niyad
niyad's JournalWomen's HERstory Month 2025--Moving Forward Together
For 2025, the theme is “Moving Forward Together,” spotlighting “women educating and inspiring generations.” This theme is meant to highlight and support women who have dedicated their lives to education, mentorship and leadership to shape the minds and futures of all generations.
a few quick resources:
https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/
https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/Womens-History-Toolkit-2025.pdf
https://sccld.org/blogs/post/honoring-womens-history-month-2025/
https://www.internationalwomensday.com/
https://jac.mtsu.edu/nwhm/
Secretary of State Marco Rubio Will Be a Disaster for Women
Secretary of State Marco Rubio Will Be a Disaster for Women
PUBLISHED 1/15/2025 by Jaime M. Gher and Thomas Dresslar
Rubio poses an extreme threat to global gender equality. Nowhere is this clearer than his rabid and consistent opposition to abortion rights.
(does anybody besides me see a resemblance to george santos here?)
. . . Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), testifies during his Senate Foreign Relations confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, 2025. (Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)
On Wednesday, Marco Rubio appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his confirmation hearing as the next secretary of state. Rubio is expected to be confirmed without any serious opposition, thanks to the rarity of Cabinet nominee rejections and public support for Rubio, even among Democratic senators. (Rubio served for years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a senator from Florida, and Democrats like Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Cory Booker of New Jersey greeted him warmly on Wednesday.) But make no mistake—Rubio’s history of hostility toward reproductive autonomy and his recent embrace of “America First” nationalism heralds a State Department that decimates women’s health, human rights and well-being.
The extreme threat Rubio poses to global gender equality is nowhere clearer than his rabid and consistent opposition to abortion rights.
While running for president in 2015, Rubio said he opposed nearly all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Rubio double-downed on his position when running for Senate reelection in 2022, saying he would support a national abortion ban without exceptions. His history of opposition to abortion rights will be extremely relevant when he assumes leadership at the State Department. The U.S. remains the world’s largest distributor of foreign aid, and much of that money goes to healthcare providers in Global South countries. Yet, thanks to a myriad of antiabortion restrictions likely to be imposed by Rubio, many of these providers will be blocked from providing abortions to those who need it most.
. . . .
Rubio has consistently supported Helms and the global gag rule. In fact, he wants to push them further. In a 2020 letter, Rubio joined a group of senators urging Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to expand the “global gag rule” further than the Trump administration. But Trump’s expanded rule already had a devastating impact on women as well as providers, health workers and critical public health systems around the world. Rubio’s antiabortion extremism will also impact human rights here at home. Rubio praised the Dobbs Supreme Court ruling that has unleashed a human rights crisis that United Nations special rapporteurs and international treaty review bodies have condemned. Rubio’s State Department is likely to actively try to undermine international efforts to protect U.S. abortion rights. This antiabortion crusade is just one element of a wider campaign against reproductive health and human rights. Last year, Rubio sent a letter to the Biden administration opposing a proposed State Department rule mandating nondiscrimination in foreign assistance. Rubio called the rule “wokeness,” saying it would bolster “leftist priorities, like abortion and gender identity” at the expense of faith-based organizations.
. . . .
Any discussion of Marco Rubio is incomplete without reference to his extremely hawkish positions on U.S. military intervention. Rubio is an enthusiastic supporter of Israel’s war in Gaza, which has killed or displaced tens of thousands of civilians, a majority of whom are women and girls. The unique and devastating impacts of war on women are well-documented; Rubio has supported military aggression against China, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. Because of Rubio’s former support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, his endorsement of some global aid programs and other ostensibly moderate positions, his secretary of state nomination is seen by some observers as “the best of the worst.” This view ignores both his history of extreme positions on issues like abortion and his recent evolution as a nationalist in total lockstep with Donald Trump. Secretary of State Marco Rubio presents a clear and unique threat to the human rights of women, and it’s critical that we understand him that way.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/01/15/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-women-abortion-helms-amendment-global-gag-rule/
Against the Normalization of Trump's Misogyny
(seriously important read)
Against the Normalization of Trump’s Misogyny
PUBLISHED 2/7/2025 by Jackson Katz
Trump’s reelection has emboldened his attacks on women, further normalizing misogyny at the highest levels of power.
