Apparently I’m an anti-choice feminist without even realizing it
The coverage of the NOW election is becoming garbled. Over at Salon, Judy Berman writes:
Meanwhile, Viva la Feminista blogger Veronica Arreola, who supported Lyles, says O’Neill (who is pro-choice) owes her election to pro-life feminists. She writes:
“The Sarah Palin supporters swung this election….
Whoa, nellie. “Sarah Palin supporters” (if that’s even what they are) does not equal “pro-life feminists.” This looks like an honest mistake on Judy’s part, and I posted a letter at Salon to clear it up:
Judy, please issue a correction
Major misunderstanding here. You quoted Veronica Arreola as saying that “Sarah Palin supporters swung this election.” You interpreted that to mean “pro-life feminists” swung the election. But that is a false equivalence.
The feminists Arreola identifies as “Palin supporters” are not pro-life feminists, not at all. They’re pro-choice feminists and long-time activists in the feminist movement.
Arreola calls them “Palin supporters” because many of these women disagreed with NOW’s decision to demonize Palin last year in concert with the Obama campaign. Some of them may have supported her candidacy, while others simply objected to the way she was being treated.
–Violet Socks
I would like to quash this meme now.
UPDATE: I’m posting a correction to my correction. I assumed that Arreola referred to these women as “Palin supporters” because at some point in the conference they expressed displeasure with NOW’s failure to defend Palin. I’ve since learned that this is not the case. None of these women even brought up Palin at the conference. They were just supporting Terry O’Neill and asking questions about NOW’s finances and Lyles’s record. It was Kim Gandy who branded them “Palin supporters” in an attempt to discredit them.
71 Responses to “Apparently I’m an anti-choice feminist without even realizing it”
-
Alison says:
I have to laugh at this one. People still can’t figure out why anyone would dare to defend a conservative against slut shaming and slander. Keep on spelling it out, Violet.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm EST -
angienc says:
I would like to quash this meme now.
Good luck with that. From what I’ve seen of these people who think it is ok to slut shame a woman as long as you disagree with her politically: their viciousness is only exceeded by their stupidity.
-
donna darko says:
Veronica knew they were PUMAs in her post last Tuesday’s:
And here’s another tidbit to consider if you are leaning towards Terry’s slate - I have heard that PUMAs will be traveling to Indianapolis to punish Kim Gandy thru Latifa for supporting Barack Obama after Hillary Clinton lost the primary. This is DESPITE Kim & NOW’s super early endorsement of Hillary, which I didn’t support - I thought it was too early.
How did Gandy go from someone carrying a handout of NOW finances to “Palin supporters”?
Of course I do wish I had attended, not just for the speakers, whom I heard were excellent. But because apparently, from what I gather, Kim Gandy was asked about a handout that was circulating that showed NOWs finances plummeting. She said that it was a product of Sarah Palin followers. I was told it was from the O’Neill campaign. Someone told me they heard that Kim said that anyone backing the O’Neill campaign were Sarah Palin backers. Again, I did not attend this event.
They just never want to credit PUMAs with a win. They don’t acknowledge the many little campaigns PUMAs and PUMA allies won along the way. Like we only got Clinton to wear orange pantsuits then they discredit that too.
-
donna darko says:
What made us mad was it was the first time in history NOW supported a Presidential ticket without a woman on it. She could have endorsed McKinney/Clemente. Gandy blames it the email Hillary sent us after dropping out suggesting that we support him. Many of us with feminist principles and integrity resisted that call.
-
Sameol says:
If Kim is secretly a mole trying to recruit more “Sarah Palin supporters,” she’s doing a swell job.
You can take your pick, it’s either going to be “pro-life feminists” or it’s going to be “old white racist women!!!!!!”
-
myiq2xu says:
Well at least they didn’t call y’all racists.
-
octogalore says:
Nice comment. If Salon becomes any more superficial, it will evaporate.
Also, Arreola’s comment that NOW’s original endorsement of HRC was “too early” is laughable.
