Hillarysworld

Jen the Michigander · SuperModerator

Amy Siskind: How Feminists' Eggs came Home To Roost (HuffPo 8/30/10)

freespirit · Moderator

Are there any Democratic women left after 2008? Many of us who were Dems, forced out of our party when it turned against us and revealed itself to be every bit as sexist as the Pubs, recognized that the DNP believed it owned women because it was the pro-choice party (was being the operative word). Many of us had previously remained party loyals prior to 2008, in part, because of the reproductive rights issue, and the constant threat posed to them by the right wing of the Pubs. Applying the logic offered in the article that we could not allow our political affiliation to be governed totally by that one issue, we wised up, and many of us set that issue aside, and voted for McCain/Palin.

While I remain unwilling to pledge my vote to any single party, based on the abortion issue (neither party seems to be pro-choice, anyway), neither am I willing to let that issue become irrelevant. We have seen the erosion of abortion rights at the hands of the Dems in passing the Health Care Fiasco. Women health care issues were used as bargaining chips. We can't afford to totally turn our attention away from the issue at this point, in my opinion.

I agree that women need to be united. But I find it hard to accept that it would be necessary to sacrifice hard won rights in the process. We can't afford to continue to go backwards when it comes to abortion rights. If the fundamental, basic right to possess control over one's body and reproductive system is not a right worth fighting for, what is?

As much as I would like to see women united and able to exercise the power that comes with numbers, at this point, I would find it very difficult to support a political candidate - Democrat or Republican - who would not actively support reproductive rights. Would it be enough to have a leader who will agree not to try to diminish abortion rights, as some have said about Sarah Palin? I don't know. At the rate we're losing ground, it would certainly be nice to have a more pro-active candidate.

Amy makes some valid points. Answers won't be simple, and IMO we do need to keep trying to forge alliances and bring women together. I, personally, don't care what the candidate's party affiliation is. That's no longer an issue with me. I want a candidate who will stand up for women and women's rights.

Sanders · Diamond

This is an excellent article. I will home in on this particular paragraph.

2. Republican Women are not the enemy

So sure that Republican women don't care about women's issues? Think again!

Without the support of the four female Republican Senators, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would not have passed. The Republican women were also instrumental in passing Al Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment, working with Democratic women to co-sponsor Mammogram Coverage Amendment, and speaking out for the women of Afghanistan.

Yes, apparently four Republican Women supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. For that, we must thank AND SUPPORT those women. As said very well in The New Agenda:
In politics, it is never easy to go against the grain. So, let’s thank the brave Republican women who took one for the team. Thank you, Kay Hutchison from Texas, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

But Republicans have not supported Lisa Murkowski in her re-election bid in the primaries!!! And, the emerging leader of the GOP group, a female, has characterized Lisa Murkowski as a "liberal". There was really no other policy reason to stand against Lisa Murkowski. I was very disappointed that Palin stood against Murkowski -- that speaks volumes about Palin and that she is NOT supportive of women's equality.

I still hope that Murkowski wins the primary or gets on the ballot as an independent (not looking good on this) and indeed the election in Fall. .. but the chances are near zero at this point.

We have to look VERY CLOSELY at the political actions of emerging leaders to assess what they are saying and doing in terms of policies related to women. Simply acknowledging that they have gained from the (liberal) policies intended to uplift women towards equality does not make them a proponent of women's equality.

So, yes, Republican is not the enemy of (progressive) women. But regardless of which party they originate from, if they are showing anti-women's equality posturing/moves those most certainly indicate that they are the enemy of (progressive) women in their political interests. Now, I emphasize that last piece because that's what will matter when the pen hits the paper in the end. If they are not principled enough to stand up for women's issues at every turn, it will not happen when it truly matters.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Voting Records --- Notice, that Specter (R-PA), Yea

Also, Kay B.Hutchison has not won her bid for Governor. And she has announced she is leaving her senator role. How much have we women supported Murkowski, Hutchison and Specter. You see?

It is incumbent upon all of us who are pro-women's equality - Liberal/progressive/centrist/pro-women Repub women and men who want to support women's equality to support candidates who support and progress women's equality (regardless of their gender or party). It does not mean that we vote for the woman on the ballot, rather the person who is most pro-women's equality.

And, in making that distinction, watch out for those who use their gender to obfuscate feminism as an issue and use their gender to appeal to women as a voter block while happily being (non-)supporter of women's issues that they tout under a different banner of conservatism vs. liberalism and appeal to men and more women . When you see that happening, be sure to call out and support the candidate who is more pro-women' issues.

-- Edited by Sanders on Tuesday 31st of August 2010 12:09:08 PM

freespirit · Moderator

We have our candidate. We all know she should be president at this very minute. If Hillary doesn't run, at this point, there will have to be someone pretty damn spectacular for whom to vote. Otherwise, for me, at least, 2012 may be the year to protest by abstaining, period.

Jen the Michigander · SuperModerator

Sanders, you made a great point about Lisa Murkowski. One problem I have with the Tea Party right now is that they're engaged in some sort of ideological purge within the Republican Party. The moderates (who tend to support women's rights) are being thrown under the bus in favor of candidates who are more conservative. As a voter, I am perfectly willing to support moderate Republican candidates like John McCain or Michigan gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder, but I don't want to have anything to do with these right-wingers, especially if they bring their religion into the mix. I am a Christian, but all this talk from Glenn Beck and others about restoring America's values gives me the willies.

freespirit · Moderator

I am a Christian, but all this talk from Glenn Beck and others about restoring America's values gives me the willies.

__________________

My feelings exactly.

jdona · Platinum

I think the over riding point of the article is disagree with conservative women's policies, but not to use language that relegates them as less than competent, or reduce them to a body part or otherwise demean them simply because they are women. And I agree. Call them out on policy differences, but do not dismiss them as unqualified because they are women. I also agree that we need to defend our reproductive rights, but not allow ourselves to be reduced or controlled by that one issue. Either party right now is suspect on abortion rights, but I am not going to have my voted hijacked by the fear factor. All I can do is be ready to protest and defend that right. The one thing I have never understood is why and how women are so ready to be each other's worst enemy. The sad fact is that we are.