 0 0
86 SWIMMING Butterfly Stroke – 50 M 0 1 0
87 SWIMMING Free Style – 100 M 0 0 1
88 SWIMMING Individual Medley – 200 M 1 0 0
89 SWIMMING Relays (Free Style) – 4×200 M 1 0 0
90 SWIMMING Back Stroke – 50 M 0 1 0
91 SWIMMING Butterfly Stroke – 200 M 1 0 0
92 SWIMMING Free Style – 400 M 0 1 0
93 SWIMMING Free Style – 400 M 1 0 0
94 SWIMMING Free Style – 50 M 0 0 1
95 SWIMMING Back Stroke – 100 M 0 1 0
96 SWIMMING Free Style – 800 M 1 0 0
97 SWIMMING Breast Stroke – 100 M 0 0 1
98 SWIMMING Back Stroke – 200 M 0 1 0
99 SWIMMING Individual Medley – 400 M 0 1 0
100 SWIMMING Individual Medley – 400 M 1 0 0
101 SWIMMING Relays (Free Style) – 4×100 M 1 0 0
102 SWIMMING Butterfly Stroke – 100 M 1 0 0
103 SWIMMING Free Style – 200 M 1 0 0
104 TABLE TENNIS Doubles 0 1 0
105 TABLE TENNIS Doubles 1 0 0
106 TABLE TENNIS Singles 0 1 0
107 TABLE TENNIS Singles 1 0 0
108 TABLE TENNIS Team 1 0 0
109 TAEKWONDO Over 49 Kg Not Exceeding 53 Kg 1 0 0
110 TAEKWONDO Over 57 Kg Not Exceeding 62 Kg 1 0 0
111 TAEKWONDO Over 46 Kg Not Exceeding 49 Kg 1 0 0
112 TAEKWONDO Over 53 Kg Not Exceeding 57 Kg 0 0 1
113 TENNIS Doubles 0 1 0
114 TENNIS Doubles 1 0 0
115 TENNIS Individual 0 1 0
116 TENNIS Individual 1 0 0
117 TRIATHLON Individual 0 1 0
118 TRIATHLON Individual 1 0 0
119 VOLLEYBALL Team Event 1 0 0
120 WEIGHTLIFTING 75+ Kg 1 0 0
121 WEIGHTLIFTING 75 Kg 1 0 0
122 WEIGHTLIFTING 58 Kg 1 0 0
123 WEIGHTLIFTING 69 Kg 1 0 0
124 WEIGHTLIFTING 48 Kg 1 0 0
125 WEIGHTLIFTING 53 Kg 1 0 0
126 WRESTLING 75 Kg 1 0 0
127 WRESTLING 69 Kg 1 0 0
128 WRESTLING 63 Kg 1 0 0
129 WRESTLING 58 Kg 1 0 0
130 WRESTLING 53 Kg 1 0 0
131 WRESTLING 60 Kg 1 0 0
132 WRESTLING 55 Kg 1 0 0
133 WRESTLING 48 Kg 1 0 0
134 WUSHU SANSHOU – 70 Kg 1 0 0
135 WUSHU SANSHOU – 60 Kg 1 0 0
136 WUSHU SANSHOU – 52 Kg 1 0 0
137 WUSHU Taijiquan & Taijijian 1 0 0
138 WUSHU Nanquan & Nandao 0 1 0
139 WUSHU TAOLU – Changquan 1 0 0
TOTAL 89 37 13

Photo Credit: Facebook Page ‘Boxer Sarita Devi’, January 1, 2016.

The post 89 Gold, 37 Silver, 13 Bronze: Indian Women At the South Asian Games appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

Monday Open Thread | Jimi Hendrix Week

Hello 3 Chics family! This week’s featured artist is the incomparable Mr. Jimi Hendrix.

C-Jimi-Ladyland-po_1711987i (1)

James Marshall Hendrix

November 27th, 1942 – September 18, 1970

Widely recognized as one of the most creative and influential musicians of the 20th century, Jimi Hendrix pioneered the explosive possibilities of the electric guitar. Hendrix’s innovative style of combining fuzz, feedback and controlled distortion created a new musical form. Because he was unable to read or write music, it is nothing short of remarkable that Jimi Hendrix’s meteoric rise in the music took place in just four short years. His musical language continues to influence a host of modern musicians, from George Clinton to Miles Davis, and Steve Vai to Jonny Lang.

Jimi Hendrix, born Johnny Allen Hendrix at 10:15 a.m. on November 27, 1942, at Seattle’s King County Hospital, was later renamed James Marshall by his father, James “Al” Hendrix. Young Jimmy (as he was referred to at the time) took an interest in music, drawing influence from virtually every major artist at the time, including B.B. King, Muddy Waters, Howlin’ Wolf, Buddy Holly, and Robert Johnson. Entirely self-taught, Jimmy’s inability to read music made him concentrate even harder on the music he heard.

Al took notice of Jimmy’s interest in the guitar, recalling, “I used to have Jimmy clean up the bedroom all the time while I was gone, and when I would come home I would find a lot of broom straws around the foot of the bed. I’d say to him, `Well didn’t you sweep up the floor?’ and he’d say, `Oh yeah,’ he did. But I’d find out later that he used to be sitting at the end of the bed there and strumming the broom like he was playing a guitar.” Al found an old one-string ukulele, which he gave to Jimmy to play a huge improvement over the broom.

By the summer of 1958, Al had purchased Jimmy a five-dollar, second-hand acoustic guitar from one of his friends. Shortly thereafter, Jimmy joined his first band, The Velvetones. After a three-month stint with the group, Jimmy left to pursue his own interests. The following summer, Al purchased Jimmy his first electric guitar, a Supro Ozark 1560S; Jimi used it when he joined The Rocking Kings.

In 1961, Jimmy left home to enlist in the United States Army and in November 1962 earned the right to wear the “Screaming Eagles” patch for the paratroop division. While stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Jimmy formed The King Casuals with bassist Billy Cox. After being discharged due to an injury he received during a parachute jump, Jimmy began working as a session guitarist under the name Jimmy James. By the end of 1965, Jimmy had played with several marquee acts, including Ike and Tina Turner, Sam Cooke, the Isley Brothers, and Little Richard. Jimmy parted ways with Little Richard to form his own band, Jimmy James and the Blue Flames, shedding the role of back-line guitarist for the spotlight of lead guitar.

Throughout the latter half of 1965, and into the first part of 1966, Jimmy played the rounds of smaller venues throughout Greenwich Village, catching up with Animals’ bassist Chas Chandler during a July performance at Caf‚ Wha? Chandler was impressed with Jimmy’s performance and returned again in September 1966 to sign Hendrix to an agreement that would have him move to London to form a new band.

Read the rest here.

Jimi Hendrix’s restored flat a glimpse into swinging London life



Read more here.