-
Sameol says:
Yes, they’re floating other Memes first. But white (and Black, and Latina, and Asian, and Native American and Arab feminists who break ranks with the third wavers) feminists are the inventors of racism and perpetuators of racism and more racist than any men ever and they control society and consolidate their evil! So trust me, you’ll be hearing it soon.
-
sister of ye says:
I have heard that PUMAs will be traveling to Indianapolis to punish Kim Gandy thru Latifa for supporting Barack Obama after Hillary Clinton lost the primary.
What an absolutely non-productive, even destructive way to frame the election. Paint it as personal and vindictive. Not a matter of:
1. people objected to Gandy’s policies,
2. Gandy endorsed Latifa with the implication that she’d continue her policies
3. therefore PUMAs and similarly minded people preferred O’Neill’s policies to continuing Gandy’s.Smacks of “anyone who disagrees with us must be hysterical and incapable of reason.” Which, interestingly, is how sexists portray feminists’ grievances.
-
myiq2xu says:
I have heard that PUMAs will be traveling to Indianapolis to punish Kim Gandy thru Latifa for supporting Barack Obama after Hillary Clinton lost the primary.
I have heard that the moon is made of green cheese.
Since when are unsourced rumors taken seriously in Left Blogistan?
SASQ - since the dawning of the age of Obama.
-
Sis says:
They have something new to blame on Palin. It’s a good thing her run was post-Katrina, or she’d be responsible for thst too.
-
Violet says:
You can take your pick, it’s either going to be “pro-life feminists” or it’s going to be “old white racist women!!!!!!”
It appears to be both.
-
samanthasmom says:
Does either one come with frequent flyer miles? It would help me decide which one I choose to be.
-
Egallantry says:
VS, you are quoted by Megan at Jezebel.
-
Carmonn says:
I’m curious, has every movement in history produced factions this clueless?
I’m really feeling somewhat concerned that actual members of NOW genuinely don’t seem to understand what the fuss is all about. Anyone who didn’t expect a backlash after the events of last year, I just don’t know what to say. I knew they were out there, I just don’t think of them as joining NOW, I guess.
-
Dead Girl says:
well, had I known this would get so “overly dramatic”, I would have jumped on the O’Neil Bandwagon…
pro-life feminists. huhn! Let me wrap my mind around that one and get back to you laterz. ;)
-
Gayle says:
Oooo Violet, you’re famous!
You’re a famous pro-life Palin supporter! Hardee HA! HA!
Your candidate is being described as an old white lady by the Jezzies. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard 3rd wavers disparage women for being over 40-something. What are older feminists to do? Should they curl up and die so the youngsters don’t have to run against them?
Should we all set ourselves adrift on icebergs once menopause strikes? I need to know so I can do the right thing when the time is right!
-
Valhalla says:
Ugh, I tried to comment over at that jezebel link, but it won’t let me login as a Guest and I sure don’t want to create an account.
This is typical poor reasoning ability, sense-lacking, progblog rumor-mongering — make some sh*t up to discredit your ‘enemies’ then get all aghast and agonized over a bunch of utterly untrue stuff. There’s so many lies it’s almost impossible to detangle them.
Gandy has a lot of nerve calling the people circulating her dramatically falling membership numbers Palin supporters, given that the numbers are true (taken, as I understand, from NOW’s own yearly reporting) and the Palin support is just a d*mned lie. Not to mention, usually the numbers that are released publicly are the ones that have been shined up to look as good as they can, so what does that tell you?
All in all, I’m not sure NOW will suffer much if it loses the support of folks like jezebel and Veronica, or Judy for that matter. They seem to think feminism is limited to buzzing around the intertoobz making stuff up about people they don’t like. Perhaps they’d be better off in more high-school-like environment.
-
Sis says:
I think you women have made a big mistake in backing O’Neil. Did you read there on Jezebel that O’Neil is going to as you to fast? Hmmm? (Wipes cupcake icing off chin).
