Give Me A Break

by hilzoy

When I first saw this press release from NOW-NY, I was sufficiently worried that it might be a joke that I called NOW-NY to ask. It was after 4:30, though, and I haven't heard back. Ben Smith from Politico claims to have confirmed its authenticity, though. Here it is, in all its glory:

"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.

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.”"

Wow. Leave aside the part about the "greatest betrayal" -- surely someone, somewhere in the history of the fight for women's rights must have done something worse than supporting a male candidate who is fully committed to feminism. As a feminist, I find it infuriating that NOW-NY, or any other organization, would presume to say that not supporting their favored candidate is a betrayal of feminism, at least in this case.

In some situations, I could see their point. If, for instance, Ted Kennedy had come down in favor of some candidate who had sworn to appoint only right-wing judges to the Supreme Court, or to oppose any federal funding for any abortion, or something, fine. Where the issues are clear and the candidates have massive differences on feminist issues, I don't have a problem with feminist groups deciding that supporting a given candidate is not what feminists do. But that's not the situation we're in.

Clinton and Obama have gotten solid 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood (Obama also gets 100 from the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association for 2005-6, while Clinton gets 93; she was 100 through 2004, however.) Both Clinton and Obama were with NOW 100% of the time in 2006; in 2005, NOW gave Obama a 91 and Clinton a 96. I was somewhat surprised to find that Obama did slightly better than Clinton on the Children's Defense Fund's ratings: Clinton has a perfect score until 2006, when she got a 90; Obama has consistent 100s.

And it's not just ratings. Consider Obama's statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe, which I noticed largely because of comments by Redstocking. After talking about the importance of Roe, and his own record on choice, Obama writes:

""When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

"Moreover, I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies. In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate, I've worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis’ bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color. As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.

"But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality. It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there’s affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it’s not enough to protect the gains of the past – we have to build a future that’s filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.""

It's nutty to suggest that no feminist in good standing can support a candidate with that kind of record. I'm glad that national NOW has responded differently, and that feminist bloggers are reacting to NOW-NY's press release with derision. Slamming people when they support one feminist candidate over another is not what feminism is about.

***

Side note: Over at RedState, Erick does for the "Uglification and Derision" school of sexism what NOW-NY does for feminism:

"As the Clintons and their supporters continue their destruction of the Democratic Party, we see the latest salvo fired from the thighs of ugly nags.

From the nether regions that see no men, New York's National Association of Gals is out bashing Teddy Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton. (...)

Maybe if Janet Reno will endorse Hillary, Since Janet Reno endorsed Hillary that should negate this one man's physical battery against womankind."

It must be cool to be able to fire press releases from between one's thighs. I had heard vague reports of ping pong balls, but press releases are new to me. One reason to read Erick: how else would I find out about things like this?

***

UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, there's more. Specifically, the last press release from NOW-NY, about one of the debates, called "Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President".

There are things I might call a psychological gang-bang. Nothing that has happened to Hillary Clinton in any debate is among them, any more than the criticism Obama has taken from other campaigns is a psychological lynching.

Comments

[wonkie]

I'm a woman. It didn't occur to me to feel betrayed.

I think some people need to calm down.

[ken]

Well it might have something to do with the fact that Teddy, the older brother of Robert and John Kennedy, dismissed Hillary in favor of Obama because she was 'old'.

I think it understandable that when a qualified woman is called too old by Teddy, that he prefers a younger more attractive candidate, it is taken as an insult by women everywhere.

[Sarah J]

I want to be able to fire things from between my thighs.

Or to kill a man with my thighs.

I'm so tired of being guilted by feminists over not supporting Hillary Clinton. Where the heck was NOW when Carol Moseley Braun was running?

Oh yeah, supporting Howard Dean.

Should we have all supported Elizabeth Dole, too?

[Gary Farber]

"...it is taken as an insult by women everywhere."

Ken, your trope is to continuously pretend you are entitled to speak for all Democrats, all true Democrats, and now all women everywhere.

It's an utterly dishonest trope. A third-grader could recognize that you can't actually claim to speak for all these people, and that attempting to make such a claim isn't something that can be conceived of as a mistake, or as some sort of good faith error.

It's simply dishonest. It's something that's an insult for you to not expect anyone to recognize on its face as dishonest.

But, hey, if you think it's persuasive, by all means, continue claiming you can speak for all women, or all Democrats, or all good and true Democrats, or all right-thinking people everywhere.

It makes it simple to recognize how honest your intent is, and to simply ignore you.

[ken]

Gary,

Well ok, maybe not everywhere.

But still, for those who identify with Hillary, that has got to hurt.

[Gary Farber]

"But still, for those who identify with Hillary, that has got to hurt."

Ken, thanks for acknowledging the point. Your claim is now much more reasonable.

To support it, please link to a cite that supports your assertion that it is a fact that "Teddy, the older brother of Robert and John Kennedy, dismissed Hillary in favor of Obama because she was 'old'."

Mind, we need an actual quote, not an opinion that what he wrote really meant that, or some such retranslation.