. . . Donald Trump speaks with a little girl as he selects a pen to sign the No Men in Women’s Sports Executive Order—an executive order to ban transgender girls and women from competing on sports teams that match their gender identity—in the White House on Feb. 5, 2025. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images)
In just over two weeks, an emboldened and angry Donald Trump, restored to power, has plunged the federal government into chaos and threatened the rule of law, separation of powers, and other core tenets of American democracy. Many people and organizations are, understandably, operating in crisis mode as Elon Musk and various Trump appointees seek to dismantle and eliminate programs that serve average people—including the most vulnerable people across the globe. It’s important for people to stand up and take action in real time, and do whatever they can—through lawsuits, legislative action and public protest—to block the implementation of immoral and illegal policies.
But let’s take a moment to step back and ponder a broader question: Trump’s legitimacy as the nation’s leader, and what that means in terms of social norms, or what effect Trump’s behavior has on what it means to be normal. From the moment Donald Trump became president of the United States in 2016, pundits and commentators from the center to the left have debated the costs and benefits of “normalizing” him. Should his ideological and political adversaries try to work with him and his administration, and find points of common ground and agreement? Or should they oppose him at every turn, seeking to delegitimize him and his efforts to undermine fundamental democratic norms and practices? This is harder to do now that he’s been reelected—not because his personal behavior or policy goals are any more palatable to democracy lovers (they’re not) but because this time around, he won the popular vote. With all he has put the country through since his fateful trip down the escalator at Trump Tower a decade ago, 77 million people nonetheless chose to reinstall the bombastic real estate developer and former reality TV star to the most politically and culturally influential position in the world.
Many liberals, progressives and Democrats have been demoralized since Nov. 5 precisely because he has, in a sense, been normalized by the voters. One of the signature political slogans of our time is that elections have consequences. Some of those were on full display in the past two weeks in the senate hearings for Trump’s grotesquely unqualified Cabinet nominees, his grossly incompetent handling of the Washington plane crash, the first public tragedy of his second term, and his brazenly authoritarian edict to shut down USAID. But that’s not the end of the story. For all the shortcomings of the Democratic Party, more than 75 million people voted for Kamala Harris. They—and the tens of millions who didn’t vote at all—don’t have to stand by passively as Trump takes a sledgehammer to the American system of checks and balances, and clears the path for full-on plutocratic rule under the guise of “populist” concern about the lives and struggles of average (white) Americans.
Nor do they have to remain silent when he says and does things—from the rarified position of cultural influence that comes with his occupancy of the White House—that sabotage decades of progress against racism, sexism and anti-queer bigotry. They also don’t simply have to accept Trump’s abusive, bullying behavior and commentary—via social media posts or in front of media microphones—out of a misguided belief that because he won the latest election, Trumpism is the “new normal.” Contrary to Trump’s assertion of a sweeping mandate, his margin of victory was in fact quite small during a political cycle in which incumbent parties and candidates worldwide faced considerable electoral headwinds. And as long as we have the First Amendment, there is still plenty of room for expressions of outrage, disapproval and dissent.
We Can’t Normalize Trump’s Misogyny
. . . .
Nonetheless, it is simply unfair to expect women to carry a disproportionate share of the burden. Donald Trump was re-elected with overwhelming support from men, especially—but not exclusively—white men. It is therefore more important than ever that men who are committed to justice, fairness and equity stand up, speak out and say as loudly as possible: Not in my name.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/02/07/trump-misogyny-women-normal-reelection-president-men-speak-out/
Presidents' Day and the Legacy of Exclusion: Why Women Still Struggle for the Oval Office
(a seriously depressing, important, read)
Presidents’ Day and the Legacy of Exclusion: Why Women Still Struggle for the Oval Office
PUBLISHED 2/16/2025 by Ria Deshmukh and Marvelous Maeze
Despite centuries of progress, the American presidency remains trapped in a legacy of white masculinity, reinforcing systemic barriers that continue to keep women—especially women of color—out of the highest office.