-
donna darko says:
NOW has only endorsed four Presidential candidates/tickets in its history: Shirley Chisholm, Walter Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro, Carol Moseley Braun and Barack Obama. Gandy could have endorsed the McKinney/Clemente ticket which many PUMAs voted for. If you look at that link’s timeline of NOW, you will see how much it works for women of color as much as white women. Gandy probably endorsed a man for the first time to go against NOW’s unfair reputation as “old, white and racist.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N....._for_Women
1972: NOW endorses Shirley Chisholm, a NOW member, in the democratic primary. Chisholm is the first African American woman to run for President, and NOW’s first presidential endorsement. NOW rarely endorses Presidential candidates.
1984: NOW makes its second presidential endorsement, supporting women’s rights champion Walter Mondale, former Vice President, in the democratic primary. With NOW’s urging a “Woman VP NOW,” Mondale selects Geraldine Ferraro for Vice President. NOW campaigns nationwide for Mondale/Ferraro.
2003: NOW endorses Carol Moseley Braun, the second African-American woman to run for U.S. President.
2008: On September 16, NOW endorsed Barack Obama for president. NOW originally endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president during the Democratic Party Primary. Also made known that they would not support Sarah Palin, the running mate of Obama’s Republican counterpart, John McCain.
-
donna darko says:
Sheesh I feel like I have to educate all the time. This is to the Third Wave lurkers not y’all.
-
Violet says:
and the Palin support is just a d*mned lie
Actually, some of the people were Palin supporters: pro-choice NOW feminists who decided last year to support Palin, despite their differences over reproductive rights. Others were like me, not Palin supporters but rather Palin defenders: feminists who were appalled by the sexist and misogynist attacks on Palin by self-described feminists.
But the bulk of the votes for Terry were just from people who had more faith in her than in Latifa Lyles, who (as I’ve pointed out) was simply Kimandellie’s pick to continue the status quo.
The financials that were circulated at the conference revealed what Kimandellie didn’t want anyone to know: that membership and revenues have dropped something like 40% while Latifa has been Membership VP, and that 28% of the membership revenue each year just goes to pay the salaries of the four people at the top (the president and the three VPs), said salaries being way out of whack vis-a-vis other non-profits.
-
Valhalla says:
Violet — my apologies, in my state of disgust I overstated my case. I was thinking of Veronica’s conflation of people who objected to NOW’s failure to speak out against the misogyny directed at Palin with outright Palin supporters. The two groups overlap, but are not coequal (as Veronic implied/smeared). I didn’t mean to indicate that there were no Palin supporters at all at the conference. (as I wasn’t there, I have no idea, really). I hope that clarifies.
I would guess that falling membership numbers and revenue played a large part in many people’s votes. I read somewhere, but wasn’t able to find the link later, that membership numbers increased during O’Neill’s tenure as VP of Membership (preceding Lyles’). That is certainly an excellent reason to support O’Neill over Lyles, but I don’t see that featured among any of the sore-loser rumor mills.
-
myiq2xu says:
I’m curious - what was the status of the NOW conference attendees?
I’m assuming of course they were NOW members, but were they elected representatives of state and/or local chapters?
-
Violet says:
To attend the conference, you have to have been a NOW member for at least three months. And to vote in the conference, you have to be not only a member (naturally), but also a delegate from your chapter. There are a limited number of delegate slots, and the delegates are chosen by the chapter presidents. And once you get to the conference, you have to be credentialed, a byzantine process involving picture IDs, membership records, sign-offs, etc.
It is not possible for some alien group of infiltrators to just show up and take over the conference.
-
octogalore says:
Unfortunately, I must inform you that you are indeed a crusty old feminist, without that new-age, high-tech edge. Why, only a week or so after President Obama (or, Chief Feminist) made his Cairo Speech, the hip, with-it feminists are discussing the critical feminist issue that he kindly highlighted for us.
Hopefully you will learn from them and be quicker in future to jump on these helpful messages from our Feminist Leader. I believe he has not yet touched on women’s equal rights to wear six inch spike heeled stripper shoes, but I would hope that when that happens (as it inevitably will), you pay close attention.
