Vote Your Vagina!
The National Organization for Women is supposed to be about getting the best PERSON for the job. Of course, they're often or usually about anything but. CNN.com says the New York state chapter of NOW slammed Ted Kennedy for his "ultimate betrayal" for supporting Obama -- although Kim Gandy, head of the national chapter, damage-controlled with a more tactful approach.
Seems to me that the "ultimate betrayal" you can exact on a woman is leaving her to die in a submerged car, but hey, maybe that's why I'm not a NOW member.
Here's an excerpt from CNN:
In a sharply critical statement, the New York state chapter of NOW took aim at Kennedy Monday for what it called an "ultimate betrayal," and suggested the Massachusetts Democrat "can't or won't" handle the idea of Clinton becoming President of the United States."Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard," said the statement. "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 now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!" the statement continues. "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."
Or maybe he just thinks the black guy would do a better job?
I suggest women with brains follow my lead and vote for the person who'd make the best president, not the person who looks most like them when they do that 8th great health class thing, seated naked with the hand mirror on the bathroom rug.
Boy, oh, boy, Amy, do I ever have the skinny for you on the NYS NOW. They're the ones I've referred to a couple of times here as turning me off NOW altogether and they are not to be taken seriously.
Being against the oppression of women and finally free to be more active in politics because of my daughter not being small any more, when I moved back to NY, I joined the local (Albany) NOW only to find nothing but in-fighting with carried out with rather stereotypical catfighting techniques. Our local president and the Buffalo chapter's local president were in this stupid battle over presidency of the state chapter. I sat there uncomfortably listening to her spend half the meetings ranting about this. And, um, well, guess who got presidency of the state chapter and is most likely behind this statement? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Let's just say it sounds like someone I know.
This is the one that as I've said used to meet downtown. They consisted entirely of middle class white women (well, once or twice a couple of men showed up and were pretty much shouted down which also disgusted me) and made a lot of lip service about wanting to attract poor women and women of color. This was back before I got back on with the state and was working temp jobs. I was struggling to say the least. Did they listen to the one poor women they had? Well, when they talked about moving the meeting place, I protested that they should keep it in the main branch of the library conveniently located on the intersection every bus comes to because the places where they discussed would be difficult to get to without a car. Now if you're sincere about wanting to attract poor women and women of color, that's point blank a major consideration. Did they listen? Hell, no. They have moved the meetings to a white suburb that has next to no bus service whatsoever. One that doesn't run too often goes through it to the mall in that town.
I bet they're glad to be rid of me. I actually spoke up at meetings and confronted them with real issues and called them out on the realities of what women who really struggle face. I got so fed up that I won't even rejoin NOW as a member at large anymore.
Don't get me started on Hilary and the morons supporting her. I've got to give my union hell because they're pushing her. Not that they'll listen.
Donna at January 29, 2008 5:48 AM
Amy. I thought that was an amazing set of quotes as well. (To be fair, the National NOW office was less pissy about it.)
Favorite line: "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."
What exactly is her point?
How could black voters not be appalled by stories like this?
Crid at January 29, 2008 6:10 AM
what, it isn't damen, uber alles?
yup, that Ted Kennedy, just like a guy dumping a girl:
"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!" the statement continues. "He’s picked the new guy over us."
Guess they don't realize how weak it is to try and guilt people into doing something. Sure sometimes it works, but you are always beholden to them.
How much more positive would it have been to say: "It's too bad Str. Kennedy has decided to not accompany us on the journey to elect the best candidate President of the United States..." Maybe they don't believe it...
Besides, I caught a part of the Kennedy speech, and I thought "this guy is totally irrelevant, and so 35 years ago..." but that's prolly just me.
Stand for something. They have no idea how powerful they would become, if they would just make this about going their own direction. That gives an individual strength. Then you discover that large groups of people who happened to be going the same independent direction, change things.
What do I know, I'm a guy and Independent anyway, Kryptonite.
SwissArmyD at January 29, 2008 6:30 AM
They consisted entirely of middle class white women (well, once or twice a couple of men showed up and were pretty much shouted down which also disgusted me) and made a lot of lip service about wanting to attract poor women and women of color.
My friends who are "women of color" (hey! Isn't Wite-out white a color?) are all far too balanced and sensible, and value their time too highly to ever join a circus like the one you describe. They're, imagine that, actually out accomplishing things instead of whining about how nobody will let them.
Amy Alkon at January 29, 2008 6:32 AM
I think she has an odd notion of forgiveness.
Good. Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But, until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.
jerry at January 29, 2008 6:34 AM
Irony alert: fat, inebriated, aristocratic white guy Ted Kennedy = change?
