Hillary Sexism Watch: Katie Couric edition
Nice question, Couric. Jeez.
Via Shakes, with whom I share the same STFU sentiment.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hillary Sexism Watch: Katie Couric edition.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/6846
You've gotta love Hillary though-- she puts the blame right back on those dumb boys for being inappropriate. She rules!
Ew, Katie, really? Props to Hillary for handling the question gracefully, but still, ew.
Agreed, Zoe. Good for Hillary--a strong answer, imo.
What is wrong with Katie Couric? She has an opportunity to be influential woman in the mainstream media, one who has the power behind her to at least not participate in sexist discussion, but she opts in.
Couric perpetuates the concept that feminism is unlikeable by playing the part of the successful woman who acts like feminism is just silly and outdated. Thats what this clip said to me.
Pull it together! Be more like Hillary! This gives me just one more reason to support her candidacy.
Here's another entry for the sexism watch, c/o Pandagon which is c/o this:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/cpac-dispatch-by-digby-and-then-theres.html
Second shirt down.
But the last one is probably the funniest thing ever.
And then Huffington gives this sexist the space on her website to spout his anti-Hillary garbage:
link
Go Obama!!!
/sarcasm
God knows if Obama came on her show she'd probably be swooning over him...
"I heard in high school you wore a leather jacket and were a total bad boy..."
Every time I see this woman shirk off another idiotic question, the more I like her.
I didn't vote for her, but I love the idea of having a president who can withstand being abused for 16 years and still kick ass. Her skin must be a mile thick.
I can understand wanting to be casual but those questions were just dumb. What would she have asked Barak Obama or John McCain, "Did you pull the little girls pig tails in grade school?"
I agree with Jenny, Couric is totally blowing probably the one opportunity that female news anchors are going to have for a long time.
God knows if Obama came on her show she'd probably be swooning over him...
"I heard in high school you wore a leather jacket and were a total bad boy..."
If I vote for Hilary, it will largely be because of her ability to handle inappropriate/mean/awkward situations with grace. All candidates get a lot of ridiculous coverage, but she's been amazing at handling it all and, despite common belief, pretty funny, too.
I can't access any video at work -- would someone mind telling me what the question was? I'm guessing it had something to do with the Frigidaire story that has been floating around.
Just think that much of Hillarys life has been this kind of shit.
Ugh. I'm not sure I should thank you for the link, SarahMC, but it certainly shows how sexist supposedly progressive men can be. His commentary is nothing but the same old "feminists don't have a sense of humor" schtick.
So he sees that a High School yearbook named Hillary likely to become a Nun named Sister Frigidaire and thinks that's just a hilarious joke. What I see is a young woman who was harassed for not being accomodating to teh menz, and has been continually dogged and harassed by the right wing for all of her public life and is still standing strong. And as a woman I can't help but admire that.
Men are so intimidated by women who have more to accmoplish than gaining their approval they will do anything to tear us down.
Stephen Kaus needs to STFU.
Thank you for linking to the HuffPo garbage, SarahMC - I had mentioned it in another thread but the thread was old; my bad. People need to see this stuff; the Huffington Post has been one of the worst offenders when it comes to sexist remarks about, and characterizations of, Hillary. It's pretty pathetic but I guess it is a good illustration of the way people can really believe they are / claim to be progressive (pro-environment! pro-reproductive rights! pro-equal pay! etc) and yet their treatment of women in real life betrays deeply rooted sexism and misogyny. It's as if they don't see the connection at all between women's rights in the abstract, and treatment of individual women in the here-and-now.
" Sister Frigidaire "
Why would Couric even use this. Shouldnt Couric be wiser to this kind of crap-after all shes probably known by alot of her peers as a Sister Frigidaire. Doesnt she know its sexist remarks from a little prick from the 70s and wasnt even worth bringing into the 21st century? Was she trying to get some innapropriate thread to spin to the audience of dim-witted sexist Americans to cowtow to the image of Hillary as a "nut-cracker." Crappy journalism by Couric. Maybe shes the one with a hidden dick?
I hope that HRC is keeping a journal and that in a couple of decades she publishes a scathing book about sexism in politics.
what I'm really annoyed by is how Hillary-critiquers are characterizing her response to Couric as further proof that she is "humorless". Not only did she not take it personally, she turned it around and then laughed. I don't know what humorless means to people, but that's certainly not my definition.