-
angienc says:
Well, Violet you are in good company, because apparently Carolyn Mosely Braun is an “anti-choice Palin supporter” too. Yes, I typed that correctly. I have the following from a participant at the NOW Convention:
1. Kim Gandy herself started that “rumor” about “Palin supporters” going for O’Neill;
2. Although there were only 400 actual votes at the convention, 600 people attended. 200 of those 600 were people were there wearing Lyle’s “orange” (O’Neill was purple) from head to toe & were running around causing havoc, & “shouting down” O’Neill supporters all in support of Lyles.
3. These Lyles supporters called Carolyn Mosely Braun a “Palin supporter.” That right there should tell you how valid that “Palin supporters swung the election to O’Neill” meme is & should be the end of it. -
Violet says:
Angie, they also cut the mike on Patricia Ireland when she spoke in support of Terry. Yes. Cut the mike on Patricia Ireland.
Some crazy shit went down.
When Latifa gave her vote-for-me speech, instead of listing her accomplishments she launched into a tirade, saying the conference had been “infiltrated” by enemies and that she knew how to deal with enemies, etc. It was wild. Kind of a classic case of demonstrating your own flaws even as you seek to dispute them.
Another thing Kimandellie did was refuse to seat three delegations, a classic bit of credentialing bullshit to keep their opponents from voting. Seattle was finally seated but LA and the Illinois delegation weren’t. If they had been seated, I think Terry would have won by a lot more than 8 votes.
-
angienc says:
“Some crazy shit went down” is how my friend described it too. I only had a chance to “IM” with her, so I didn’t get all the “cut mike” & “delegate seating” high jinx, but sadly, it isn’t surprising. Disgusting really.
I had O’Neill as a professor many moons ago & I know her to be strongly committed to women’s justice. Obviously, the proof is in the pudding, but I feel confident she will be a great President of NOW & I am excited about NOW’s future with her at the helm.
-
Sis says:
So she’s what, eight years older than Obama? Oh my god. OLD WOMEN. Someone put them out of their misery. At the least, protect us from the eye-searing sight of old women and all their old fuddy duddy ideas. He’s called YOUNG, going to bring in new ideas, change.She’s a biological miracle. There now dearie.
-
donna darko says:
Hey, I was a NOW delegate but didn’t feel like going to conferences.
What’s wrong with the Third Wave. Veronica’s latest:
Now some might say, “Hey we’re Clinton supporters!” But if you truly supported Hillary Clinton and what she stands for, I can’t see how or why you would trash Barack Obama or vote for McCain.
Clinton is a politician and they sometimes have to get along. We are grassroots activists who can tell the truth. The worst sexism witnessed in the US, the 2008 primary, makes it impossible for any principled Democrat or feminist to ever vote for Obama. The fact that the Third Wave does not believe fellow women Democrats means they have joined the patriarchy and are not feminists. McCain was a protest vote meaning it had twice as much power as not voting for Obama. I liken PUMA to a battered women’s and men’s group. You just want the abuser out of your life and voting for McCain was the best way to do it.
Furthermore, I don’t see how trashing Kim Gandy and Ellie Smeal is productive. They came together VERY early in the primary race to endorse Clinton. Again, far earlier than I would have preferred. I wanted to see the endorsement taken to the conference or even announced at the conference so that Clinton would come to our conference.
Gandy and Smeal’s early endorsement reflected their extreme faith in Clinton’s commitment to feminism as many of us have. Again after the worst sexism ever witnessed in the US no feminist including Gandy and Smeal should support Obama. The fact Third Wavers don’t believe us means they are part of the patriarchy and are not feminists.
-
monchichipox says:
Oh it cheers me to see Geraldine’s name anywhere. I’m still moved to tears simply rereading the text of her acceptance speech. Anyway it is a cold lonely place an anti-abortion feminist rests. Couldn’t you find some way to let me in the club? I still can’t be shaken from my belief that abortion is the ultimate degradation of women. Our supreme gift of giving life turned into a medical procedure or a wedge issue. Am I too corny in saying that thinking about it makes me cry sometimes? I still love you all and enjoy reading your writings. I suspect though I’ll be lulled into lurker status.
