Today, the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) gave us yet another example of why feminists are not taken seriously and why they do as much to hinder women's causes and advancements as they do to help them. Speaking about Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama for president, NOW issued the following statement:

"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."

The greatest betrayal? Abandonment? Stood by him and forgiven him through past transgressions? I mean really, who can read this preposterous overblown reaction to Kennedy's endorsement of whom he clearly feels is simply the better candidate regardless of sex and not see the stereotypical emotional overreactive hysterical woman blowing things way out of porportion. Honestly, this single response encompasses nearly every negative stereotype of women in a few sentences. It's over-the-top emotional and borderline hysterical. It's overly dramatic. It uses a current complaint as an excuse to uneccessarily dig up and interject past grievances that are settled history and that nobody can do anything about. It lumps Kennedy together with all men as scum (i.e. "joined the list of white men who don't want a woman president"). And finally, it puts words into Kennedy's mouth he didn't say and projects beliefs onto him he doesn't hold (i.e. "can't or won't handle the idea of a woman president").

In other words, the NOW spokewoman is basically saying "I've stood by Kennedy even when he hurt me, now he has betrayed and abandoned me for another younger more attractive person. Just goes to show you that you can never trust men, they're all scumbags." Funny how NOW is strangely silent on the fact that Hillary has been apparently incapable of campaigning and getting elected on her own and has to run to her "big strong husband" to come and do all her dirty work for her. NOW doesn't utter a peep about the fact that Bill Clinton has done as much, or more, campaigning on Hillary's behalf than Hillary has done for herself. So much so, people are starting to call Hillary Clinton "Billary". 


It's like every neurotic woman you've ever met rolled into one. Just maybe Kennedy's endorsement of Obama has absolutely nothing to do with whether Barack Obama is a man or a woman, and everything to do with the fact that Obama's message and character is shockingly similiar to Jack Kennedy and Billary represents just about every single thing that is wrong with Washington today.
 

Who ever said Hillary Clinton was a woman, anyway?

I would say that this group of Feminists are a joke, but as a whole, I have no idea.  I don't know all the feminist out there 

Uhhhhh what? I mean c'mon now. You say:


Oh? What is the difference? I mean if "feminisim" is not about gender then maybe we should start using a different name? one that doesn't imply female? Of course if we did that then freedom from gender roles -- something males are way behind on recognizing for themselves -- might no longer be your domain or 'property' any longer.

It stands however that NOW makes 2 crucial mis-steps in logic. You'll pardon the lack of surprise in that sentence.

1. It does NOT actually follow that the first woman president will really make anything better for women. The first woman president could, in fact, end up being really bad for women's rights. They propel this notion that a woman as president will make leaps and bounds when there's really no honest evidence to support this beyond the simplistic fact that the prez will no longer have a dick. Further they seem to figure that this is the single most important issue, and naturally it isn't even close.

"female prez = good things for women", is, ironically, an entirely sexist notion and sounds more like a fight for the sandbox rather than an articulate logical statement.

2.  It does not actually follow that if Mr.Ted has done plenty of things in the name of women's rights that he's suddenly betraying women because he doesn't continue to endorse whatever the hell they tell him to. A little bit of "what-have-you-done-for-us-lately" which sounds all too familiar to any male over 30.

In short I believe NOW has embarrassed themselves by releasing a hysterical (yes, hysterical, complete with exclamation marks --- who releases press statements with exclamation marks?) and childish rant. If I was a woman I would completely disassociate myself. The statement reads like a petulant teenager, not someone who has anyone's interests at heart but someone who simply feels jilted over a tiny thing.

EDIT: opps, I'm sorry Cass, this entirely passed over my head:

i trust you'll know which parts of my reply to ignore now
Ahk

Akh, once again you would like to argue semantics, but carefully ignored the word "goals" in my comments. While the terms feminist/feminism may indeed denotes female from which it is derived, those who support the "goals" are not
always female.

I believe my point was clear in that I believe NOW, Emily's list and some other groups who expound FEMINIST GOALS, made a serious error in judgment with their out the gate endorsement of Clinton. 

Historically, peace has always been a factor among those advocating a variety of political, social and economic equality for women which was ignored by NOW. Sanger's "Woman And The New Race" published in 1929 following WWI, has some very valid points made related to the issues of war and peace, though her primary goal was the provision of  contraception, a very valid factor in women being able to achieve equality by having the right to control her own personal reproductive life.

OT, maybe, but certainly related to the term "goals."

The article that was used to begin this thread IMHO, was atrocious and ridiculous. Thus my personal response to both NOW and Emily's List.

Furthermore, Senator Clinton's voting record leaves much to be desired on a variety of feminist issues, IMHO in voting for the confirmation of Federal judgeships of those who would by their history hardly stand for feminist goals
or a positive vote for Lieberman/Kyl is as well.   

Just to put some perspective on Ryan's post.

The quotes from NOW slamming Kennedy's endorsement were from the New York Branch of the organisation. In other words, it was only a state branch which made them.

The quotes attributed to the national branch of NOW; were.

 "Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement," NOW President Kim Gandy said. "We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote."

That's one aspect, but there are also lots of feminists who are out for female dominance of men rather than equality. Those are the ones calling for "positive discrimination" etc.

Actually, I'm 17 and entirely in favour of equality. But to me equality means when people are chosen based solely on their ability to do whatever they're being chosen for. "Positive discrimination" is entirely contrary to that.