"Humorless" means making and enjoying jokes about men and masculinity, thatabbygrrl--everybody knows that!
Remember Ellen Willis's fabulous line: Not laughing at jokes about big breasts and frigid women means that you're a humorless bitch. Laughing at jokes about small penises means that you're a castrating bitch.
Apparently to Stephen Kaus, humorless means suggesting that those innocent, good-humored boys who called Hillary "Sister Frigidaire" might not have been very nice after all.
Because she doesn't see how funny it is to make fun of girls who don't put out. She must be humorless.
O gawsh that's just sooooooooooooo funy an cute what with Katie an all, just a little girltalk between bffs, unscripted banter carefully scripted by the jockstrap league in the backroom who can fucking feel their ballsacks shriveling because they're the ones that Hil wouldn't go down on behind the bleachers, they're the ones she still wouldn't assume the position for even when they assumed positions of such power that they should've -- otherwise what is power for, dammit -- been able to squash one uppity little...
First Lady.
Senator.
Frontrunning candidate for President of the United States of America.
You fucks. So shut the fuck up already. In case you haven't gotten it: You can't knock her down with this crap. Trying and failing is just gonna make you feel littler. And littler.
/vent
PS: I'm leaning towards Obama but this SHIT the goons are flinging at Hillary pisses me off.
I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm still giving mad props to Hillary for handling this bullshit so well.
I remember when I actually used to read Huff Po.....
What do you expect, they now have Bill Maher as part of their ensemble, that says it all.
I voted for Obama today, but still can' stand this crap. Katie, she looks like she belongs back on "Today" discussing Valentine's Day weddings or something.
I would have liked to see Hilary sort of slap Katie across the face or maybe a left hook, to snap her out of it.
Though I am supporting Obama, I think the way the media has treated Senator Clinton is really disgusting. That said, she handles this type of thing really well, and I respect her immensely for that. It has to be difficult dealing with such blatant sexism all over the place while being in the spotlight. I don't care what the boys in high school called her. I care about what she would do for our country if elected. End of story.
Sometimes I think we never really leave high school. ugh.
Melissa McEwan did a roundup of the 62 posts on misogynist incidences the Clinton campaign has had to put up with... since September. Let alone the last, what, 16 years?
This woman is tough as nails, smart as a whip, and stronger than any other candidate in recent history. She deserves to be president.
OMG, I hate Katie Couric. Perhaps the only person worse than her is Matt Lauer.
One of the many things I love about Clinton is her ability to turn those dumbassed comments around and actually make the interviewer seem like the tool.
Someday, when you "feminist" Obamatons are older, a young girl will read about the only election in which a woman had a chance to be the president and ask you, "Why didn't she win grandma?"
Because young people and wealthy white feminists like me abandoned her. We also abandoned the working class, the elderly, asian americans, hispanic americans, gay and lesbian americans, and women in general, but they just weren't educated enough to understand how powerful President Obama's speeches were. Everyone who counts in America was totally united behind President Obama, just like he kept telling us. I mean, wealthy white men, wealthy white women, african americans, who else is there really?
"Why didn't you support her?"
She wasn't liberal enough, she had the wrong last name, and she wasn't as good a public speaker as President Obama. She also had way too much experience especially when it came to universal health care and balancing the budget. And her plans were too well thought out and detailed, they just didn't make us feel as warm and fuzzy as vague promises and catch phrases. That's what American feminists are all about.
"What's a feminist?"
Hmmm... I feel like I knew the answer to that question a long time ago, at least I thought I did. I think it has something to do with supporting women? Oh well, it's not important now, the important thing is that we all voted for change we could believe in. You know, a wise man once said, the world as it is is not the world as it has to be. We are not red states and blue states, we are the United States. A new day is coming.
"What does that mean grandma? States used to have colors?"
Well, they still do, but we're all in this together. Tomorrow is not yesterday. We must move forwards not backwards, upwards, not forwards, and forever twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom.
"That sounds silly. Do you think I could be the first woman president someday grandma?"
Sure you can sweetie, all you have to do is have hope and believe in the power of change...
The media hates Hillary because she's so good at making them look like the fools they are.
I have one 9-month-old grandson and another grandchild on the way. As a fervent young feminist in 1970, I never expected I might have to explain to my grandchildren why there hadn't been a woman president. My 32-year-old daughter astonished me by saying a woman president isn't important to her.