-
Leis says:
You believe that women making a choice regarding their body and future is the ultimate degradation to women? Seriously you cant envision a worse degradation for a woman? Wow, I’m willing to accept your CHOICE to not have an abortion, but I draw the line at calling anyone a feminist that would actively pursue an agenda that takes my choice from me or any other woman, including yourself.
-
angienc says:
Sis — “women years” are like “dog years.” So a woman who is 8 (human) years older than a man is really 56 years older than him.
-
Violet says:
I am 322 years old. Go, me!
-
myiq2xu says:
So a woman who is 8 (human) years older than a man is really 56 years older than him.
But experience is counted in “penis years” which is a variable number that guarantees a man is more qualified than a woman.
-
Violet says:
I tried to post a reply on that Jezebel thing, but I don’t know if it will go through. I don’t have an account and have never commented there before.
This is what I said:
“Because, of course, voting for a man is an anti-feminist act.”
Could you possibly be more dishonest? The post of mine you quoted isn’t about “voting for a man,” but about the sexism and misogyny displayed by some self-described feminists last year in attacking candidates they didn’t like. I linked to three previous posts of mine that explained in detail what I found problematic. Calling women “cunts” and ridiculing their looks, demanding that they stay home and take care of their kids — those kinds of things. Nowhere have I ever said that “voting for a man” is an anti-feminist act.
You left those links out, I notice.
-
myiq2xu says:
You left those links out, I notice
There you go Violet, harshing their mellow with inconvenient facts again.
-
sister of ye says:
McCain was a protest vote meaning it had twice as much power as not voting for Obama.
My vote for McCain wasn’t a protest vote. It was a lesser of two evils strategic vote. As far as I could discern under the hopey-changey tripe. McCain’s and Obama’s policies were pretty much the same, except that Obama seemed more actively misogynistic and homophobic.
However, with a Democratic congress there was a good likelihood (alas, no guarantee) that at least the worst of McCain’s policies would be opposed. Whereas with Obama, the Dems were all too likely to pass any stupid thing, including undercutting Social Security.
Plus “pro-lifer” Palin seemed much more respectful of individual women’s consciences that “women get blue and have late term abortions” Obama. If something happened to McCain, I’d trust women’s rights under her leadership far more than either Obama or Biden.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
I think it’s instructive and telling that some people who previously espoused feminist and progressive ideals are more interested in hunting PUMAs these days rather than espousing feminist and progressive ideals. Or better yet, they could make themselves useful trying to get the Lightbringer to espouse said ideals. Just espousing them, mind you, not actually fighting for them, since he’s handicapped by not being able to walk the talk.
And what’s the deal with hunting PUMAs anyway? Is it all because we wouldn’t be good little girls and go along with what the boyz wanted? It’s looking that way. It seems like such a lot of work to be a Stockholm Sweetie - I think I’d just rather go all Thelma and Louise on rather obvious woman-hating. Anybody got a bead on their tractor-trailer full of lies about women who have the audacity to lead, rather than just follow? Cause I don’t think they’re gonna apologize ……. sorry, it’s one of my favorite parts of that flick.
-
angienc says:
sister of ye — thank you — that is exactly what my vote was about too last November — lesser of 2 evils. When people saw my Hillary sticker on my car & asked me who I was voting for I told them I “couldn’t in good conscience vote for Biden after what he allowed to happen to Anita Hill.” That shut them up right quick.
-
taggles says:
the voting strategies of most who protested varied. some to protest the DNC and it’s sexist treatment and outright fraud in the primaries. some to protest Barack Obama’s sexism. Some to hopefully get a chance for Hillary in 2012.
Most people I knew did not support Palin.
For some she made the protest vote more palatable, because she was a woman, and I happen to see nothing wrong with that.
My protest vote was a vote against the DNC.
The sexism was also a motivating factor.
-
taggles says:
hey violet, did you know that fatherhood begins at conception according to obama??
SHV over at the widdershins just posted this..
-
david in iowa says:
I have been in NOW for 27 years and this past election was my 7th. I have supported both winning and losing candidates. I currently sit on the NOW national board.