Thanks.

And I like to think you'll henceforth abandon "all [members of sex X] [support my opinion/Hillary]" claims.

[liberal japonicus]

Or to kill a man with my thighs.

That would Xenia Zirgavna Onatopp (played by Famke Janssen) in Goldeneye. Why I know that, I have no earthly idea, unless it is due to the fact that the whole press release is as unhinged from reality as the worst Bond film...

[flyerhawk]

This could help Hillary or really hurt her. She needs to respond quickly and distance herself from the rhetoric. She doesn't have to attack NOW-NY but she can't let these comments go without a strong rebuke. If she does she will be allowing a nasty narrative to be formed that the ONLY reason women are voting for Hillary is because she is a woman. However if she does that I think she might be able to spin the almost certain negative press spin to get some sympathy.

Ken,

It amazes me how you can excuse ANYTHING that may damage Hillary. I realize that facts and accuracy aren't your strength but Teddy was the younger brother. He was 31 when JFK was killed. Additionally you forgot to rationalize the attack on Howard and, bizarrely, Jim Dean.

You've become nothing but a hollow joke here.

[Gary Farber]

"Mind, we need an actual quote, not an opinion that what he wrote really meant that"

What he said, is what I meant, of course.

[gwangung]

That would Xenia Zirgavna Onatopp (played by Famke Janssen) in Goldeneye. Why I know that, I have no earthly idea,

I thought Famke Janssen is a pretty good earthly idea. [rimshot]

You've become nothing but a hollow joke here.

"Become"?

[hilzoy]

For starters, if Teddy Kennedy were the older brother of Robert and John Kennedy, he would have been killed in WWII...

Also: we can do this without getting personal. I hope. :)

[Redstocking]

I keep hoping the NY-NOW statement isn't authentic. I was appalled.

[hilzoy]

Redstocking: you and me both. Thus my phone call to them: I really, really wanted the answer to be: huh? what?

[flyerhawk]

Hilzoy,

I know nothing about Ken. He might be a great guy. But he is playing a role here. Perhaps he thinks that he is just being a Devil's Advocate but when you defend the indefensible your credibility is shattered.

[Justin]

Is there a more appalling, immature person in the blogosphere than Erick Erickson?

Erick in the last 48 hours has

1) tried to call Democrats racist bc white voters didn't vote for Obama, but forgot in his derision that nonwhite people are even human

2) Called Obama a "former addict" in derision (though don't mention anything about his idol GWB).

and now this.

Good job, loser.

[Gary Farber]

"Is there a more appalling, immature person in the blogosphere than [X]?"

Poor phrasing. The answer is always "yes."

Which is besides the point.

[dkilmer]

Justin - If you're angry, you might consider letting Erickson's co-workers know.

[ken]

Gary, the whole passing the torch to the yourger generation thing he talked about is placing Hillary in 'old' category.

I can see why women would be pissed off. It takes a much longer time for women to gain the experience needed to be taken seriously than it does a man in most institutions, even in politics. And then to have Teddy Kennedy, of all people, say no, it is time for a more exiting younger candidate to lead, well I can see why women would be upset.

[gwangung]

Gary, the whole passing the torch to the yourger generation thing he talked about is placing Hillary in 'old' category.

I can see why women would be pissed off.

I'm a person of color, I've had white people try to explain why I was so oppressed. Occasionally, while was I was trying to do it myself. Condescending asses, I called them.

Generally, these people pissed me off more than the situation I was originally mad at.

[ken]

flyerhawk,

Teddy being younger than his brothers is news to me. Thanks. I am no spring chicken myself but Ted Kennedy has always been the older one in my mind. Perhaps cause his brothers died before I could vote and when I started to pay attention to him he was making a fool of himself with booze and younger women. He always seemed old and kinda creepy.

[flyerhawk]

One more time Ken. Why was she attacking Howard and Jim Dean? Why was she attacking Progressive Dems?

And why is betrayal an appropriate response?

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, the whole passing the torch to the yourger generation thing he talked about is placing Hillary in 'old' category."

Ken, "placing Hillary in 'old' category,'" whatever that means, exactly -- and this is where clarity in language, in English, is necessary -- doesn't remotely clearly mean "Teddy, the older brother of Robert and John Kennedy, dismissed Hillary in favor of Obama because she was 'old'."

As I wrote:

[...] "please link to a cite that supports your assertion that it is a fact that "Teddy, the older brother of Robert and John Kennedy, dismissed Hillary in favor of Obama because she was 'old'."

Mind, we need an actual quote, not an opinion that what he wrote really meant that, or some such retranslation.

You haven't provided such a link, or quote, or cite. This is because you can't.

What that means is that that your statement is what we technically call "false."

Retranslations of what you want to rewrite in your head are not a substitute for a quotation. Such imaginary retranslations are, in fact, in your head.

I suggest sticking to actual quotations, if you wish to persuade anyone. I realize this may be difficult for you, given your past record. But it's your only remaining possible choice, given your past highly repeated record of consistently and repeatedly making up false claims.