I have one 9-month-old grandson and another grandchild on the way. As a fervent young feminist in 1970, I never expected I might have to explain to my grandchildren why there hadn't been a woman president. My 32-year-old daughter astonished me by saying a woman president isn't important to her.
I have one 9-month-old grandson and another grandchild on the way. As a fervent young feminist in 1970, I never expected I might have to explain to my grandchildren why there hadn't been a woman president. My 32-year-old daughter astonished me by saying a woman president isn't important to her.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241915915951669.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
this awful article by peggy noonan almost killed me when I read it the other day.
"She often talks about how tough she is. She has fought "the Republican attack machine" that has tried to "stop" her, "end" her, and she knows "how to fight them." She is preoccupied to an unusual degree with toughness. A man so preoccupied would seem weak. But a woman obsessed with how tough she is just may be lethal."
"What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"
Does it seem like many woman don't *want* another woman to become president? Like a jealously thing?
Like, "hey I went to Wellesley too and all I got was 2 kids, a neglectful husband, a McMansion in the 'burbs and a job at which I work too many hours. Hillary sure as hell isn't going to outshine me!"
I have a disdain for the mainstream media that boast the intensity of a thousand burning suns.
I don't like Couric much, either.
amanohyo--wow, assuming much? because, clearly no one with a vagina could have legitimate reasons for voting for a candidate who does not also have a vagina.
i hate the sexist hillary coverage as much as anyone, but let's not pretend she's some flawless candidate. i have serious, serious doubts about her ability to beat john mccain. that alone is reason enough for me to think twice about voting for her.
Peggy Noonan said Hillary doesn't have grace? Is she kidding? Has she been watching how Hillary handles all the sexism? She exemplifies grace.
Shakespeare's Sister had an interesting post about how Obama benefits from the sexism against Hillary in the media: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/01/fighting-sexism-is-meant-to-be.html
If racist attacks were coming out against Obama, don't you think she would be expected to speak out against them?
Just another example of how it's been decided that racism isn't okay anymore, but sexism sure is.
Mary Jo, WOW. I have to say, sometimes I seriously do not understand my generation. Women my age are pissing me off all the time. I have nothing against Obama; as many of you know, I started off this campaign season (waaaaaaay back when) with a ginormous Obama crush. I carried the Obama flag for months before realizing 1) I didn't actually like his actual policy ideas as much as I thought I would, and 2) I really, really, REALLY want a woman president. In a way I did not realize until the sexist MSM made me realize how badly I want it.
So you can count me as part of the MSM backlash. Thanks to the MSM, not only am I leaning towards Hillary, I am moved in and not budging an inch from her camp.
I wish more women my age understood why this is so motherfucking important.
I haven't been this angry in a long time. Not just from this Couric thing, but I strolled on over to that long, long summary of all the shit this woman has had to deal with. Unbelievable.
I think Hillary handled the question as gracefully as possible, but it is an insidious question.
If Hillary responds by telling Couric that's an insulting question to ask, then she is marking herself as still being "Frigidaire". So she has to respond some other way that doesn't challenge that question as representable.
Good for her, turning it around like that, I'm just upset that trap questions are still so effective.
wow amanohyo, you really put the ass in assumption there. not only about obama's demographic, but about why people decide not to vote for hillary.
Is anyone else wondering what Katie's nicknames in highschool were?
Blechhhh!!!
Oh, and to be clear, I'm not suggesting that voting for Obama is inherently anti-feminist. My comments are limited to those who think that the fact that we have a WOMAN running, with a real shot at actually becoming the president, is irrelevant. It is NOT irrelevant. If you legitimately just plain think Obama will be a better president, then you should not vote for Hillary. But if you think that Hillary's candidacy is not big deal, that Obama's candidacy is somehow "more important" because "we need a black president more than we need a female president" (something a coworker ACTUALLY said to me last week), that having a female president would not be ridiculously fucking HUGE for women everywhere... then, as much as I love democracy, um. Please don't vote. Please.
lawfairy--i didn't take your comment that way at all and i totally agree with you.
i'm just getting sick and tired of being derided by other feminists, like amanohyo, who essentially call anyone who supports obama a traitor to feminism or some such nonsense. i do not believe it should be difficult to make the case for why hillary is the better candidate without insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees.
