Comments on: Why The New York Chapter Of NOW Doesn’t Get It

By: Elisabetta

Elisabetta — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:47:40 +0000

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.

By: chic kicking ass

chic kicking ass — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:16:33 +0000

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.

By: Elisabetta

Elisabetta — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:42:54 +0000

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.”

By: Dos

Dos — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:31:21 +0000

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.

By: chic kicking ass

chic kicking ass — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:24:00 +0000

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.

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:34:42 +0000

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.

By: Elisabetta

Elisabetta — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:12:10 +0000

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.

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:47:26 +0000

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.

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:58:42 +0000

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…

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:26:02 +0000

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.

By: chic kicking ass

chic kicking ass — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:42:11 +0000

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.