There's no reason you should expect any of us to forget or forgive the fact that you've spent a week consistently making false claims that "every member of set X supports my opinion."

Simply put, you've lied over and over again, day after day, in a way that insults our intelligence. Expecting us to ignore that would be unreasonable.

[hilzoy]

ken: I just watched Kennedy's speech, and there was nothing in it about Clinton being old at all. He did talk about a new generation, etc., but I think it's a stretch to take that as meaning HRC is "old", let alone to get insulted by it.

Kennedy actually went out of his way to praise Clinton and Edwards at the beginning. I thought that was gracious.

[Kevin Hayden]

This is a temporary tempest in a teapot and Hillary doesn't have to refute anything. Most voters go with their own perceived interests, and few are swayed by endorsements or attacks like that from a state organization.

Kennedy's not running for anything in New York and it's a given Hillary will pull New Yorkers by a wide margin.

The FISA bill deserves far more attention than a press release put forth by a handful of people who lack basic PR skills.

[Gary Farber]

The oldest Kennedy brother.

Ken, I suggest going to the library and reading a couple of bios on the Kennedy family, since you appear completely ignorant of even the most basic and elementary facts about them.

Simply put, it's impossible to know anything about the careers of either Robert Kennedy or John F. Kennedy without following the role of their kid brother, Edward Kennedy, at crucial points in their later careers. It's impossible to know how Teddy became Senator. It's impossible to know how Teddy ran in 1980, or why he was important as the liberal heir. It's impossible to have a clue about the history of liberalism in the last twenty-seven years without knowing that.

What was Bobby doing in the Fifties? What was Teddy? What were the objections to Teddy's Senate run? What later credibility did Teddy gain as a liberal, and why and when?

And so on and so on.

Basically speaking, a person proclaiming his knowledge about the Kennedys, and the Democratic tradition, and why we should listen to their preferences as regard Clintons over Obama, is too ignorant to be worth listening to on the topic of Democratic Party policy or history or idals of the last thirty years, if they have no clue that Teddy Kennedy is the younger brother and heir of his older brothers.

But clarity in all this remains edifying, if not surprising in the least.

Fortunately, being ignorant is curable.

[flyerhawk]

Kevin,

Hillary does not want the news cycle to be about how the "feminazis" are the ones that are truly backing Hillary.

She will be asked whether Ted Kennedy betrayed her. She will be asked whether Howard Dean betrayed her. If she soft shoes that the press will run with it. And will bolster the claim that she is engaging in identity politics, which politicians all engage in but never want to get caught doing.

[Richard]

Hilzoy: sadly, it's authentic, you can find the press release on their website.

[Redstocking]

At least these lunatics are associated with NY State NOW, not New York City NOW.

[ken]

Hilzoy, I watched it too. I'm not insulted. But I can certainly understand women who feel hurt by him for passing over the more mature and experienced female candidate for the younger male who represents a new generation of change.

[ken]

Gary, I think what most people remember about Teddy Kennedy is that he has a reputation as a drunken skirt chaser who once was responsible for the death of a young woman but got away with it.

Reading some books might give one another dimension to the man but can anything make his problematic history just disappear?

But thanks for the suggestion anyway. I'll add them to my list of books I ought to someday read.

[Gary Farber]

Ken, call me an idealist, but I like to think that a touch of knowledge can triumph over stupid ignorance.

If you prefer to defend remaining stupid and ignorant, I'm sure there's a case to be made for that.

[KCinDC]

... the attack on Howard and, bizarrely, Jim Dean.

Actually I'd say the attack on Jim is more understandable, given that Democracy for America (which Jim heads) is running something that's more or less an "Anyone but Hillary" campaign -- though that was arrived at by polling their members (well, very unscientifically web-polling people who now count as members because they had to add themselves to the mailing list to answer the poll), not a personal preference of Jim. Howard Dean, on the other hand, has stayed neutral in the presidential race, as he should, so attacking him seems more bizarre.

[hilzoy]

Richard: Thanks. It wasn't there when I first checked, but that was a lot earlier.

Ick.

ken: Ted Kennedy is problematic on a number of fronts, all personal, but he has always fought hard for what he believes in. Whether or not you agree with what he believes in, I think he's as hard a person to despise as he is to 100% deify.

[A.J.]

Huh. I wonder what the NY chapter of N.O.W. thinks about Caroline Kennedy?

[Andre 3000]

I wonder what the NY chapter of N.O.W. thinks about Caroline Kennedy?

Caroline
All the girls around would say she's mighty fine
But mighty fine only got you somewhere half the time
The other half either got you cussed out or comin' up short
Now even though
You need a golden calculator to divide
The time it took to look inside and realize
That real guys go for real, down-to-mars girls

[femdem]

I kinda thought the whole point behind feminism was that women should be treated as sentient human beings capable of making rational decisions with regards to their own destinies. I think that particular NOW group may have missed out on the sentient and rational parts. I'll continue to think for myself, thank you.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I wonder what the NY chapter of N.O.W. thinks about Caroline Kennedy?

OTOH, I imagine Obama is thinking that good times never seem so good.