Gosh, amanohyo, let me see if I get this straight. The only reason a person who calls herself a so-called feminist would see to NOT vote for Senator Clinton is that she has become some sort of mindless automaton incapable of assessing each candidates' views, voting records, and positions on the issues, and is really only voting for Obama out of some drone-like following of a cult of personality.
It couldn't have anything to do with actual issues. We're just secretly antifeminists who don't really want a vagina in the White House.
Think what you want, but if you ask me, that's just a lazy and oversimplified way of looking at things, and it only breeds animosity among the members of a party that should be united in defeating the likely Republican nominee, who is certainly more dangerous than either Democratic candidate.
Gosh, amanohyo, let me see if I get this straight. The only reason a person who calls herself a so-called feminist would see to NOT vote for Senator Clinton is that she has become some sort of mindless automaton incapable of assessing each candidates' views, voting records, and positions on the issues, and is really only voting for Obama out of some drone-like following of a cult of personality.
It couldn't have anything to do with actual issues. We're just secretly antifeminists who don't really want a vagina in the White House.
Think what you want, but if you ask me, that's just a lazy and oversimplified way of looking at things, and it only breeds animosity among the members of a party that should be united in defeating the likely Republican nominee, who is certainly more dangerous than either Democratic candidate.
Gosh, amanohyo, let me see if I have this straight. The only reason a person who calls herself a so-called feminist would see to NOT vote for Senator Clinton is that she has become some sort of mindless automaton incapable of assessing each candidates' views, voting records, and positions on the issues, and is really only voting for Obama out of some drone-like following of a cult of personality?
It couldn't have anything to do with actual issues, of course. We're just secretly antifeminists who don't really want a vagina in the White House.
Think what you want, but if you ask me, that's just a lazy and oversimplified way of looking at things, and it only breeds animosity among the members of a party that should be united in defeating the likely Republican nominee, who is certainly more dangerous than either Democratic candidate.
Law Fairy - I totally agree. I'm so tired of explaining how incredibly badly we need a female president, and how much symbolic weight that really has (in my opinion, far outweighing the vague and infinitesimal policy differences between the candidates).
Also, why do *all* my male friends support Obama? My female friends are probably 50-50, which seems reasonable enough, but I only know one man under 50 who's willing to work under a woman. Who says women are the ones voting gender??
"ducks"...I think that most of the people voting Obama are misinformed. I know why people don't vote Hillary---they're ignorant and have jumped on the HillaryHate bandwagon. I just don't get why the feminists arent voting Hillary. Care to explain, in specifics (not broad sweeping generalizations like he has good plicies), why not? I think that Hillary winning the presidency would be magnificent--our equivalent of previous generations' winning the vote.
amanohyo says:
She wasn't liberal enough
Seriously? You think that's a trivial reason we should all rise above and vote for Clinton just because she's a woman? Would you have voted for Elizabeth Dole? Would you vote for Ann Coulter of she were running for something? I'm sorry, I may be a feminist but I refuse to believe that voting for a woman candidate is always the feminist thing to do.
It seems rather self-centered to say that America electing a female president would mean so much to the world. There have been other women in the highest position possible in their country before, but when was the last time a majority white country elected a non-white leader?
Just tossing it out there - in case people here haven't read it yet, this post by Kate Harding at Shakesville addresses so-called "vagina voting":
frustration with vague anti-Clintonism:
and the best line I've read in quite some time:
A question I keep hearing is why not vote Hillary? I'll admit that I was totally pro-Clinton when all this got started, because I know how monumental it would be to have a female president and I can't wait to see it happen.
As more and more candidates arrived I fell head over heels for Kucinich's policies. He didn't vote for the war or to fund it. He favored full legal marriage for GLBT people and his domestic violence plan rocked.
He's not running now (and that makes me sad) but the point I'm trying to make is that, while having a woman in office would be awesome, we need to vote based on the issues. Clinton is only in favor of civil unions. And where's her plan to end domestic violence? Not that Obama's any better, mind you. (Personally, I can't decide between the two just yet.)
I agree with Av0gadro.
Voting for Sen. Clinton based only on her gender is every bit as bad, in my opinion, as voting against her for the same reason.
http://www.alternet.org/story/51626/?page=entire
This article is more about homophobia in American mainstream than sexism, but the two go hand in hand pretty well.