Presidents’ Day often conjures images of our founding fathers, men whose legacies in history books portray them as heroic figures. Yet, these white men confined themselves to rooms of power, shutting the doors behind them and leaving the majority of society—women, marginalized groups and nonconforming individuals—without a seat at the table, effectively denying them power and influence. No man embodies the archetype of leadership in American history more than George Washington—an American hero whose resolve to uphold slavery was so staunch and morally corrupt that he exploited various legal mechanisms to perpetuate the enslavement of Black people. These included (but were not limited to) the frequent transportation of enslaved individuals between his properties to avoid emancipation laws, leveraging gradual emancipation statutes to delay freedom for enslaved people, and ensuring the generational inheritance of enslaved people.
Setting Washington, our nation’s first president, as the bar for heroism and leadership has perpetuated a legacy that normalizes overly masculine, cruel mindsets and glorifies his role while ignoring the exploitation and dehumanization that defined much of his leadership. Although it is obvious these actions are a product of that time, what is less clear is how these actions evolved to stand the test of time. The injustices perpetrated by the founding fathers are still being felt in today’s social climate, government and policy. The United States is now in its 47th presidency without a woman president. While other nations have seen female heads of state, the U.S. lags behind. Several women throughout history have run, with Victoria Woodhull becoming the first of over 100 women who have thrown their hat in the ring. In recent years, the nation witnessed two highly skilled and qualified women who secured their parties’ nomination for the presidential race, and they both lost to the same man. How hard do women have to work to be seen as leaders, and what is stopping them from entering the highest form of leadership in the country?
Entitled Masculinity: The Power Structures We Inherit
As we reflect on the legacy of leadership in America, it’s impossible to ignore the enduring association of the presidency with masculinity—specifically, white masculinity. This racial hegemonic masculinity is historically tied to privilege and power, reinforcing harmful hierarchies that marginalize women, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals and non-traditional gender expressions, fostering inequality, exclusion and a lack of empathy for marginalized groups. Despite its flaws, this anachronistic concept of masculinity remains the prevailing criteria for authority in the U.S. It is the blueprint for how leadership is perceived and exercised—shaping not only the expectations of future presidents but also the broader societal norms around power, dominance and who is deemed worthy of holding positions of influence. Black women are often forced to navigate a minefield of double standards rooted in toxic masculinity and racial bias. Former Vice President Kamala Harris’ leadership was often met with paradoxical critiques that she was simultaneously too aggressive and yet somehow not strong enough to lead. This duality reflects the negative masculinization of Black women, a phenomenon rooted in misogynoir, i.e., stereotypes that are both racist and sexist.
. . . .
Glass Cliff: Women Leaders and the Perils of Power
The “glass cliff” phenomenon is the idea that women are more likely to be promoted, appointed or nominated during times of crisis. A play on the term “glass ceiling,” the glass cliff often sets women up for failure and is an informal barrier that keeps women from leadership positions. In politics, this means that women are often asked to run in difficult or unwinnable races, solidifying preexisting biases people carry on the electability of women candidates. Kamala Harris’ campaign, as skilled and accomplished as it was, fell victim to the glass cliff phenomenon. Before Harris became the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, the party’s odds of winning the election were slim. Embodying entitled masculinity, her predecessor President Joe Biden was initially defensive, unwilling to step aside and let Harris run. When he finally did step aside, Harris was left with a mere 107 days to campaign. Harris’ campaign was short, and she still managed to be a competitive candidate, closing the wide gap her party was initially projected to lose by. There’s no way to know if she would have won for certain if she had more time. Harris was given less-than-ideal circumstances. Women of color in the United States are often held to impossibly high standards and given the least opportunities and resources. Substantially investing in these women early on can level the playing field so that diverse perspectives can reach even the highest levels of public office.