How does Obama reconcile that?
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at January 29, 2008 6:52 AM
National Now as well as most of the feminist blogosphere has already dissented with the ridiculous opinions of NY-NOW. Now we know where all the straw-feminists live at least.
Shinobi at January 29, 2008 7:03 AM
When I heard about this story yesterday, I was nearly certain I'd find it blogged here today. Thanks for not disappointing, Amy!
This kind of drama can't do anything but push sane women away from the direction NOW wants them to go, right?
Irony alert: fat, inebriated, aristocratic white guy Ted Kennedy = change? How does Obama reconcile that?
Obama thinks, "Sweet! I do better with independents than rank-and-file Democrats. Ted is very popular with the base and I need some establishment Democrats like him to back me or I'm never going to win the nomination and have a chance to change anything." Or something like that.
justin case at January 29, 2008 8:16 AM
Quote of the day:
"Seems to me that the "ultimate betrayal" you can exact on a woman is leaving her to die in a submerged car, but hey, maybe that's why I'm not a NOW member."
Awesome.
Tom at January 29, 2008 8:34 AM
"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."
So this man did things for which he must be forgiven, stood up for and hushed. Plus the other short comings they list and the submerged car. And, then they expected something better?
Poor judges of character. No wonder so many NOW members dislike men. They can't tell the good ones from the bad ones.
DADvocate at January 29, 2008 9:11 AM
Thanks, Tom.
Amy Alkon at January 29, 2008 10:20 AM
My sister-in-law is from Brazil, and even she gets it:
http://www.glumbert.com/media/chrisrocksnl
YMMV o_O
Flynne at January 29, 2008 11:23 AM
DADvocate —
Let's remember why they were on Chappaquiddick Island, too. There was a "party" with twelve attendees — six young, single women who had been working for the Kennedys, and six important married men attending without their wives.
Lunatic at January 29, 2008 11:58 AM
That does it! What with feminists changing Valentine's Day to V-day and all that, I have decided to retaliate by declaring February 14 as "Be Ashamed of Your Vagina Day." This will be a day for women to be ashamed of their vaginas and general sexuality, which shall benefit men nicely.
Apparently we at The Patriarchy haven't done enough in this area over the past several thousand years. I'll be sure to make this announcement at the next Patriarch's conference.
"Hail to The Patriarchy!"
(That's the general salute we make at the end of each conference).
Thomas Fullery
Chief Patriarch
Thomas Fullery at January 29, 2008 1:17 PM
Also, for those of us who missed it, could you recount the 8th grade hand mirror thing?
Thanks oodles.
Crid at January 29, 2008 2:28 PM
As a man, I would be thrilled to see a man be the next President of the U.S. It doesn't make any difference if he's a moron or a bastard -- so long as he has a penis, I'm sold!
Wha? Sexist? Me?
Jay R at January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
I totally agree that you shouldn't vote with your vagina. You also shouldn't vote based on skin color. Personally, I have yet to hear a convincing argument on why I should go for Obama -- I've been watching all the debates and speeches, and the man isn't really saying anything. Most of the people I know who are voting for him are doing so because "wouldn't it be great to have a black person as President." The Obama-ites are at least as cultish as the Hillary-ites. Though I'm not crazy about her, Hillary seems to me like a better choice than Obama does. That said, my vote is still up for grabs. This may well be the year I go Republican.
Gail at January 29, 2008 3:17 PM
Above things, in politics you realize how temporal folks' arguments are. People will decry identity politics on Tuesday, then embrace them on Wednesday, just to advance their cause.
I also remain convinced that peoples' opinions and beliefs are grasped early in life; subsequently all contrary data is argued and dismissed; all correlating data and anecdotal evidence is accepted without question, and rationalization prevails. True with politics, ethics, religion, etc. (and if you think you are exempt, you are not. Yeah, you 'enlightened' person, I am talking to you.)
Mike S at January 29, 2008 5:29 PM
> a convincing argument on
> why I should go for Obama --
He can approach our war in Iraq without baggage, presumably without ego, and (Dear God I hope) without business associations to defend.
Crid at January 29, 2008 5:39 PM
Seen the latest from NY NOW and Pappas?
Apperently because Kennedy didnt endorse Clinton evey man on earth has now gang raped every woman on earth
lujlp at January 29, 2008 7:06 PM
We men would have no problem with having a women president.