As for voting polices over gender or feminism, Clinton v. Obama is not a very strong case to make. They're both mainstream democrats struggling to differentiate themselves from each other on policy outlooks that are largely the same. All the more reason to vote for Clinton, in my opinion.
Look around you, our congress is 74% men, our executive branch is well over that, our supreme court is 89% men, our police force, CEOs, law firm partners, military commanders, doctors, judges, mayors, chefs, professors, deans, most famous athletes, journalists, religious leaders, stage and film directors, are vastly more populated by men than women.
You are all aware of all this. Think about it. Women are 51% of the population. But I've never seen a woman conduct an orchestra or heard a female voice from the cockpit of a plane. I've never attended a school with a female president or principal, and I've never lived under an administration with more than one or two women in an office of any importance. I've certainly never read a judgment from the Supreme Court where they conceived of a "reasonable woman" standard.
This isn't going to change by waiting for a female messiah, it's going to change when we accept women as they are and realize they're just as good and shouldn't have to prove themselves more than a man. And that is dependent on giving them credit and getting them in power and at long last handing them real authority, a step so far only barely conceived of on the feminist fringe.
"She wasn't liberal enough
Seriously? You think that's a trivial reason we should all rise above and vote for Clinton just because she's a woman? Would you have voted for Elizabeth Dole? Would you vote for Ann Coulter of she were running for something? I'm sorry, I may be a feminist but I refuse to believe that voting for a woman candidate is always the feminist thing to do."
And yet...Hillary Clinton is decidedly NOT Elizabeth Dole or Ann Coulter, or anything even close. There is about 97% overlap between her policies and Obama's. It really does seem like backlash to me - are you afraid of being ACCUSED of voting for her based on her vagina or something, so are overcompensating?
are you afraid of being ACCUSED of voting for her based on her vagina or something, so are overcompensating?
I'm not afraid of being accused of voting with my vagina. I've never been accused of voting with my vagina. And, like Kate Harding said, my vagina likes the cute boys. Really, it only ever votes for my husband these days, and stays out of politics. But I've been accused repeatedly by feminists as varied as Gloria Steinem and amanohyo of being some kind of traitor to womankind for not choosing Clinton because of her gender. Yes, there's a lot of overlap between the candidates. But maybe the differences are about something important to me.
Honestly, I haven't chosen between the candidates. And I live in Oregon, so I don't have to. By the end of May, it will all be decided. But I don't believe there are no valid reasons for a woman to choose Obama. And I think feminists who tell us so are oversimplifying the issues, treating us like children, and acting like the patriarchy.
"Mary Jo, WOW. I have to say, sometimes I seriously do not understand my generation. Women my age are pissing me off all the time. I have nothing against Obama; as many of you know, I started off this campaign season (waaaaaaay back when) with a ginormous Obama crush. I carried the Obama flag for months before realizing 1) I didn't actually like his actual policy ideas as much as I thought I would, and 2) I really, really, REALLY want a woman president. In a way I did not realize until the sexist MSM made me realize how badly I want it."
Wow, project much? Not all women are campaigning for Obama for the same airheaded reasons you were.
Sappho, *exactly*. I've noticed the same thing, and it REALLY bugs me. In fact, the ONLY man I have heard say he would even consider voting for Hillary is my brother. Who is an avowed Republican. My supposedly progressive male colleagues are all falling into one unified line. Voting by fender indeed.
Waxghost, you don't think having a woman president would be a big deal? you don't think that's something incredibly important? You don't think that the fact that, in our almost-250-year history, we have never once elected a woman (when, I am sure you would be quick to point out, at least half of the people available for the job are women)? You know what? Go fuck yourself.
Pearl, wow, read carelessly much?
Hahaha, and by "fender" I mean gender.
Law Fairy, try reading what I actually said and not making ridiculous assumptions.
I don't believe in voting for or against anyone because of a reason other than their platform and experience. I am sick of having people assume I'm voting for Clinton for any reason other than the fact that I think she's the best candidate and will do the best job. The vagina factor is seriously just a bonus for me.
Having said that, if I felt exactly perfectly the same way about two candidates' platforms and experiences and one were male and the other female, I freely admit that I'd probably choose the female. But I'm not going to choose a candidate JUST because she's a woman.