Misogyny and the Electability of Women Candidates
. . . . .
Note from the authors: RepresentWomen is committed to finding data-driven methods of building women’s political power. Check out our research library for ways to create a democracy where everyone can fully participate and thrive.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/02/16/women-presidents-day/
Montana Lawmakers Vote Down Bill That Would Have Treated Cross-Border Abortion Seekers as Traffickers of Their 'Unborn
(and the WAR ON WOMEN continues apace!!!)
Montana Lawmakers Vote Down Bill That Would Have Treated Cross-Border Abortion Seekers as Traffickers of Their ‘Unborn Children’
PUBLISHED 2/27/2025 by Shoshanna Ehrlich | UPDATED 2/28/2025 at 11:12 A.M. PT
Abortion rights supporters wear pink shirts that say, "Abortion rights voter" and hold signs that say, "We decide."Signs supporting the Right to Abortion Initiative are displayed during a rally on Sept. 5, 2024 in Bozeman, Mont. (William Campbell / Getty Images)
On Nov. 5, 2024, Montana voters decisively approved a ballot initiative enshrining the right to abortion up until fetal viability (about 24 weeks gestation) in the state Constitution. On Monday, Feb. 24, Montana Republicans introduced a radical antiabortion “trafficking” bill that would have made seeking an out-of-state abortion after viability, or simply helping someone get one, a felony. Idaho and Tennessee have already criminalized the “abortion trafficking” of a minor in an effort to prevent them from accessing (legal) out-of-state abortions, and a handful of municipalities (mainly in Texas) have made it a civil offense to use local roads to access (legal) cross-border abortion care. But Montana’s proposed law would have broken new ground: Adding another level of state surveillance and control, the trafficking law would have made it a crime for a pregnant person to “transport an unborn child” across state lines “for the purpose of procuring an abortion” that is illegal in Montana; namely, a post-viability procedure. (As Jessica Valenti writes, “By only targeting those seeking post-‘viability’ care, Republicans get an easy messaging spin: ‘We’re not stopping women from leaving the state—we’re just ending “abortion up until birth!”‘) It would also have criminalized aiding or assisting “another person in transporting an unborn child,” presumably by driving them to their abortion appointment or perhaps even by filling the tank with gas or making sandwiches for the road.
Late on Thursday, Feb. 27, after intense and emotional committee hearings, eight Democratic lawmakers joined eight Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee to vote down the bill, HB 609. Four Republicans still voted in support of it. “I think we need to address abortion in a wide variety of means,” said state Rep. Tracy Sharp, the Republican lawmaker who moved to table the felony abortion bill. “But some of these bills that we’ve been bringing up here, I just have to admit, I’m really uncomfortable with.” “I’m thrilled that Montanans don’t have to worry about this bill—for now,” Valenti warns. “But everything that happened this week is a warning sign that we’re going to see more legislation like this. … HB 609 was just a warning shot. … That’s why every time one of these bills come up—no matter how unlikely it is to pass—we need to make as big of a fuss as possible. We need to make sure they know that we’re watching.”
. . . .
Deeper Analysis of the Now-Tabled Extreme HB 609
Before the bill was tabled in committee, Martha Fuller, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, condemned HB 609, calling it “an extreme criminalization of abortion seekers and their family members and others who support them. … This fall, Montanans overwhelmingly voted to protect our right to make personal medical decisions about abortion. When the response to that vote is the introduction of a outrageously draconian law seeking to criminalize those very decisions, it demonstrates how out of step with Montanans this is.” In addition to being out of step with Montanans, this bill combined some of the most dangerous legal trends in the national post-Roe reproductive ecosystem.