This conference I supported Terry O’Neill and the Feminist-leadership team. Many friends of many years were supporting Latifa. At the end of the conference winners cheered and cried and others just cried, The nexy day as sisters and brothers we came together.
We came together to continue the fight for equality for all women
This conference was not about Sarah Palin or pro-life feminists (isn’t that and oxymoron?)
This was a NOW conference with over 600 feminists.
lots of debate and great conversations, workshops and excellent guest speakers.And the conferecne is over and we move forward. Many battles await, despite having friends(?) in the Whitehouse. Looking back only makes our foes stronger, because we take our eyes off the prize in order to look back.
Terry O’Neill is the President of NOW. That can only change in 2013, see you there.
-
myiq2xu says:
From “Amber” in the comments at Viva la Feminista:
Palin doesn’t just personally believe that abortion is wrong, she has actively tried to stop the access to abortions and charges women to pay for their own rape kit, and believes in only abstinence only education. This is not what NOW wants.
http://www.vivalafeminista.com.....-2009.html
That rape kit thing really is a zombie lie, isn’t it?
-
Violet says:
That rape kit thing really is a zombie lie, isn’t it?
I’d call it a very well designed bit of psy ops.
-
myiq2xu says:
From VLF:
Amber said…
To the commentor JeanA: Have you not read the bylaws of NOW? To join the organization it clearly states that one must agree and adhere to the beliefs and actions of the NOW organization. That means they have to support reproductive rights, minority rights, gay and lesbian rights, disabled rights, etc.
From the NOW bylaws:
Article II. Statement of Purpose
NOW’s purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. This purpose includes, but is not limited to, equal rights and responsibilities in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life, and it includes freedom from discrimination because of race, ethnic origin, age, marital status, sexual preference/orientation, or parenthood.Article III. Membership
Any person who subscribes to NOW’s purpose shall be eligible to become a member of NOW and upon payment of national dues shall be enrolled as a member, with all rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereof. All members of subunits of NOW must be members of the national organization. No person who subscribes to NOW’s purpose shall be excluded from membership, segregated, or otherwise discriminated against within the organization.The bylaws do not require a person to be pro-choice in order to join.
-
Sameol says:
The rape kit lie is accompanied by the abstinence only lie as well.
It seems like if you can’t make your case without lying, it sort of calls your cause into question, as well as causing the extreme degree of fervor into question.
-
Sameol says:
Calling. :)
-
donna darko says:
octogalore @ 26
O’Neill’s blog doesn’t mention hijab. Maybe it should. Not.
http://feministleadershipnow.wordpress.com/
Third Wavers want Muslim women to wear burkas whether Muslim women want to or not because it makes them feel PC.
-
donna darko says:
sister of ye, angie and taggles,
I know, I heard all the arguments. People had different reasons for voting for the lesser of two evils.
-
Kiuku says:
Donna contrast Obama’s statements on the rights of men to dictate what a muslim woman should wear, and his recent statements about how great the protestors in Iran are, because he supports a persons voice in determining their own destiny.
No joke.
-
SYD says:
OK. Dumb question….
So what if some Palin supporters *did* swing the election??
Is Sarah the boogeyman or something?
Maybe we should let them believe that her followers *did* swing it.
Wouldn’t THAT scare the shit out of some of ‘em??
****************
Just sayin’…. let ‘em talk. They are only digging themselves a hole amongst fair minded Feminists who aren’t party bound.
SYD
-
anne says:
“2. Although there were only 400 actual votes at the convention, 600 people attended. 200 of those 600 were people were there wearing Lyle’s “orange” (O’Neill was purple) from head to toe & were running around causing havoc, & “shouting down” O’Neill supporters all in support of Lyles.”
So it sounds like it was Obama supporters who infiltrated the convention and tried to swing the vote to Lyles, using the same kind of tactics that worked so well in the primary elections. When they weren’t successful, they use descriptions of their own tactics to smear the winning side.
I hope that someone who was actually there comes forward to speak about the events because at the moment the liars’ version appears to be standing.
