One need only assess the sorry state of modern feminism today to realize the movement is in pretty total disarray. From the schism between so-called second and third wavers exemplified by the shenanigans associated with the latest National Organization for Women’s election, to the current elevation of Sarah Palin, and to an extent, Michelle Obama, to the status of poster girl for modern womanhood, to the suggestion that Barack Obama somehow exemplifies modern feminism, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out something is very, very wrong with this picture. The question is, what?
Let me once again be very clear, I have never considered myself to be a feminist. I have never taken a Women’s Studies course, or really paid much attention to the movement at all. At least, not until recently. Lately though, I’ve been doing my own brand of research in an attempt to try to get a handle on just what the heck is going on, especially as it relates to the PUMAsphere. Because as things stand now, whatever’s happening is something I don’t quite like.
So, in my meager efforts to scratch the surface of the vast subject that is feminism, imagine my surprise to find that there is an equal and opposite counter-movement called “anti-feminism.” Now, I was aware that there have always been factions opposed to the concept of gender equality on a variety of bases, but the idea that their efforts rose to the level of separate, and equal, movement was a bit disconcerting. I suppose it would be akin to finding out that their was an acknowledged, coordinated, and accepted anti-Civil Rights, white supremacist movement that openly advocated the defeat of all minority gains. I imagine if such a coalition exists, it is relatively underground, if not in their efforts, at least in their advertising.
Yet, obviously, no such subterfuge is seen to be necessary with anti-feminism. Though the degree of cooperation is kept relatively low-key, the level of outrage one might expect to be directed towards them appears to be so low as to be non-existent. Though some feminist blogs seem to be keeping track of their varied activities, anti-feminism is rarely mentioned in the PUMAsphere, where their message happens to be resonating most loudly. However, evidence of their handiwork is ridiculously obvious.
Simply put, anti-feminism is a backlash against feminism, as Wikipedia succinctly states in their entry:
Antifeminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms.
But, as this site points out, such a simplistic definition is inadequate, and, makes the point that such a backlash has been intrinsically tied to feminism since its inception. However, the way I see it, since its goal is to maintain the status quo of male supremacy, a case could be made that anti-feminism actually predates feminism, in the same sense that the entitlement of white supremacy came before slavery. At any rate, this is the definition offered up by science.jrank.org in their series on the subject:
Historically and conceptually, feminism precedes antifeminism, which arises as a reaction against and repudiation of feminism and can only be defined on that basis. The definition of feminism offered by the historian Linda Gordon has the requisite balance of precision and suppleness to serve as a starting point: “Feminism is a critique of male supremacy, formed and offered in the light of a will to change it, which in turn assumes a conviction that it is changeable” (quoted in Cott, pp. 4–5). Antifeminism, then, repudiates critiques of male supremacy and resists efforts to eliminate it (often accompanied by dismissal of the idea that change is possible). Note that this definition of antifeminism limits its reference to reactions against critiques of gender-based hierarchies and efforts to relieve the oppression of women. In this way, antifeminism is distinguished from the related concepts of male chauvinism, sexism, misogyny, patriarchy, and androcentism, all of which can exist in the absence of feminism.