Let’s start with the underlying premise that one can “traffic” a fetus. As Texas resident and rabid antiabortion extremist Mark Lee Dickson, the driving force behind the municipal travel bans, argues in support of these efforts, “The unborn child is always taken against their will.’” However, the notion that an unborn child can be taken “against their will” denotes that they have a will that can be overtaken. This, of course, leads ineluctably to the assumption that the unborn trafficking ‘victim’ is a legal person with enforceable consent rights whose permission must somehow be obtained before heading out on the road. As I wrote in an earlier article, the idea of a fetus having a will that must be honored opens up the proverbial can of worms. Does this mean that a pregnant person must somehow consult with the fetus and secure its permission before engaging in conduct that might potentially present a risk, such as going skiing or indulging in that extra cup of coffee on the weekends? (Although seemingly absurd, this is the fraught landscape of fetal personhood at the core of Montana’s proposed trafficking law.)
. . . .
https://msmagazine.com/2025/02/27/montana-abortion-trafficking-law-criminalizes-pregnant-people-women/
Ten Warnings the New Gabby Petito Netflix Doc Reveals About Coercive Control (trigger warning)
(lengthy, VERY important, very disturbing, read!!!)
Ten Warnings the New Gabby Petito Netflix Doc Reveals About Coercive Control (trigger warning)
PUBLISHED 2/20/2025 by Amy Polacko
They were the “Insta-perfect” couple that captivated a nation.
But a new Netflix documentary American Murder: Gabby Petito includes text messages never seen before, journal entries, social media footage, family interviews and body cam video that give a foreboding picture of exactly what led to the 22-year-old’s death at the hands of Brian Laundrie. It’s called coercive control—and this deeper dive into Petito’s story serves as a five-alarm warning to everyone, and their loved ones, about red flags to look for in relationships. Gabby Petito’s stepdad Jim Schmidt collapsed on the ground when investigators found her body in Wyoming’s Bridger-Teton National Forest on Sept. 19, 2021, after a nearly month-long search. He had the task of identifying Gabby, remembering her in the fetal position “laying on the ground for weeks, in the wild just left there like she was a piece of trash by somebody who was supposed to love her.”
Love. That’s how it all started. Brian Laundrie seemed to be the doting boyfriend-turned-fiancé at the beginning of their whirlwind romance. But almost all abusers are. The couple set off excitedly on a roadtrip in their van—an odyssey she wanted to document through a vlog—but only one of them returned. Now, Petito’s tragic story can educate others about the insidious nuances of coercive control—a pattern of threats, humiliation, intimidation and other abuse used to punish, hurt or scare victims. “If you call your partner horrible names, that is psychological abuse and might happen only once or all the time. Coercive control is much more multifaceted. It involves isolating … tracking and monitoring, sexual coercion and sometimes—but not always—physical abuse,” according to Dr. Lisa Fontes, who wrote Invisible Chains: Overcoming Coercive Control in Your Intimate Relationship. She and other experts believe coercive control is the foundation of all abuse.
As a divorce coach and domestic abuse survivor, I see this dynamic play out with my clients every day.
Here are 10 clues directly from the three-part series American Murder: Gabby Petito to look for in your relationship—or one of someone you care about—before it’s too late:
1. The courtship is out of a movie.
Laundrie said it was love at first sight when he spotted Petito outside a New York deli and pulled over to talk to her after high school. Nine months later, she moved to Florida with him. “It’s kind of quick … are you sure?” her mother, Nichole Schmidt, asked. Coercive controllers use love bombing to shower their targets with affection and convince them to take drastic steps early on. When he proposed after their one-year anniversary, he said a firefly landed on Petito’s ring finger; “that’s how we knew the universe wanted us to be together.” This emphasis on “soulmates” and “destiny” is a common tactic.
