Why The New York Chapter Of NOW Doesn’t Get It
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Gender, Hillary, Partisan HacksThey’re nailing Ted Kennedy to the wall for endorsing Barack Obama. Why? Because Barack doesn’t have a va-jay-jay.
“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.
Wow. Identity politics at their most clueless. Why clueless? Well, if a Democrat doesn’t get elected, then women’s rights will be even more in jeopardy, yeah? And Kennedy is backing somebody who he thinks is the most electable candidate. I know Hillary says she’s the most electable, but her negatives have always been sky high and I doubt people are going to change their mind about her, especially after these past couple weeks when her strategy turned from Hillary to Billary.
And to answer the commenter’s question that hasn’t been asked yet but inevitably will, YES it would be wrong for the NAACP to slam Kennedy like this if he had gone for Hillary.
Moving on…
This entry was posted on Monday, January 28th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, Gender, Hillary, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I think it is important to note that the National Organization for Women is an institution dedicated to the support and advancement of women’s rights. True, if a republican ends up in the White House women’s rights will diminish yet again; however, NOW’s responsibility is to women, not the Democratic party. NOW has an interest in seeing a woman as president. Perhaps their “attack” on Senator Ted Kennedy goes above and beyond what needed to be said in this situation. Yes, NOW will have an issue with Obama not having a va-jay-jay and that should not be surprising given their mission and goals are for women.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Well, you’re right when you say they’re dedicated to women’s rights, but that’s a lot different than being for a specific female politician. Truth be told, there are a lot of female politicians who don’t support NOW’s platform, so that logic doesn’t hold up. Again, it’s about women’s rights and they should be most interested in the most competitive Dem candidate, and I’ve already stated the reasons for this above.
But let’s take your “women first” logic for a moment and apply it to this reaction. If they’re so dedicated to women then why are they all up in arms about an endorsement from a man? Why not tear into females who have endorsed Obama like Claire McCaskill or Janet Napolitano or even the coming endorsement from Kathleen Sebelius, who was thrust upon the national stage in her response tonight to Bush’s last SOTU? Kennedy backing Obama is the “greatest betrayal?” Sorry, that’s nonsense. They’re engaging in divisive identity politics, not looking after women’s rights, and this latest screed casts the New York State chapter and all its members in a very bad light.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Oh, and just in case you think this is an isolated incident, be sure to check out the press release they unleashed a couple weeks ago after they took issue with how Obama and Edwards questioned Hillary during the New Hampshire debate.
It’s affectionately titled, ‘Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President.’
Ahem…
January 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I’d add to your 12:26 comment, Justin, only that they mistakenly conceptualize their political platform as the length and breadth of women’s rights, thus, contra-NOW is rhetorically transformed into anti-woman. They sit squarely within the rationalist tradition of believing firmly and beyond suasion that their position is not only right, but clearly and obviously right, compelled by all logic and intellect. They have determined the correct answer, and all politics now consists of educating or sidelining those insufficiently educated to see the wisdom of their policy. There is no room for heterodox views such as that women’s interests might be better served by nominating Obama (although to be clear, I don’t think either women’s rights or NOW’s platform would be better served by that outcome), or worse yet, by a Republican President.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Where was NOW when women were besmirched and attacked by the Clintons et al? Nowhere to defend them!
I find it peculiar that NOW supports Hillary Clinton who defended her husband’s predatory actions against many women.
One thing is abundantly clear. NOW doesn’t stand for Womens’ Rights.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Elisabetta - perhaps the problem is that “women’s rights” just isn’t a useful term any more when no one - not even Mike Huckabee - opposes “women’s rights” in the sense that such a term might neutrally be understood? NOW has a certain agenda for how society and the legal regime ought to treat and deal with women (and more particularly, what abortion policy ought to be), one which agrees with or competes with other groups, even though the basic premise of women’s rights is universally agreed and has been for some time.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I acknowledged that NOW’s attack was over-the-top here. I agree with you on that point. Perhaps I come at this issue from a historical and academic viewpoint more so than a modern political perspective. NOW has a strong knowledge of what has happened historically with women and politics. Despite the suffrage movement that began in the nineteenth century headed by women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony with strong support, especially in the northeast where most reform movements gained their momentum at the time, black males got the vote. Not only did they get the franchise they also came out in droves running for political office and winning. Jim Crow quickly put a stop to that, with tragic results.
In 1920 when women finally got the vote (by a small margin) they were not found in political offices. It was never believed that these uppity women would want to serve in public office. Absurd! It took decades before women were in substantial roles in US politics.
NOW has a legitimate concern in my opinion. This discussion about gender v. race - race v. gender has been going on as early as abolition movements, probably earlier. They have yet to be resolved; I doubt they will be.
Historically women have been screwed by the patriarchal political system in the US. NOW has a glorious moment with Hillary and they are doing everything they can to make it work - perhaps they are not using the best tactics.
Ironically, I am not supporting Hillary; however, I see the bigger historical picture that weighs heavily in this election regarding gender and race.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Well, I know at least one woman who could care less: Mary Jo Kopechne. Assuming that a woman can make it past the forceps, syringe and scissors - NOW does a lot for them.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Chic k.a. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were pro-life feminists. Their fight against abuse of women and children, slavery and for the right to vote were admirable goals.
They have little in common with today’s brand of feminism.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton on Abortion: She classified abortion as a form of “infanticide.” The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868
“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”
January 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I was not suggesting that nineteenth-century suffragettes were completely liberal thinkers or even close to living as second-wave feminists, much less today’s feminists. Simply that they had a political goal for women - one that took far too long for them to achieve. Both Stanton and Anthony were dead when women voted in the first national elections. Some of the abolitionists believed in colonization - not exactly the racial equality we hope for today.
My historical perspective has me thinking less judgmentally about NOW and more about the struggle/battle women have had in politics for hundreds of years.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Abortion has not achieved women a higher status or a better edge in a competitive world, but it has helped to desensitize them (the pro-”choice” ones) to the value of human life and to earn much of disrespect that exists with men. That is anything but progress.
I believe that men and women are equal when it comes to intrinsic values and accountability. In return that should translate in equal pay and opportunities (by and large).
Having said that, women will not convince society of unfair treatment by bashing and categorizing all men under a negative light. Nowadays, unfortunately, that is the fashion adopted by many so-called feminists, when addressing real or perceived injustices. The same approach Hillary Clinton used during her campaign and debates.
I would never vote for her, just because she is a woman.