Clinton believes that if she can make it there she can make it anywhere, though Giuliani appears to be a counter-example.

[Redstocking]

I would hate it if that particular NOW chapter's rabid reaction to the Kennedy endorsement was seen as representative of feminism. We all know it isn't.

[Redstocking]

Although I am now supporting Obama, for reasons I outlined in my open thread comments, I am still perturbed about the lack of women candidates in the presidential bullpen. Certainly Sibelius was totally underwhelming.

Do we even have a mental image of a women president? If an 18 year old woman told me she wanted to be president, I would advise that she major in political science and minor in acting or public speaking. Maybe she would be better off doing it the other way around:(

[Katherine]

Sibelius was totally underwhelming. That said, the SOTU rebuttal has been totally underwhelming every time I've ever seen it. "Generic speech to be read by generic democrat sitting in front of roaring fire & smiling every 12.8 seconds." It apparently is written by committee; the only reason Webb's was any good last year was that refused to do it this way & wrote his own.

[femdem]

Redstocking,
My daughter told me last night she planned on running for president and that was why I should let her stay up to watch the State of the Union (didn't work- she's *cranky* if she goes to bed after 9). She doesn't seem to have any problem at all visualizing it.

The same as Toni Morrison couldn't believe in a viable black candidate in her childrens' lifetime, I think we dwell too much on our limited scope of imagination rather than the future possibilities.

[JanieM]

femdem: "I kinda thought the whole point behind feminism was that women should be treated as sentient human beings capable of making rational decisions with regards to their own destinies."

The majority of the people I've known personally who have identified themselves as feminists apparently missed the meeting where that was decided. Maybe I've been particularly unlucky in the people I've hung out with, but I've known so many self-styled femninists who think that they know what's best for me, and that they have a right to speak for me, that this reaction from NOW-NY doesn't surprise me in the least.

In a better world, I would add to Redstocking's training for a president in the making the skill of advancing your cause without pushing as many people away as you draw in. This isn't a better world, it's the one we have, but even so it seems to me that one of the reasons Obama is getting people so excited is that he knows how to do that, and Hillary Clinton doesn't.

[KCinDC]

Hey, at least she didn't have Tim Kaine's hyperactive eyebrow, though that did provide an entertaining distraction during the 2006 response. The SOTU response is something very, very few people can do well, given the rules under which it's set up. Bush's speech wouldn't have been that much better if delivered under those conditions.

Yes, it was bad, but I'm not going to assume Sebelius is so underwhelming under all conditions.

[CaseyL]

I think the SOTU Response would be much better if it were less, I don't know, serious?

I would've been ecstatic if Sibelius had opened with something like, "Was there a single true, factual word in Mr. Mission Accomplished's speech? Are we all agreed the man wouldn't know the truth if it handed him a cup of coffee? Okay, then: moving right along..."

[Redstocking]

I am two years older than Hillary. The second feminist movement was just starting as we graduated from college. I am afraid women of our generation have experienced so much misogynist discrimination that it is harder for us to advance our cause without pushing people away. When I tell my daughters stories about my childhood, adolescence, and young womanhood, they find them hard to believe. For example, becoming a lawyer was a very brave choice; we were still supposed to be teachers or nurses.

[Z]

Unfortunately, that press release didn't surprise me either. There is a strain of feminism that I just don't understand. I say this as a women, born in the late 60's, who has a profession heavily steeped in math and science (read, not majority female). Up until graduate school, I PROUDLY called myself a feminist. I have always faced down sexism by working harder and being better than the men (and some women) who said I couldn't succeed. Then, I met the feminist group in graduate school (in the 90's), I thought, 'Who are these people?' For me, feminism was always about women AND men being able to be who they want to be without being confined by rigid gender roles. It was about equality and freedom. I wasn't about being obsessed with power and putting women above men.

[Tim O'Keefe]

Speaking of SOTU responses, folks here might be interested in checking out Obama's YouTube response. Too much standard stump speech at the end for my tastes, but he takes some good shots at Bush in the first half.

[JanieM]

Redstocking, I was born in 1950 -- in one sense the same generation as Hillary and as you; in another sense, based on what (for example) our college years were like (Kent State smack in the middle of mine) the product of a different era.

I do understand what you're saying; I went to college at a place where out of 900 in my freshman class, 60 were women. I guess maybe that was as brave as becoming a lawyer in those days. And I'm sure I could match you story for childhood story. My dad wouldn't buy me a baseball glove, he thought my male cousin's raggedy old one was good enough for me. (But for some funny reason -- including the fact that he had never had a chance to go to college himself -- he was blessedly inconsistent about what girls could do when it came to education.)

And given that I'm gay, I may have a few extra stories about discrimination. ;)

Still, the way people react to how we present ourselves is as incontrovertible a fact as the sun rising every morning, and as predictable. I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm well aware (being of a volatile temper myself) that it's harder for some people than for others, but for anyone who wants to really change the world, rather than just change who's on top, the question of how (not to be trite, but I'm in a hurry, and anyhow it's not my blog) "to speak so people will listen" and "to listen so people will speak" is a study worth undertaking.