2. Look at what they do—not what they say.
Brian Laundrie also had flowery words for a woman only identified as “Brian and Gabby’s friend,” texting her when they were roommates after high school, “It’s national bluebird day (it is). The bluebird is known for its beauty and the joy it brings through it’s (sic) song … don’t sweat the small stuff bluebird, Happy birthday.” Another time, he left a note saying she could be the love of his life—but she didn’t reciprocate his feelings.
. . . .
In a small way, we hope this story continues that mission in Gabby Petito’s memory. If you or someone your love needs help, you can find resources at the Gabby Petito Foundation (https://gabbypetitofoundation.org/) or by calling The National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).
https://msmagazine.com/2025/02/20/gabby-petito-documentary-netflix-coercive-control/
Trump's National Park Agenda: Firing Rangers and Fast-Tracking Oil Drilling
Trump’s National Park Agenda: Firing Rangers and Fast-Tracking Oil Drilling
Stella Adams | February 28, 2025
Trump’s administration is ramping up efforts to open national parks and public lands to oil and gas drilling while simultaneously firing probationary park rangers. In recent weeks, the National Park Service (NPS) has dismissed employees still within their probationary period, a decision that some see as part of a broader restructuring designed to weaken internal opposition to extractive policies. These firings are taking place alongside an aggressive push to expand drilling in and around protected lands, leading to widespread concerns about the long-term consequences for conservation efforts and tourism economies. The administration’s strategy appears to be twofold: removing potential opposition within the NPS while fast-tracking drilling permits and regulatory rollbacks that favor the oil industry. According to reports, the firings disproportionately affected employees who were seen as conservation-focused or who had raised concerns about the environmental impact of drilling projects. This follows a pattern of restructuring within federal land management agencies, where leadership roles have been increasingly filled by individuals with direct ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Kathleen Sgamma, a longtime advocate for oil and gas development, is Trump’s pick for the next director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and NPS. Sgamma, who has spent years lobbying for the expansion of fossil fuel extraction on public lands, now plays a key role in guiding decisions that impact national parks and federal lands. Her influence has helped ensure that drilling leases are expedited, environmental reviews are weakened, and protections for wildlife and ecosystems are rolled back. The Trump administration has made it easier than ever for oil and gas companies to operate within or near national parks. New drilling sites have been approved in close proximity to some of the country’s most treasured landscapes, including Grand Teton and Canyonlands National Parks. Environmental groups warn that these policies threaten air and water quality, disrupt wildlife habitats, and could lead to long-term degradation of these protected areas. Despite public opposition, the administration continues to push forward, citing economic benefits and energy independence as justifications for increased drilling.
Beyond the environmental risks, Trump’s policies also pose a significant economic threat to communities that depend on national park tourism. Parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Great Smoky Mountains generate billions of dollars annually for local businesses, supporting hotels, restaurants, and outdoor recreation industries. However, industrializing these areas with oil rigs, pipelines, and heavy machinery could deter visitors and lead to economic decline in gateway communities that rely on park tourism. While the administration claims that fossil fuel extraction will create jobs, many argue that the long-term economic benefits of tourism far outweigh the short-term gains of drilling.
The recent firings at the NPS signal a troubling trend: a deliberate effort to remove conservation-minded staff in favor of those who will not challenge Trump’s pro-drilling agenda. This, combined with the rapid expansion of oil and gas operations on public lands, paints a bleak picture for the future of national parks. If these policies continue unchecked, the country could see natural spaces transformed into industrial zones, sacrificing conservation and recreation in favor of fossil fuel profits.
https://feminist.org/news/trumps-national-park-agenda-firing-rangers-and-fast-tracking-oil-drilling/
And the Oscar for Best Documentary Should Go to ... 'Black Box Diaries' (trigger warning)
And the Oscar for Best Documentary Should Go to … ‘Black Box Diaries’ (trigger warning)
PUBLISHED 2/27/2025 by Angela Bonavoglia
A searing testament to the power of journalism and resilience, Black Box Diaries exposes the systemic failures that silence survivors—and the fight to rewrite the law.