Okay, so forces abound to fuck up the game and send women back to their rightful June Cleaver, barefoot and pregnant, thank God, days. Who are these people? Most proponents, with the notable exception of Barack Obama, are usually of the conservative, right wing variety. And, surprisingly, or not, a large number of them are women. How are they influencing things today? And, who might they adopt as their poster child, with, or without, her express permission? In this October, 2008 NPR article entitled, Sarah Palin and Feminism’s Rightward Path, Ronnee Schreiber, author of Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics, (reviewed here) highlights two conservative women’s organizations, Independent Women’s Forum, (IWF) and Concerned Women for America, (CWA). This excerpt from Schreiber’s book lays out the stakes:
IWF’s agenda in this incident is representative of a significant political battle that has been largely unrecognized by political analysts. As women’s political power has increased, so too has a contest among national organizations fighting to represent women’s interests in the policymaking process. Although feminists have long dominated the political landscape in terms of numbers and visibility, they are increasingly being challenged by other national organizations—those that are antifeminist and also claim to represent women’s interests. These conservative women’s groups present a substantial threat to the feminist movement. They are well organized, politically active, and have access to government institutions, political parties, and national media. As these organizations vie with feminists over what women need and desire, they publicly contest definitions of women’s interests and influence political debates and policy outcomes. Inattention to comparably sized and situated feminist organizations, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), would be untenable; yet almost no scholarship exists on national conservative women’s organizations. An examination of these national political actors is long overdue. (emphasis mine)
Schreiber’s excerpt describes the two groups’ origins ( I have linked to their web pages and Wikipedia entries above) and says CWA was founded in 1979 specifically to challenge the Equal Rights Amendment, (shades of Phyllis Schlafly?) while IWF was formed in 1992 by women united in their efforts to support the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas. Incidentally, Schlafly, who some have credited with singlehandedly stopping the ERA in its tracks, and who Time Magazine called an anti-feminist, seems to revel in inspiring feminists to violent thought. According to the Time piece (time piece, ha, ha) Betty Friedan said she wanted to burn her at the stake, and Wikipedia tells the tale of Florynce Kennedy who didn’t…
…see why some people don’t hit Phyllis Schlafly in the mouth. I don’t think she would be damaged seriously, but I don’t think it would hurt if somebody slapped her. We’re arguing with people like Schlafly who obviously aren’t speaking from a rational perspective. Instead of so much argument, people should slap.”
In the same Wiki entry, Harlan Ellison is quoted as saying that he would knock Schlafly into the next time zone with his car, if given the opportunity. I also find it interesting that Source Watch shows no links between Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and any other conservative women’s organizations, though they share many important views. Eagle Forum’s links can be found here.
While I encourage anyone interested to take the time and read all the linked material, the one thing I found most curious is the AstroTurfing aspect one can clearly see if one knows what to look for. Source Watch informs us that there is indeed a link between the International Women’s Forum, the Concerned Women for America, and Eagle Forum:
IWF is a secular counterpart to Religious Right women’s groups like Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America, but these groups often work together. People for the American Way describe IWF as a group that “opposes affirmative action, gender equity programs like Title IX, and the Violence Against Women Act.”
However, the best thing Source Watch tells us is that in 2003, IWF, whose notable names include Michelle Bernard and Lynne Cheney, affiliated itself with Citizens for a Sound Economy, now Americans for Prosperity:
In October 2003, the IWF announced an affiliation with Citizens for a Sound Economy, now the Americans For Prosperity Foundation, with which they shares premises and staff. “The Affiliation agreement provides for staff and resource sharing between Americans for Prosperity and the Independent Women’s Forum. Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women’s Forum, will also be president of Americans for Prosperity,” the announcement stated. Despite sharing staff and location, the announced stated that each group “will be a separate organization with its own board of directors.”[3]
As of 2008, IWF is no longer affiliated with AFP and is seeking its own office space.
Gee, wonder if the two groups really fell out, or, more likely, IWF just needed more space. The significance of the alliance between IWF and AFP, and of their alignment becomes a little more clear when one looks up Source Watch’s entry on Citizens for a Sound Economy:
Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) is a powerful industry-funded think tank, promoting deregulation. It was founded by Koch Industries interests and continues to maintain strong links. In 2003, an internal rift between CSE and its affiliated Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation led to a split in which CSEF was renamed as a separate organization, called Americans For Prosperity.
In July 2004, CSE announced it was merging with Empower America to create FreedomWorks.
As regular readers will recognize, Freedom Works is the Dick Armey led AstroTurfing PR firm promoting the TEA Party movement that I’ve profiled here, here, here, and here. And, though Sarah Palin is not, as far as I know, a member of any of the aforementioned, decidedly right wing anti-feminist groups, her membership in another, more deliberately ambiguous, pro-life group, Feminists For Life, (FFL) must give a thoughtful person pause.