I guess now NOW will be in the Obamabots firing line for the rest of his administration. I can’t stand anti-feminist feminists.
-
yttik says:
Geesh, some of my best friends are “bitter old white women!” When did that become an insult? There’s not an organization in this country, not a single social movement that didn’t have “bitter old white women” carrying a big part of the load.
I suppose this is nothing new. We have a long tradition of persecuting old women, going back to the witch trials across Europe. Judging from all the fear bitter old women have inspired, they must hold some real power. Sounds like the key to social change is to rally up more of them.
-
Sis says:
I see Amanda Marcotte rang in on the Salon thread with her usual irrational, women-hating point of view. She has become so irrelevant. Pandagon has a representative from each of the civil rights factions: when will they get a feminist?
-
Sweet Sue says:
I’m very much afraid that the Third Wave is a backlash inspired tsunami that will drown Feminism.
-
Sis says:
No I disagree Sweet Sue. They’re done.
I think backing Obama (who is daily being recognized by political analysts as a good show and nothing more) is their finish. They believed the marketing and didn’t look beyond that. He’s the *real* anti-reproductive choice politician.
-
Sweet Sue says:
Sis, I hope you’re right and there’s a resurgence of real feminism, and, maybe, Professor O’Neill’s election is a good start.
-
myiq2xu says:
Sis, I hope you’re right and there’s a resurgence of real feminism, and, maybe, Professor O’Neill’s election is a good start.
The enemy of all political movements is complacency.
-
Egallantry says:
Excerpts from a post by Marj Signer - President of Virginia NOW until November 2010
http://femnation.blogspot.com/.....inism.html
“For example, all of those who thought the “dream team” of Latifa Lyles, etc., would win the NOW presidency and vice-presidencies…because we needed a youthful, fresh face for the aging, tired women’s movement…were wrong.”
And
“Really! The people who won were nasty. I wish I had been in the plenary when the vaunted Patricia Ireland (Terry’s treasurer) lashed out at Kim Gandy, questioning her budget figures - while supporters of the Terry team lined the back of the room, shouting at Kim to “tell the truth” - in reference to the budget situation.”
And
“The anger and bitterness of this crew - desperate to hang on to power, refusing to believe anyone else could run the organization - was shocking. (You’ve got to remember - these folks have a lot of history together - they’re like Chicago politicos - byzantine alliances - cross them at your peril.)”
And
“In addition to PI (as Ireland is known), another vaunted figure - Carol Moseley-Braun - embarrassed herself by storming down the aisle and interrupting Kim’s “farewell” remarks. Apparently she thought she had been labelled as anti-Obama and pro-Sarah Palin and that was just too much for her.”
And
“That wasn’t all - there also was the sideshow of the Hillary Clinton supporters who remain permanently (apparently) pissed off about her loss. The so-called “PUMAS” - Party Unity My Ass. Clinton seems to have gotten over it - why haven’t they. Some of these ladies are angry at NOW for not being supportive of Sarah Palin; apparently, the fact that she’s a woman is sufficient qualification.”
-
m Andrea says:
“I would like to quash this meme now.”
Well, they don’t know how to use logic, and they can’t legitimately frame anything within the context of human rights, so they are reduced to throwing insults. And yet, the only thing which can withstand a persistent barrage of logic, is stupidity. Or insanity…
-
Hell’s Grannies takeover NOW « The Confluence says:
[...] Indianapolis must have been off the hook. You can find one version of events in the comments at Reclusive Leftist. For another take on the events check out Planes, Trains & Attack-Dog Feminism” [...]
-
octogalore says:
Egallantry: interesting exerpt. I can’t believe that a NOW executive would be so unprofessional, and posted that over there.
RE “apparently, the fact that she’s a woman is sufficient qualification” — that kind of says it all, no?
-
Egallantry says:
Octogalore,
I continue to be astonished.
Regarding Gov. Palin: ‘The fact that she’s a woman is sufficient qualification’ for her to be attacked with misogynistic language and frames.