The image burns in the brain. We are in a cab, hearing audio of the driver’s voice on the night in question. An incapacitated Shiori Ito, 25, repeatedly asks the driver to take her to the train station. Beside her is Noriyuki Yamaguchi—Tokyo Broadcasting world honcho, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s associate and soon-to-be biographer—twice her age, whom she had contacted about a journalism job. He insists that the driver take them instead to his hotel. As the driver’s confusion becomes apparent, Yamaguchi gets more insistent. He won’t do anything, he says. He just wants to talk to her. In the end, the driver relents.
In silence, we watch grainy footage from the hotel CCTV as Yamaguchi gets out of the cab. When he sees that Ito has not followed him, his body language shows exasperation. He stretches into the cab and grabs her by the arm, dragging her out. Once she is barely upright, he keeps his hold on her as he pulls her forward, teetering on her high heels. We watch as Yamaguchi drags Ito’s body through the hotel lobby, her head bobbing and lolling, her wobbling legs trailing behind her. If ever there was evidence of a lack of consent from the start in what would become a landmark rape case in Japan, this is it. But consent was irrelevant under Japanese rape law. Besides, Yamaguchi was way too important to be held accountable for what happened next that night in 2015—after drugging her, he raped her as she lay unconscious. Ito awoke that night to Yamaguchi on top of her and no memory of what had happened before. When she tried to escape, he dragged her back and threw her on the bed—face smashed against the sheets, nipple bleeding, body bruised. “I thought I was going to die,” she said. Actually, when it was over, all he wanted was to keep her underwear, as a “souvenir.”
Black Box Diaries is an extraordinary, Oscar-nominated and deeply relevant achievement by this first-time documentary filmmaker. As both a rape survivor and journalist, Ito spent five years creating a cinéma vérité record of what it took for her to take on a powerful man like Yamaguchi. Black Box Diaries builds suspense as events unfold chronologically, using a cinematic potpourri. It includes Shiori Ito’s surreptitiously obtained audio recordings of her being interrogated, denigrated and disbelieved, as well as her inventive, at times disturbingly off-kilter, imagery—from a kitchen floor, under a table in what looks like an interrogation room, outside the partial facades of cold-stone office buildings. These shots reflect the off-kilter patriarchal world she is struggling to capture and call to account.
. . . . . .
For American audiences, Black Box Diaries is a reminder of the worldwide impact of the U.S. #MeToo movement and of all of the places on this planet where no such progress has begun. It is also a visceral and highly original cinematic portrayal of what it took for one determined, creative young journalist—despite the suffering she endured that night and all that came after, including the vitriol—to persevere, to challenge power and to force change. And force it she did. Besides holding Namaguchi (who described his interaction with her as “a misunderstanding”) accountable, Shiori also influenced something even greater: In 2023, Japan added consent to its rape law.
Black Box Diaries is available to stream on Paramount Plus
https://msmagazine.com/2025/02/27/black-box-diaries-oscar-documentary-academy-award-rape-japan/
The Daily Bitch*: "I talk a lot of shit for someone who just needs a good cry,
a long hug, and a damned break."
*Both a noun, and a verb, depending on usage.
Interesting microcosm of some of the issues and obstacles witth which
we are dealing.
I was at our Drinking Liberally meeting last night. I am usually the first one there. As I was waiting for our group, two women came in, who turned out to be with Indivisable, who were also meeting (first time I had ever seen or heard of a local chapter). Even though I invited them to join us, they stayed to themselves. So, issue one. Issue two. Several members of our group were talking about the protest rally at City Hall the other day, some 400 people. An impressive turnout here in fundieville, and given the weather. The problem? Our local Dem party emails made absolutely NO mention of this, only about the new officers, and candidates for city council.
It was all very frustrating.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Jul 29, 2003, 02:30 PMNumber of posts: 129,129