[KCinDC]

It's hard to believe anyone acquainted with PR actually wrote that. NY NOW is now a laughingstock, and will continue to be until someone's fired for it.

[JanieM]

Z -- Our replies crossed in the mail, so to speak, or I would have said: my experience was very similar to yours. Timing a little different -- different era, different phases of realization. But a lot of the same bemusement -- and a refusal ever to call myself a feminist, or any other "-ist" for that matter.

[Redstocking]

Z, you and I probably have a similar conception of feminism, even though I was born in the mid-40's. However, I looked around the House last night and noted how few women were there. Most Western democracies do much better. I question whether there is a serious problem of women's being obsessed with power and putting themselves above men. Unfortunately, women's gains in many fields have not been reflected in electoral office at the national level.

Women should not have to work harder and be better than men in order to succeed.

[CaseyL]

NOW-NY doesn't sound feminist to me, either. Quite frankly, they sound like angry Heathers.

Feminism doesn't hold that only female candidates are worthy of support. We're more interested in stands on actual issues than head-counts. If Obama had an anti-woman record, that would be one thing; but he doesn't.

I'm a bit sorry for Clinton, who possibly feels that she deserves the Presidency because of all the sh*t she's gone through and now wonders if the Zeitgeist is passing her by.

But the Presidency isn't a consolation prize, it's not a validation prize, and it's certainly not something one is entitled to for reasons external to the Office itself. (We've had someone in there for 7 years now motivated by nothing more than an overweening sense of entitlement, and look where that's gotten us.)

The Presidency doesn't exist for the benefit of Clinton, or Obama for that matter. It's for the American people. I want someone in there who'll remember that.

[Redstocking]

I always considered myself a feminist from the first time I heard the word (thanks to 5 younger brothers and 16 years of Catholic education). But I never belonged to NOW. It always seemed a white upper middle class organization far more interested in educated women's succeeding in the masculine world without changing anything about capitalism. NOW wasn't committed to changing things for poor women, single mothers, women of color, women with high school education, women on welfare.

[John Thullen]

Erick Erickson:

"from the thighs of ugly nags ....

"from the nether regions that see no men ...."

I have this mental image of Erick, issue of reluctant woman, with his head (vomiting the bubbling black bile of deeply wounded but insufficient endowment) caught in a vice-grip scissors lock between the thighs of whoever wrote the NOW press release, the both of them taking some sort of unimportant Balrogian plunge into the shallow end of self-importance.

For a guy who has spent his mascunazi life with John Wilkes Booth camping under Scarlett O'Hara's hoopskirt trying to warm Strom Thurmund's cold dead heart over the fading embers of the Confederate womb, he shows no sign of finding a rhetorical G-spot.

The blogosphere just lays there, checking its watch, thinking of England, as he dribbles out his bitter little seed.

Thanks for the link, dkilmer. Very interesting. So interesting I can hardly stand it, he thinks, as he cracks all ten knuckles contemplating killer emails.

Cripes, it's still only January.

[JanieM]

"I question whether there is a serious problem of women's being obsessed with power and putting themselves above men."

There are lots of ways of obsessing about power. One of them is to claim the right to define everyone: who the villains are, for example, and who the victims. This happened very destructively in my family of birth, so I've thought a lot about it. In a more public realm, Gloria Steinem did that kind of arrogation to herself of the right to define us all when she said, "Any woman who'se not a feminist is a masochist." My reply to that (other than #&*$ Gloria) was that I didn't struggle and suffer and fight in my personal life to claim the right to define myself, in the face of the contrary efforts of my parents, teachers, relatives, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends, and priests -- only to hand it over to Gloria Steinem.

I go back to the question of whether the dominant approach of feminism in this country has presented the cause in such a way as to push away almost as many people as it has attracted to its underlying message about what kind of a world we want. It hasn't remotely been my study, but European friends have told me that European feminism has taken a very different approach over the years. Maybe that has something to do with why our legislative bodies look different. (Not everything; I'm nothing if not a multi-cause analyzer of phenomena.)

[JanieM]

Redstocking -- now there's something on which we have a similar take. Without necessarily associating it with NOW as such, I consciously rejected, during my college years, the notion that everything would just be fine if women could succeed in the rat race too. That's partly what I mean about the dominant voice/face of feminism in ths country.

[Redstocking]

Janie M, from the very beginning (my 1971 journal as evidence), I have questioned "whether the dominant approach of feminism in this country has presented the cause in such a way as to push away almost as many people as it has attracted to its underlying message about what kind of a world we want. " You are absolutely right about that.

I vividly recall having to defend my feminist credentials because I was married and living with the enemy. Very few of the early leaders were mothers, so child care was never as important an issue as it needed to be.

[John Thullen]

JamieM:

"everything would be just fine if women could succeed in the rat race, too."

Yes, even rats want out of it. It does things to men, women, and rats.

I think the assumption was that women partaking of the rat race would make the race less rat-friendly.

The rats won.

[hilzoy]

Well, I seem to agree with more or less everyone...