It's actually really starting to piss me off that people assume that's why I'm voting for Clinton. Yes, I am a white woman voting for a white woman. No, asshat, that's not WHY I like her. I'm smart enough to read her stance as well as the stances of other candidates, and I like what she says.
(That wasn't directed at anyone here, just at the world at large.)
Also, I don't think voting for Obama makes one inherently sexist (just like voting for Clinton doesn't make you racist). Unless you choose him because he's a man (or her because she's white). But people who would do that probably aren't going to vote Democrat anyway.
I am seriously very much hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket in '08 (and hopefully '12) then Obama as Pres after that in '16 (and '20 - holy shit, 2020 sounds so futuristic and it's really not all that far away). We could seriously have 16 years of fierce Presidential awesomeness. It may actually make a dent in undoing all the damage Bush has done.
By the way, the U.S. is one of the few fully developed nations to have only elected white men. I met some Swiss students on the subway who were amazed that we hadn't (they asked about my Hillary button). Apparently Switzerland has had several (I want to say 6? I could be wrong) female leaders.
Sorry, the last paragraph should read:
"By the way, the U.S. is one of the few fully developed nations to have only elected white men. I met some Swiss students on the subway who were amazed that we hadn't *had a female president* (they asked about my Hillary button). Apparently Switzerland has had several (I want to say 6? I could be wrong) female leaders."
The stars are around the little section I left out. I should not read feministing while attempting to write a paper...even though I'm supposed to write about the success or failure of the campaign of a candidate and I chose Clinton...I really should have just come and found the links I needed and not started commenting. Bad Liza!
"Does it seem like many woman don't *want* another woman to become president? Like a jealously thing?"
I was wondering the exact same thing. I remember on the third or second season of the "L Word" Moira, during a dinner, regaled the group with an analogy of using lobsters as the examples. She said when male lobsters are put in the boiling water, you have to have a lid to keep them from escaping, whereby you can forgo the lid with the female lobsters, because they all pin each other down because if one isn't going to the top, none are.
However, lobsters don't have to deal with misogyny-or lets hope they don't!
You know, *I* knew that George Bush was totally trumping up an imaginary case to go to war with Iraq. Why didn't Senator Clinton?
When the bankruptcy bill that would have prioritized paying back your credit cards over your child support came up in Congress in 1995 or so, President Clinton was seriously considering signing it to punish deadbeats who don't pay for their lattes and their big screen tv's. Two female researchers got time with Hillary Clinton, where they pointed out to her their research showing the real reasons people end up in debt (high cost of housing anywhere parents would want to live, basically), and how this bill would be devastating for children of divorce. Clinton was swayed by their research and made her recommendation to her husband that he veto it, and he did. But when it came back in front of the Senator from New York in 2001, she voted for it. Damn near the same bill. Because Senators need re-election money from Chase and Citibank when they're running in New York. ("The Two-Income Trap", Warren and Warren-Tyagi, 2003.)
There are, believe it or not, good reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I like her as a person, I have defended her vigorously against assholes who think that because she loved her husband enough to work things out after his infidelity she's either a bad feminist or it proves she never loved him (whaaaaa?), and I used to consider her a personal role model. But she has just made too many stupid and/or self-serving decisions while Senator. I haven't seen any evidence of Obama being a moron who couldn't see something *I*, a layperson, could see just from reading the news, or evidence of Obama being a hypocrite who voted in favor of something he used to oppose because it was where his bread was buttered now.
If Clinton wins the election after all, I will in good conscience campaign for her, send her donations and vote for her, without as many reservations as I had doing the same for John Kerry after he beat my choice in 2004. But I do *not* consider her the best candidate for the job, and this is after factoring in how badly I want to see a female president. I don't demand perfection -- if she were up against John Kerry and Joe Biden, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But she's not as good as the other choice in the race, in my opinion, because of her votes on Iraq and her hypocrisy on bankruptcy.
You know, *I* knew that George Bush was totally trumping up an imaginary case to go to war with Iraq. Why didn't Senator Clinton?