After reading at least a gazillion and a half articles debating the question of whether “feminism” must always be a province of the left, I’d have to say my answer is a resounding, “duh!” given the fact that everything the conservative right stands for limits the choices of women to govern their own lives, captain their own ships, and determine their own fate, separate and apart from men. Seems to me, on the right, women, aspiring to their proper place in the all important family, have only the prospect of extension of the male to look forward to. The fact that our current “Democratic” president ascribes to this same sort of fifties morality mentality only serves to conveniently muddy the waters for the right, and grease their entree into feminist strongholds with their decidedly deceptive brand of anti-feminist feminism. The kind that Feminists For Life is pushing.
Many feminist writers have exposed the hypocrisy of such a group, here , here, here, here, and here, to name a few, however one need only look to the fact that membership in the organization confers blessing on Palin from the anti-feminists. I doubt that if she said she was a staunchly pro-life member of NOW whether LifeNews would hang out the welcome banner for her. As far back as November of last year, Deborah King was proclaiming Palin as the “role model for anti-feminists,” and while I’m not sure I agree with her thought process, I can agree with her conclusion: Sarah Palin is the very definition of “anti-feminist.” There are those who disagree, however, and, therein lies the danger.
There is no doubt that certain elements of anti-feminism can be seductive to a feminist. After all, even when it comes to such a key feminist element as choice, the question is just that, choice, not mandate, or requirement. Many pro-choice feminists would no more consider an abortion for themselves than they would have a breast transplanted to their forehead, yet, they believe that another woman, any other woman, has a right to make that decision for herself, on her own, without interference, or consultation with anyone but herself, her doctor, and her conscience. So, while these women are solidly “pro-choice,” a clever manipulator can twist and turn things around until that woman’s aversion to abortion for herself, seems to be advocacy for the pro-life position. Rebecca Traister (yeah, yeah, PUMA mocker, I know) of Salon, chronicled the phenomenon in her 2006 piece on her lunch with anti-feminist, Kate O’Beirne. Though Traister famously got it wrong regarding PUMAs initial disdain for Barack Obama as a candidate, missing his misogyny and dishonesty altogether, it’s no secret that after being dismissed, abused and ultimately discarded by the party we all loved, (as much as you can love a political party) some PUMAs were more than willing to express their disgust by cutting off their own noses to spite their faces, so to speak, and vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in protest, reproductive rights threats be damned. Given Obama’s pretty dismal record as president so far, turns out they were right about that, too.
But, that does not translate into unilateral support for Sarah Palin, or the Republican party. Unlesssss…they’re vewwy, vewwy clever in their stealth campaign to turn disaffected PUMAs to their side. Uniting those women in solidarity with a victimized “sister” is one way of doing that. So, the seduction that began last June with the suspension of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and drew upon her personal affection for John McCain, as well as the disaffection of her supporters, leading to his tapping Sarah Palin for the Republican ticket, credentials and experience be damned, (after all, if she could be cast as the Obama nemesis, leaving Biden’s record of accomplishment to rival McCain’s, all things were pretty much equal) continues unabated, and by many objective standards, has largely been successful.
“”4Palin” is as prevalent on PUMA blogs as “4Hillary.” Right wing talking points abound in the comments sections, and have done so for so long they no longer seem jarring. Denunciation of sexist attack has been turned into full-fledged, emotional, heartfelt support for our suffering sister, whether she wants, or deserves it, or not. We have been so effectively AstroTurfed that this post I’m writing now will be viciously attacked as a vicious attack on PUMAs’ intelligence and common sense, and, will likely draw some otherwise resistant PUMAs even further into the GOP trap. So be it.
Accusations of pro-Palin factions interfering in the NOW elections caused a wounded organization to shoot itself in the foot, splintering itself in half when solidarity is the only means to its survival. Currently, the PUMAsphere is rife with bloggers and their readers drawing lines in the sand, passionately defending their turf and their right to support a candidate who is currently out of politics. Justifying their position in terms of comparison with the candidate they saw through from the moment he entered the ring, they conveniently disregard the fact that no matter how detrimental to women’s rights Barack Obama turns out to be, Sarah Palin will be worse. Like all anti-feminists, it is her goal to nullify and destroy everything feminists stand for. That is the definition of anti-feminism, after all. And, unlike Obama, who can only go so far before he goes too far, there is not likely to be anyone on her side to get fed up and try to stop her. The truth is, they both need to go.
