Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Apparently we need a lesson on the word "betrayal"

is not at the heart of this next bit of news, no matter what is said.

Apparently NY NOW is pissed at Ted Kennedy (and others join the bandwagon) for endorsing Obama. The kicker--they think it's a "betrayal" to feminists. Um...yeah.

Once again, let me state this for you in no uncertain terms: supporting a man over a woman is not being anti-feminist. Requiring a woman or a man to give support to a woman candidate because she is a woman is anti-feminist.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's talk about this. How is this a betrayal? Here's the whole statement, with my commentary in bold:

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. The words "ultimate betrayal" are fighting words, I'd make damn sure that you mean it. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Not me, I was actually excited about it. And this sentence is very telling--it wasn't his endorsement of Obama, it was his endorsement of ANYONE OTHER THAN HILLARY--"Hillary Clinton's opponent"--the way that is worded just speaks volumes about the lack of thought put into this. 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. And your point? 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. I don't get what this means. I mean, I get it, but it doesn't really apply here.

“And now the greatest betrayal! Step aside! We are repaid with his abandonment! Um...it's not like he supported some anti-choice conservative idiot. He just chose a different Democrat. He’s picked the new guy over us. WHAT?!?!?! I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY ACTUALLY SAID THIS. He’s joined the list of progressive white men (I love that the fact that he's white plays into this because he supported a black man) 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). Did he say that? Did he actually say that? No, of course not. They're just making that up. Since when did making a decision between candidates turn into a pissing contest? ‘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 Really?, 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. First of all, Kucinich lovers are pretty much as liberal as it gets, so they'd really get some benefits for all, including women, that would be helpful. And still, I don't get how an endorsement means that either Kennedy or Obama have abandoned women's rights or issues of importance to women...let's read on.

“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’” So what you're saying is that electing someone with a vagina is, at all costs, the ultimate goal as opposed to electing the right person for the job? Wow. I haven't heard such sexist things in awhile.
I am just flabbergasted by this. It's amazing to me that some feminists just don't get it. Just simply don't get it. The thing is that being a feminist means supporting women but not making them any more important than men--it means picking a candidate for their qualities as a person and as a politician, not for their sexual organs, and it means finding someone who supports issues that are of concern to everyone because, as we know, women's issues are everybody's issues.

What a pile of pointless crap. Will it be thrilling when a woman is finally president? Yes. Is it long overdue? Yes. Does that mean we have to drop everything and vote for the first viable woman candidate because she is a woman? Absolutely not.

Cut the games, NY NOW.

1 Comment:

MarilynJean said...

point set and match on that one. I can't believe NOW went there. Ted is a blowhard anyway.


blogger templates | Make Money Online