I’m listening to ‘As Cool As I Am’ by Dar Williams and wondering about sisterhood. I will not be afraid of women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TywZyET3ktY
-
Jess says:
If T. O’Neill is good enough for the President of NOW NY, who is a feminist I can really look up to, then T. O’Neill is hella alright with me.
-
m Andrea says:
So I’m derailing with Echidne’s most helpful post, and I hope Nora reads it. http://echidneofthesnakes.blog.....7800382513
“Feminism really turns into something very different depending on what your basic definition might be, even if you are unaware of that basic definition. If you start from the ideal of equal treatment for men and women you get one set of conclusions. If you start from the ideal of supporting women you get a different set of conclusions. Sometimes. Not always.”
It drives me insane when the vanilla girls show up, and claim that the ideological position which seeks to eliminate the reproductive choices of others somehow fits within the definition of feminism. From Echidne’s post, I see now that they believe the desire to eliminate the rights of others is feminist, simply because that position is just another idealogical “choice”.
And I would contend that “supporting women” is a bunch of fuzzy fweel-good hogwash. One does not “support” any other ethic minority by passively allowing exploitation to continue. The disavantaged are “supported” only when they are allowed the same rights as the dominant group.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
monchichipox says:
“Oh it cheers me to see Geraldine’s name anywhere. I’m still moved to tears simply rereading the text of her acceptance speech. Anyway it is a cold lonely place an anti-abortion feminist rests. Couldn’t you find some way to let me in the club? I still can’t be shaken from my belief that abortion is the ultimate degradation of women. Our supreme gift of giving life turned into a medical procedure or a wedge issue. Am I too corny in saying that thinking about it makes me cry sometimes? I still love you all and enjoy reading your writings. I suspect though I’ll be lulled into lurker status.”
No, this is not a place that welcomes pro-life feminists unless they stay closeted. Try the New Agenda. They are not as insightful, but sometimes it’s nice not to be a second-class netizen.
-
Violet says:
No, this is not a place that welcomes pro-life feminists unless they stay closeted.
Au contraire. You’re here, and you’re welcome. So are several other commenters that identify as pro-life.
The salient characteristic of this blog is that the comment threads are for discussion. If you take a position on one of the hot-button feminist issues, you will attract interlocutors who disagree.
I routinely delete comments from twits, wingnuts, MRAs, and stick-test flunkees in order to keep the level of discussion as high as possible.
I also try very hard to encourage feminist commenters to debate the issues with a modicum of personal respect, though the problem there is one of perception. Many people construe intellectual disagreement as personal attacks. “She thinks my arguments are illogical and unfeminist” becomes “she called me a child-molesting CIA torturer and demanded I shut up or leave the blog.”
-
alwaysfiredup says:
I am okay with dissent and discussion, and I do not expect to change anyone’s mind. I object to being personally insulted for my stance. It raises my hackles when anyone calls me “anti-choice”, not the least because it’s inaccurate (I am not against all abortions, just a few of them). The name is inflammatory. I do not call “pro-choice” people “pro-abortion”, because I am willing to assume that my debate opponent is not bat-shit insane. If I say I think it is relatively easy for most women and girls to obtain contraception, I do not presume that this is the case for absolutely every single soul inside our national borders. Things like that. Y’all don’t have to take my position to an absurd extreme and call me ignorant or unenlightened because of it.
And as far as “putting aside our differences and working together” goes, I frequently see passionate anecdotes of certain societal ills used to defend why unlimited access to abortion is essential in our society. I am 100% ready to go on a crusade against societal ills, just tell me when and where. I live in constant hope that this crusade plus technological advances in birth control can obviate the need for our disagreement.
(OT - Reclusive Michael Jackson Leftist - I love it!)
-
Petal says:
Thank you thank you thank you for your blog. I was really beginning to think that feminism had devolved into Pandagon, Feministing and Feministe. I really appreciate another voice - one who thinks about the issues that affect women. Transgender, disability are both very important issues and I am glad they champion those issues, but I would also like to talk about women’s issues other than abortion or rape. We are more than that.