I didn't really see what the fuss was about, with feminism, when I was a kid. My own family is made up of people who are just instinctively decent and just, and didn't have to be convinced to treat women as the full equals of men, even before feminism came along. (I find this extraordinary, but it's true.) I was unpopular enough that no horror stories involving dates and boyfriends ever came my way, b/c no dates or boyfriends did, and peculiar enough that I honestly don't think that my gender was in anyone's mind when, in school, they wondered: what on earth are we going to do with hilzoy?

It was really in college when it hit me, since, well, I actually made friends and had more of a chance to observe things. And the reality of all sorts of things, some explicit and some not, that systematically made it more difficult for women to succeed and thrive, seemed completely clear. I think that the fact that it only hit me then made it easier for me to respond to it -- I wasn't used to putting up with it, and it had no deep roots in me to draw strength from. But still.

From that point, and even more when, after college, I found myself in Israel, and the only large stash of English-language books I could read for free was at the Jerusalem Women's Center, I was just a feminist, period. (I read all the books. They made me their librarian, since no one had ever read all the books before.) I mean, there was no question. I was reading mostly 60s/early 70s feminism, and some parts (e.g., endless questions about whether sexism or capitalism was the more fundamental evil) struck me as beside the point, but I got a great deal from it.

Also, in Israel, I joined a consciousness-raising group. I didn't, at the time, realize how lucky I was to find CR done in a pretty ideal way, according to its original theory, which was: take a bunch of women, set a largeish topic like Money or Sex or Fathers, let people tell their stories, whatever those stories might be; see what conclusions you can draw from them. As my CR group did it, we really did just talk about our own experiences and draw conclusions from them; people didn't tell the stories they thought would confirm the line they were supposed to be taking, or anything. I didn't realize that by the early 80s, this was very rare. But it was fascinating.

Then I got back to the US and promptly tried to hook up with feminists in the city I returned to. There are lots of feminists in that city, so maybe I just found the wrong ones, but: ick! - they were right out of Janie M's comments. They really did seem to have a whole raft of assumptions about what you had to do in order to be a real feminist, loads more than I thought were warranted.

(I mean: one of the strengths of early feminist writing, I thought, was its exploration of a lot of subtle social and psychological mechanisms by which sexism operates. I do not think you can spot those sorts of things if you already know what to think about everything in advance. You need a lot more acuity of observation and openmindedness, which the feminists I discovered on my return to the US wholly lacked.)

I tried to find others, but apparently I was unlucky. Plus, the porn wars, which were raging at the time, made me wonder whether it was just bad luck. Double plus, I became quite interested in Kant's moral philosophy, as a result of which it became sort of predictable that when I met feminists for the first time -- people who did not know me -- they would (as soon as they found out what I was working on) put me down as a tool of the patriarchy. I found this tiresome.

I didn't feel like not identifying myself as a feminist. I owe feminism too much for that, and I also like its central tenets, as I understand them, too much. But I did decide that the feminist communities that seemed to be on offer were not to my taste. So I went off and worked with battered women and in a bunch of other ways tried not just to nominally be a feminist, but to do things about it, but I did it solo.

My sense is that a lot of what I disliked, earlier on, has changed. It's certainly worth noting that feminist blogs did not exactly line up behind this press release, which is why I linked to them, and to the national NOW response -- this press release is not, I think, representative of feminism at all, or of NOW.

[gwangung]

Then I got back to the US and promptly tried to hook up with feminists in the city I returned to. There are lots of feminists in that city, so maybe I just found the wrong ones, but: ick! - they were right out of Janie M's comments. They really did seem to have a whole raft of assumptions about what you had to do in order to be a real feminist, loads more than I thought were warranted.

I think you'll find a lot of this in any counter-culture movement (racial politics, etc.). It's taken a level of maturity and a number of years for me to say, "Whatever. But you don't get to define my life experiences for me--it is what it is, and for me, it's as authentic as it can be."

[russell]

I would've been ecstatic if Sibelius had opened with something like

"He made us all stay late for that?"

[cleek]

speaking of Sibelius:

The son of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is peddling a board game titled "Don't Drop the Soap," a prison-themed game he created as part of a class project at the Rhode Island School of Design.

John Sebelius, 23, has the backing of his mother and father, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary Sebelius. The governor's spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said both parents "are very proud of their son John's creativity and talent."

John Sebelius is selling the game on his Internet site for $34.99, plus packaging, shipping and handling. The contact information on the Web site lists the address of the governor's mansion. Corcoran said the address will change when John Sebelius moves.

charming

[hilzoy]

gwangung: I agree. And, as I said, I suspect I might just have had bad luck. But I never seemed to get beyond the point at which I was saying: "Whatever", and eventually I got bored. Not with feminism, which I will support forever. Not with taking action as a feminist. Just with hanging out with the feminists I had, probably through bad luck, been able to find.

[Z]

Of course women shouldn't have to work harder than men to be successful and respected, but when I was younger, that was how it was. I am happy to note that things have slowly changed both for me and for the younger women that follow me.