Hell I would vote for a black women like Oprah or Rice. Some people like feminists just do not get it is we do not want to vote for HER. Hillary is another politico in a dress. Besides she is nasty, vicious and two faced. Not voting for her does not mean we hate women. (maybe some people)
John Paulson at January 29, 2008 8:00 PM
VOTE YOUR VAGINA!
Is that a butterfly ballot?
Bikerken at January 29, 2008 8:18 PM
I wonder if Americans realise how foolish this sort of thing makes them look.
The average city council drudge in my country would make mincemeat of any one of these Democrat wannabee affirmative action presidents as well as any of the namby pamby Republicans.
The scary thing for the rest of us is that one of these dolts is likely to have their trembling finger on the red button in a year or so's time.
Sheesh...idiots.
gwallan at January 29, 2008 10:59 PM
You might be surprised gwallan, but there are actually a few people here who realize that. The problem is that Americans are so into their own lives, that they really don't take time to pay attention to silly things like, who's president. I don't know if you ever have watched Jay Leno on the Tonight Show when he does Jay Walking? He will go to COLLEGE CAMPUSES sp? and ask them questions like, "Who is the vice president of the United States?" and maybe one out of five will get it. But why pay attention to that when you have video games, Ipods, text messaging, etc etc. We truly are becoming the country of the virtual idiot.
Bikerken at January 30, 2008 12:32 AM
So the NY NOW chapter is acting like they never heard of Margaret Thatcher.
Oh, that's right. They probably haven't.
Cousin Dave at January 30, 2008 7:49 AM
Hillary is another politico in a dress. Besides she is nasty, vicious and two faced.
These are just a couple of the many reasons why I'm not voting for her. o_O
Flynne at January 30, 2008 8:42 AM
> I wonder if Americans realise
> how foolish this sort of thing
> makes them look.
I wonder if you've ever thought of taking your own life.
Crid at January 30, 2008 11:42 PM
"He can approach our war in Iraq without baggage, presumably without ego, and (Dear God I hope) without business associations to defend."
The same can be said for me. Or for my four-year-old niece. With all respect, Crid, in my view, lack of experience is not a qualification for the presidency.
Gwallen -- I don't know what country you're from, but I hope you're not a shining example of its citizens.
Gail at January 31, 2008 3:20 PM
> lack of experience is not a
> qualification for the presidency.
Neither is lack of experience. The gig is sui generis. Furthermore, he has more legislative experience than Hillary. I doubt he ever married anybody for power, a strong mark in his favor.
Crid at January 31, 2008 6:29 PM
I got that backwards, but what I mean is... Nothing prepares you for that gig. And if something did, it wouldn't be being married to Bill Clinton.
Crid at January 31, 2008 6:30 PM
Crid -- Hillary met Bill at Yale Law School, where she was actually a better and more prominent student than he was. (To out myself, I graduated from YLS, although a fair bit later than they did). She didn't marry him for power. She has a pretty impressive record all on her own. Frankly, I think she might have gone further had she not met and married him and sublimated her career to his. I've met them both and heard them speak. I absolutely do not like everything about her, and in some ways she rubs me the wrong way, but it is a complete and total mistake to write her off as a former first lady who married for power. You do not need to like her, but she is a brilliant woman.
Gail at January 31, 2008 11:39 PM
> She has a pretty impressive
> record all on her own.
Nope; she was the missus. And she was content to live under his name until she thought she was well-known enough to shed it.
I can't understand this. People spend their whole lives carping about corrupt, opportunist, oblivious political representatives, and then they want to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton?
What is that? Do they think her brother deserves to live in the basement of the White House, eating taxpayer-supplied cheeseburgers, as he did during his Bill's terms? These are some the most transparently avaricious human beings who've ever lived. What's the attraction?
Apparently it's that she has ovaries... Though with the possible (and historically unreliable) testimony of Chelsea, no one's ever seen them, or found evidence of them.
> To out myself...
Don't bother, we're still not impressed.
> she is a brilliant woman.
Let her be brilliant without spending my money, commanding my armed services, and representing my intentions to authorities international and domestic. Send her away. Send her to Wall Street, where attitude cases are dealt with handily.
And for the love of a cocksucking Christ in Hell, please... no tears. If Obama ever cries, I'll take my own life.
Crid at February 1, 2008 12:52 AM
See Also, Chuck.
Crid at February 1, 2008 12:54 AM
Crid -- Hillary has significant political experience going back to the Reagan administration. Not liking her and not voting for her is one thing. However, your determination to write her off as simply "the missus" and dismiss anyone who would vote for her as an idiot is ridiculous.
