New York Chapter of NOW is Sexist?
I can understand NOW-NY supporting Clinton because she is a woman, but to say that Kennedy has made the “greatest betrayal” of women by supporting Obama? That seems a bit disingenuous to me. I admit that I am a white male and so can never understand, yadda, yadda… but if you are really concerned about women’s issues, at least tally up their scores on women’s issues and say that Obama isn’t as strong and that is the betrayal. They specifically mention though that it is because Clinton is a woman that she should be elected. That is insane. Let’s hope Ann Coulter doesn’t run for president! Now there’s someone who would really advance NOW’s agenda.
January 29th, 2008 at 13:39
1. It’s incorrect to ascribe the statement to the National Organization of Women as a whole. It’s only the New York chapter. Do you suppose that could have something to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton is a New York senator? The blog post you link to makes the distinction clear, so why are you generalizing?
2. So, the NOW-NY person is claiming that Kennedy is sexist for endorsing Obama and not Clinton. That may be wrong, but I fail to see how it is sexist. Nobody’s being oppressed here because of their gender.
January 29th, 2008 at 14:46
Reading the statement, I find it pretty surprising that they don’t mention Caroline Kennedy’s OpEd piece in this. Maybe it’s just inconvenient.
January 29th, 2008 at 18:07
Edited to fix attribution. I was generalizing because I misread the blog post. (*sigh* I seem to be doing that a lot lately.)
I would believe it would have something to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton is a New York senator if they had mentioned that in their statement. But, since they don’t then I have to assume that they are either being a) dishonest and using feminism as a political tool (which I don’t believe) or b) stating that Clinton’s policies are better for women than Obama’s (which they don’t, just reread it to be sure) or c) Believe that the gender of the applicant is the most important qualification at this point in time. (That’s not actually sexist though, given that it isn’t “oppressing” Obama, so the rest of my title is inaccurate too.)
This comes back to NOW-NY not representing me, but I would have preferred to see how backing Obama is a betrayal of women rather than just blasting Kennedy for his past failures. To me this just feels like “she’s a woman, elect her!”
Also, as Mike points out, why wasn’t Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement “the ultimate betrayal”? Though now that I mention that, it wouldn’t play as well, and she’s not in the same position of power. I wonder if this really is just political grand-standing, and they just wanted the endorsement for Clinton because she is from NY?
FWIW, I also didn’t like the CNN article a few weeks back talking about how black women had to choose between the black and the female candidates. Because, you know, nothing matters but gender and heritage.
January 29th, 2008 at 19:24
New York: I am interpreting it as an attempt to curry favor with a senator from their state. ‘Cause otherwise who cares what a local chapter of an organization thinks? So, I guess that would be “using feminism as a political tool.” (Although feminism *is* a political tool, amongst other things, so perhaps it should be “using feminism inappropriately as a political tool.)
I also didn’t like the CNN article a few weeks back talking about how black women had to choose between the black and the female candidates.
Yeah, those articles drive me up the wall.
January 29th, 2008 at 22:03
Also, as Mike points out, why wasn’t Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement “the ultimate betrayal”? Though now that I mention that, it wouldn’t play as well, and she’s not in the same position of power. I wonder if this really is just political grand-standing, and they just wanted the endorsement for Clinton because she is from NY?
I have to admit, while I was posting and making my point, I had to water it down. With Caroline Kennedy not being a public figure in the same way, I’m sure there wasn’t a history of NOW-NY sticking up for her, and there may have been for Ted Kennedy. It isn’t quite the same thing, and this feeling of “we watched your back, why aren’t you watching ours?” might be more justified in his case.
January 29th, 2008 at 22:04
Ack. “cite” tag didn’t work! Please assume quoting in my post. =)
January 30th, 2008 at 01:00
I don’t actually like Maureen Dowd, but I always read her columns anyway. This one has the following snippet:
“The New York State chapter of NOW issued an absurd statement on Monday calling Teddy Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama ‘the ultimate betrayal’: ‘He’s picked the new guy over us.’
But Obama is the more emotionally delicate candidate, and the one who has the more feminine consensus management style, and the not-blinded-by-testosterone ability to object to a phony war.”
February 2nd, 2008 at 17:18
Awesome article, “he needs to learn that a little chivalry goes a long way.” I guess that’s why he pulled her chair out at the debate the other day.