I think we are talking about two separate things, though, when we talk about the small number of women who are in political office and the feminists I met in that college group. The feminists I met were obsessed with power, in a sort of Foucault-like way, but not driven to do anything about it except make statements. They were all about getting tattooed, marching topless, not shaving, saying 'herstory' instead of 'history', complaining about the patriarchy, etc but not really about organizing child care for poor working women, being supportive of women or men choosing to stay home to raise children, or supporting and grooming each other to be successful in the corporate, scientific, and/or political arena (where women are STILL under-represented). Even though this was an educated, academic environment, they weren't even about honing debating skills, they were about shouting down dissent. (I, too, got sick of being called a 'tool of the partriarchy'.)

Frankly, those women would have to grow up A LOT to be our future leaders.

[Jay Jerome]

Hilzoy: "Kennedy actually went out of his way to praise Clinton and Edwards at the beginning. I thought that was gracious."

As gracious as an assassin smiling at you while he stabs you in the back…

If anyone showed graciousness (and an inner toughness of character) it was Hillary, who (in a cable-news film clip this morning on MSNBC) offered Teddy a handshake at Bush's final State Of The Union address, while Obama, standing next to Kennedy, is shown turned away from her with a glum expression on his puss.

Bottom line, Hillary's tougher than Barak, the kind of toughness you need for a president who has to deal with life and death issues. Therefore, Hillary for President; Barak as chairman of Dept of Health & Human Services, where I'm sure his transformational gifts will enable him to do good work for the nation.

[Jason Williams]

Completely off topic, and random, but Hilzoy, you said: "I became quite interested in Kant's moral philosophy"

I'm just curious, being the expert that you are, are you a fan of Kant's deontological ethics or of act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism or...? And Kant is indeed great to read.

[gwangung]

Bottom line, Hillary's tougher than Barak, the kind of toughness you need for a president who has to deal with life and death issues.

This is amusing.

[Jay Jerome]

Gary Farber: "Fortunately, being ignorant is curable."

Unfortunately, Gary, being a pompous-pedantic is a much more burdensome difficulty to overcome; but don't lose hope, lightening might strike you some day, and shock your synapses into a more civil configuration.

[Jay Jerome]

gwangung: "This is amusing."

Glad to hear it. I hope it got you smiling: that's supposed to be good for the blood pressure, and help remove wrinkles from the face.

[Francis]

"Pedantic" is an adjective; "pedant" is the noun form.

If you want to insult Gary Farber about his use of language, you really have to bring your A game.

[hilzoy]

Jason: I'm a Kantian, with little revisions here and there.

[Jay Jerome]

"Pedantic" is an adjective; "pedant" is the noun form.

I know -- I was hoping to bait Gary into another puerile 'pedantic' rant, but got another fish on the hook... you.

You obviously gleaned the meaning, so why waste time offering grammatical corrections; it's the same kind of snobbish preoccupation with unimportant spelling corrections and pronouncements about the stupidity of the electorate that so frequently permeates the posts here recently, and puts Obsidian Wings on a par with the elitist rant on ultra-conservative right wing blogs and magazines -- the latte-liberal doppelganger of the National Review On Line .

[Sebastian]

"and puts Obsidian Wings on a par with the elitist rant on ultra-conservative right wing blogs and magazines -- the latte-liberal doppelganger of the National Review On Line"

If any of you are getting paid like the people at NRO without telling me... I'm pissed!

Oh, and while I'm open to the idea that it usually isn't worth correcting things if the meaning came across clearly, 'online' is typically one word. ;)

[hilzoy]

Jay: you must be so proud, what with having caught so many pedantic fish. And what a creative way to show how much you value your own time and energy.

Can I be the latte liberal Jonah Goldberg? Please?

[borehole]

Watch it, Hilzoy. That sentence construction puts you within a hair's breadth of violating a Poor Man trademark.

[dkilmer]

This thread should have been called "Awesome band names". Now I have to decide between "The Deontological Ethicists", "The Latte-Liberal Doppelgangers" and "The Pedantic Fish". Oh, and I guess "Jonah Goldberg".

[gwangung]

You obviously gleaned the meaning, so why waste time offering grammatical corrections; it's the same kind of snobbish preoccupation with unimportant spelling corrections and pronouncements about the stupidity of the electorate that so frequently permeates the posts here recently, and puts Obsidian Wings on a par with the elitist rant on ultra-conservative right wing blogs and magazines -- the latte-liberal doppelganger of the National Review On Line .

Even more amusing.

Please, continue. I do need to bring my blood pressure down.

[Edward_]

I'm confused.

I know -- I was hoping to bait Gary into another puerile 'pedantic' rant, but got another fish on the hook... you.

You obviously gleaned the meaning, so why waste time offering grammatical corrections;

Either it was a deliberate "mistake" or it wasn't. If it was, then the first line (the defense) is disingenuous. If it wasn't, then the second line (the defensive distraction) undercuts the first. Either way, it very much sounds like this blogger would benefit highly from Mr. Farber's tutelage.

[Edward_]

or...the other way around...like I said, I'm confused, but both those sentiments cannot be true.