By the way, I wasn't trying to brag, and I'm very sorry it came off that way. I was trying to explain how I knew about the Clinton's courtship. I've met a lot of people who knew Hillary and Bill well at the time they met and started dating. She didn't marry for power. That's just plain wrong. They were both freaking students when they met, for pete's sake, and according to their professors, she was a better one than he was. (And they were saying this LONG before her presidential bid, by the way.) She wasn't latching onto some powerhouse--she was dating a fellow student -- a bright one, but no brighter or more impressive than she was. If you are going to hate Hillary, feel free, but hate her for real reasons and not invented ones. Now I'm going to shut up because your mind is obviously closed. But I couldn't let you say anything that stupid and wrong without calling you on it.
Gail at February 1, 2008 7:44 AM
Crid -- Hillary has significant political experience going back to the Reagan administration. Not liking her and not voting for her is one thing. However, your determination to write her off as simply "the missus" and dismiss anyone who would vote for her as an idiot is ridiculous.
By the way, I wasn't trying to brag, and I'm very sorry it came off that way. I was trying to explain how I knew about the Clinton's courtship. I've met a lot of people who knew Hillary and Bill well at the time they met and started dating. She didn't marry for power. That's just plain wrong. They were both freaking students when they met, for pete's sake, and according to their professors, she was a better one than he was. (And they were saying this LONG before her presidential bid, by the way.) She wasn't latching onto some powerhouse--she was dating a fellow student -- a bright one, but no brighter or more impressive than she was. If you are going to hate Hillary, feel free, but hate her for real reasons and not invented ones. Now I'm going to shut up because your mind is obviously closed. But I couldn't let you say anything that stupid and wrong without calling you on it.
Gail at February 1, 2008 7:44 AM
> significant political experience
> going back to the Reagan
> administration.
"Significant," says you. I regard most of her political enterprise as horridly pandering and carnivorous. (Wanna see a sample from one of my favorite women on Earth? Go to this page and do a text search for "fun writing that".) Furthermore, maybe you're young and I'm old, but the Reagan years don't seem so much deeper back in time than Obama's period of achievement. And Reagan's era isn't remembered as an hour when good people were getting into politics in either party.
> write her off as simply
> "the missus" and dismiss anyone
> who would vote for her
Bill Clinton, master of all things moist and fleshy, wouldn't have become president without Hillary's steel and octane. But without Bill, you'd never have heard of Hillary, period.
> I was trying to explain how
> I knew about the Clinton's
> courtship.
Their history is so well known at this point that it's unnecessary to recount sources... Unless you're trying to make some sort of personal point. And for the record, why are we always being asked to care about these people, and their feelings for other people, including each other?
> That's just plain wrong. They
> were both freaking students
> when they met
And both were famously ambitious ones, too. These were not witless newborns.
> according to their professors,
> she was a better one than he was.
First of all, what does that have to do with whether or not she'd hitch up to his wagon? From kindergarten on, nobody ever doubted that he was going places. Secondly, who cares how good a student someone is? The presidency (and good human character, for that matter) is mostly about other things.
> hate her for real reasons
It's too easy. Post any passage of her rhetoric you admire. Anything at all, any topic. We'll review it together.
> Now I'm going to shut up
No! Come back! Without Ivy League insights, our lives have no meaning! We need someone to lead!
ggggrrrrr
Crid at February 1, 2008 9:04 AM
Wow, Crid, you really are an idiot, and a defensive one at that. I'm only shutting up with regard to your inane point on Hillary because I've said it already, and there is clearly no point in talking to you. The same is not true for everyone on this thread.
My vote is actually still undecided (I'm by no means sold on Hillary--I just think some people do not give her her due), but this, um, "dialogue" is a perfect example of why I'm beginning to develop a bit of an anti-Obama bias. It seems like every time I ask an Obama supporter why they support him, I get nothing but an anti-Hillary rant, often filled with statements that are patently untrue. I've been watching the debates and speeches and trying to keep an open mind as I weigh the candidates, but I like to hear what other (intelligent and thoughtful) people think. I've heard some solid reasons for voting for Hillary, McCain and Romney from some of their supporters. I don't agree with all of of their reasons, but I see their points. In all seriousness, I would like to hear from an intelligent, rational Obama supporter (i.e., not Crid) who can give some serious reasons on why they support Obama instead of a rant about how other candidates suck.
Gail at February 1, 2008 10:09 AM
> every time I ask an Obama
> supporter
Well, I may vote for him, but it's a blocking maneuver. I haven't cut him a check or anything.
Go ahead, be affirmative: Still waiting to see something from Hillary Clinton that you liked...
Crid at February 1, 2008 9:19 PM
Leave a comment