When the bankruptcy bill that would have prioritized paying back your credit cards over your child support came up in Congress in 1995 or so, President Clinton was seriously considering signing it to punish deadbeats who don't pay for their lattes and their big screen tv's. Two female researchers got time with Hillary Clinton, where they pointed out to her their research showing the real reasons people end up in debt (high cost of housing anywhere parents would want to live, basically), and how this bill would be devastating for children of divorce. Clinton was swayed by their research and made her recommendation to her husband that he veto it, and he did. But when it came back in front of the Senator from New York in 2001, she voted for it. Damn near the same bill. Because Senators need re-election money from Chase and Citibank when they're running in New York. ("The Two-Income Trap", Warren and Warren-Tyagi, 2003.)
There are, believe it or not, good reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I like her as a person, I have defended her vigorously against assholes who think that because she loved her husband enough to work things out after his infidelity she's either a bad feminist or it proves she never loved him (whaaaaa?), and I used to consider her a personal role model. But she has just made too many stupid and/or self-serving decisions while Senator. I haven't seen any evidence of Obama being a moron who couldn't see something *I*, a layperson, could see just from reading the news, or evidence of Obama being a hypocrite who voted in favor of something he used to oppose because it was where his bread was buttered now.
If Clinton wins the election after all, I will in good conscience campaign for her, send her donations and vote for her, without as many reservations as I had doing the same for John Kerry after he beat my choice in 2004. But I do *not* consider her the best candidate for the job, and this is after factoring in how badly I want to see a female president. I don't demand perfection -- if she were up against John Kerry and Joe Biden, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But she's not as good as the other choice in the race, in my opinion, because of her votes on Iraq and her hypocrisy on bankruptcy.
You know, *I* knew that George Bush was totally trumping up an imaginary case to go to war with Iraq. Why didn't Senator Clinton?
When the bankruptcy bill that would have prioritized paying back your credit cards over your child support came up in Congress in 1995 or so, President Clinton was seriously considering signing it to punish deadbeats who don't pay for their lattes and their big screen tv's. Two female researchers got time with Hillary Clinton, where they pointed out to her their research showing the real reasons people end up in debt (high cost of housing anywhere parents would want to live, basically), and how this bill would be devastating for children of divorce. Clinton was swayed by their research and made her recommendation to her husband that he veto it, and he did. But when it came back in front of the Senator from New York in 2001, she voted for it. Damn near the same bill. Because Senators need re-election money from Chase and Citibank when they're running in New York. ("The Two-Income Trap", Warren and Warren-Tyagi, 2003.)
There are, believe it or not, good reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I like her as a person, I have defended her vigorously against assholes who think that because she loved her husband enough to work things out after his infidelity she's either a bad feminist or it proves she never loved him (whaaaaa?), and I used to consider her a personal role model. But she has just made too many stupid and/or self-serving decisions while Senator. I haven't seen any evidence of Obama being a moron who couldn't see something *I*, a layperson, could see just from reading the news, or evidence of Obama being a hypocrite who voted in favor of something he used to oppose because it was where his bread was buttered now.
If Clinton wins the election after all, I will in good conscience campaign for her, send her donations and vote for her, without as many reservations as I had doing the same for John Kerry after he beat my choice in 2004. But I do *not* consider her the best candidate for the job, and this is after factoring in how badly I want to see a female president. I don't demand perfection -- if she were up against John Kerry and Joe Biden, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. But she's not as good as the other choice in the race, in my opinion, because of her votes on Iraq and her hypocrisy on bankruptcy.
The Path of Least Resistance No More
Today we look to the future for women's rights. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would be writing to you as the President of NOW New York State. It has been almost four years since you elected me and I continue to feel humbled and honored to be serving you.
As I look back on my eighteen years in NOW, I'm proud to see just how far we've come. Many of you know that prior to my becoming President of NOW-NYS, my life's work was conducted with an eye toward helping women to become economically independent. A woman should never have to depend on anyone for her survival. I know that, back in 2004, many of you voted for me precisely because of that business experience along with my dedication to fighting for all women.
Today, as your principal lobbyist, I find myself doubting the power of good laws, and questioning whether they are really doing what our movement intended. Indeed, during my four years as President, we have passed some great laws in New York. Chapters have worked hard, holding together sometimes by a thread, calling upon their leaders to do great things, giving of their time and more when necessary.
Chapter activists have walked the halls of our State Legislature, held rallies, written letters, and made countless phone calls to Legislators. We have worked both in coalitions and as lone wolves to fight for what is rightfully ours...to be treated as full equals in society. We have seen successful legislation pass that is excellent for women. For example we ended the statute of limitation for rape, facilitated good and effective anti-trafficking laws, and enacted better protection for sexual assault victims. And we have held countless meetings, strategizing on how to make the world a better place for women and girls. NOW New York State and chapters around the state made this all happen.