[KCinDC]

I was hoping to bait Gary into another puerile 'pedantic' rant, but got another fish on the hook

It's not often that someone publicly admits to trolling. Isn't that ban-worthy behavior?

[hairshirthedonist]

I would suggest ignore-worthy, if nothing else.

The feminism discussion was more interesting to me, in case anyone is inclined to discuss things based on how interesting I find them to be, which I'm pretty sure is the metric everyone has in mind when discussing things.

[Jeff]

But I never belonged to NOW. It always seemed a white upper middle class organization far more interested in educated women's succeeding in the masculine world without changing anything about capitalism.

Redstocking (and others), how did you feel about Ms Magazine. I haven't read it in a goodly number of years, but I remember the first few years at least being full of voices beyond the "white upper middle class".

I'd like to know your impression.

[magistra]

Do we even have a mental image of a women president?

Could I suggest maybe lifting your eyes a little higher? Like, say Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel or Gro Harlem Brundtland etc, etc. It is not unusual to have female heads of state and they have not been particularly noted for softness, female incompetence, PMT or the like. If the US does end up with a female president it will not (in the wider world) be making a ground-breaking statement. It will merely be catching up belatedly with the rest of the 'liberal' world.

[femdem]

I read Military Engineer, Annals of Science and whatever Baen has out for my PDA. Who has time for something like Ms.?

[Jay Jerome]

hilzoy: "Can I be the latte liberal Jonah Goldberg? Please?"

As long as you're a little narrower around the waistline...
:)

[Jay Jerome]

KCinDC: "It's not often that someone publicly admits to trolling. Isn't that ban-worthy behavior?"

I wasn't trolling, I was spin-casting with a slow retrieve. In any case, you're consistent: don't like the message, get rid of the messenger. Like above, when you suggested the person who wrote the NY NOW condemnation of Kennedy's Hillary double-cross should be fired.

You didn't have anything to do with advising Alberto Gonzales to fire those seven U.S. attorneys, did you?

[russell]

You didn't have anything to do with advising Alberto Gonzales to fire those seven U.S. attorneys, did you?

Damn! Busted again!

[KCinDC]

The posting rules for this site, which I did not write, say "Don't disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake." If someone not only does that but even admits to doing it, then I don't think it's unreasonable to point it out. It has nothing to do with whatever political positions they may take.

I don't understand what the NY NOW idiocy has to do with silencing anyone. Normally people who are incompetent at their jobs -- for example, a PR person who causes a PR disaster -- are fired.

[Fearfully Anonymous]

It's not really my business to comment on this and I've been trying to avoid it, but....

I grew up in and around the New York City chapter of NOW (not State, but close), as the people who raised me were to varying degrees involved in the chapter. I actually received a lifetime chapter membership for my, I believe, 18th birthday. There have been a great number of benefits to that sort of childhood; but I've certainly encountered the sort of thinking embodied in this press release many times. It's not dominant in my experience, but it is perennial.

Among the previous examples I can think of are things like running into the argument that male homosexuality was inherently wrong, as it reduced male sexual dependence on women- the flipside of political lesbianism. I've heard it argued that to ask what sort of world feminists want is an inherently misogynistic question as there does not exist a sufficient degree of gender liberation to permit honest thought about questions of that kind. And there are other examples, of course.

I don't believe nor find in my experience that this kind of feminism is definitional of the movement in any of its stages or permutations, and I find the condemnation from the feminist blogosphere both surprising and heartening. But this sort of feminism is still embraced by some percentage of the people within the movement, and as the attention paid to this release proves- they are often the ones who get the publicity. They're the most incendiary, the most openly insulting to others, and the easiest to dismiss partly for those reasons.

The issue of balancing movement radicals against movement mainstream is common to all movements, obviously, and the balance shifts back and forth. But I do think these people do damage to the public profile of feminism and Clinton will have to respond or be associated with this sort of thing- remember the Edwards/Marcotte situation.

Several people above, including z who said it best, have mentioned that this strain of feminism is about power preeminently. That has also very much been my experience of it, and for whatever it's worth- which I realize is little- it's the experience of this kind of feminism which leads me to agree with feminists on perhaps 90-95% of issues and yet no longer feel it right to call myself either a feminist or feminist support.

[novakant]

If the US does end up with a female president it will not (in the wider world) be making a ground-breaking statement. It will merely be catching up belatedly with the rest of the 'liberal' world.

I agree, but then I came of age during the Thatcher years - the horror, the horror ...

[Fledermaus]

Several people above, including z who said it best, have mentioned that this strain of feminism is about power preeminently.

We (Americans) have internalized the idea that power is a masculine trait. I think we tend to forget that women can be authoritarian, too.

[Manu KS]

Here is something very special about women.

The largest gathering of women on earth, happens every year at the Attukal Pongala, at Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Last year 2.7 million women participated in the festival.
It has also entered the Guinness Book of world records, as the largest gathering of women in the world. Follow the below link for more info about Attukal Pongala 2008
www.attukalpongala.blogspot.com