Yet as I sit in the quiet of my office, I cannot help but wonder what is missing. I know that my desire to motivate all of you must come from the bottom of my heart. And I assure you that it has and it does. My heart continues to have enough for space for everyone. So I know what I need to say to you all.
It is not to ask you to write more letters, to wear out more shoes walking the halls of the legislature, or to hold more rallies, although we must continue to do all the above. What I feel and must convey is that we have somehow missed the boat on stopping, or indeed even slowing, the venom of sexism in our society, both internalized and externalized.
In the months prior to this newsletter, sexism has played out as never before in the political arena. It has taken a viable, intelligent woman running for President to show the world just how rampant sexism is in our society. Our heartfelt support goes out to Hillary Clinton for her brave stance and her willingness to be the sacrificial lamb for the entire world to see just how prevalent sexism is in this country and around the world. A widely distributed article "Goodbye to All That (#2)" by legendary feminist Robin Morgan covers this subject in depth. http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
And yes, we have seen the damage. We have seen the ravages of sexism play out before our very eyes in ways that many of us could not imagine. We have seen a symbol of strength (yes, she's the one we have been waiting for) nearly destroyed by the media, the pundits, and her own co-workers (both male and female) in ways that none could have ever predicted.
Of course, in every movement, there are those who throw down the gauntlet and those who will quiver in the corner for fear of displeasing their abusers. We of NOW NYS are not the latter. And while sometimes, as your leader, I have been guilty of measuring my responses too much, it has been not out of fear, but out of respect. But now I ask myself: respect for whom?
We have seen, heard, and read about the internalized sexism that continues to oppress women. Well today we see it in spades, in the countless articles spewing immeasurable hatred, the distasteful comments by women pundits who are themselves beneficiaries of the women's movement, and even from some of our own NOW sisters who say: "this Hillary stuff is distracting us from the work we have to do." WHAT WORK, one wonders? This is our work! We need very much to recognize that combating what we have seen, heard and experienced via Hillary Clinton IS OUR WORK!
So now, after eighteen years in NOW, I feel, more than ever that what we need is more consciousness raising. On behalf of NOW-NYS I spoke out when Senator Ted Kennedy (D) endorsed Hillary Clinton's opponent for President of the United States. A great many people understood why I spoke out so strongly. By the way I'm keeping all of your emails and letters to remind me that some people really did get it.
But my visibility on the Kennedy front was not so much about Kennedy. It was about the abuse and discrimination that women face everyday. It was about how women dedicate twenty or thirty years to a company, only to be replaced by a younger, inexperienced person, usually male. It was about the exhaustion that many women feel about decades of trying to convince lawmakers to give us our rights. In short, it was about the ongoing and persistent abuse of women. I make no apologies.
You might have heard that I was asked to make a retraction. That is not true. And I kept thinking that the discomfort or queasiness some felt was not about my statement, but about our learned philosophy of cajoling, rather than demanding and taking. It goes very deep, I think. It cuts to the quick of our very being as women. It is about our own internalized sexism. Perhaps some of those who did not like my statement are those who have not shed all the patriarch-instilled feelings of fear and intimidation. Perhaps patriarchy still informs their hearts, their minds and their souls.
For in our society, fear plays a powerful role against women. Fear is an emotion that has controlled countless individuals for centuries. Indeed many churches use it with complete impunity! But fear should have no place in our movement. People have accused me of sending the message: "you are either with us or against us." I answer that "we must be willing to give it our all, or nothing." And we must be willing to give it for someone else. Not for ourselves alone.
I have found my life's work. I have found who I am as a daughter, a granddaughter, a sister, an aunt...a woman. I know that wherever I am and whatever I am doing, I will continue to advocate for women and girls. This is not a job to me. This is not a salary. This IS my purpose. My belief in our movement is so strong that I am willing to go to the mat for it. And this is my wish for all of you who read this. My desire for all of you is that you find your voice, as did Hillary and as have I. We need to do this, not for ourselves alone, but for every woman... for every woman who stands up and shouts "no more," for every woman who runs for president, and for every woman who refuses to walk the path of least resistance.