By inserting Sarah Palin into the mix, the right wing has gained a toehold they would not otherwise have, and, have used tried-and-true methods to do so. Like it or not, there’s a reason Gloria Steinem called Sarah Palin a younger Phyllis Schlafly. Using women who claim to be feminists to bash and trash the feminists they used to be, never really gets old, either, right Tammy?
Bruce holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Southern California. In the past, Bruce described herself as a “lifelong Democrat“,[10] but FEC records show she has since 2005 contributed primarily to Republicans,[11] and she has stated on both her radio program and blog that she is now registered as a “Decline-to-State” as of February, 2008. [12] She considers herself an independent conservative.
The line between feminism and anti-feminism can be as frighteningly thin as the one between love and hate, with abortion being the icy forked road leading one way or the other that could cause the most resolute traveler to slip, trip, and lose her way. Now, I know I’m late to this party and don’t have nearly enough information stored up to be preaching to anybody. But, from what I can see from here, a good bit of caution just might be in order. The way it looks to me, even though there are no clean hands involved, in many ways, feminists are not only driving themselves to destruction, they’re allowing themselves to be gleefully driven. And, what stands to be lost in the process, is pretty much everything.
Just sayin.’
If you are all offended about how the Republicans tried to use the way Hillary was treated by Obama and his minions then do not forget the way the Obomacrats tried to substitute Mrs Obama as the victim of sexism du jour to replace Hillary. It was cynical and disgusting. Yes both the Republicans and Obama Democrats tried to manipulate women and especially PUMAs. When all they really need to do is to address issues we care about. I will never consider myself a Democrat again.
I think this sounds paranoid. Sarah Palin is simply a female politician you all do not agree with not the devil. That is OK. All women do not need to think alike. Much of the fear Sarah inspires is that she is not the same social class and did not go to the same indoctrinating institutions as most east coast politicians. Democrats are never going to give women clear and strong reproductive freedom, if they do they will lose their favorite fear issue they use to herd women into Democrat voting. Neither Democrats or Republicans care about women’s issues or women voters. Democrats have lost the ability to see what they have become which is openly misogynist, they are just so happy about what they aren’t, Republicans. Sorry but Sarah represents only a woman you don’t agree with.
First of all, please don’t tell me how I feel or think. If my writing is unclear I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Second, I don’t care where Sarah Palin went to school, who her parents are, or how much money she has. Lastly, the fact that she is but a politician with whom I do not agree on issues is the entire point, therefore there is no reason to support her.
If you have reason to believe there is no such thing as anti-feminism, or that they are not committed to the repeal of women’s reproductive rights, or, that Sarah Palin is not in agreement with them or their goals, or, that they have not tried to infiltrate and indoctrinate PUMA blogs, I’d be more than willing to listen.
Just because there’s misogyny on both sides of the aisle doesn’t mean there’s no difference between parties, or, that I can support either or both equally.
And, no one has called Palin the devil.
Hillary and Bill
are the only president and first lady to go into the whitehouse not rich and leave in debt due to lawsuits and legal bills and most if not all were tossed out. Terry maculife had to put up the down payment for their house in new york,because all the money they had was in legal bills.
Bill and hillary’s parents were not rich or famous. No matter what fancy suit/fancy pant suit suit or expensive food they eat bill will always be a bubba and hillary a middle class girl from scranton. They earned to go to fancy schools,they were not given nothing nor were the legacies. That is why the elites in both parties hate them because to them they are trailor trash because of their background.
Sally quinn hates them and said they trashed the white house. Their really only so called elite friend in washington is vernon jordon. According to both parties elites the clintons didn’t throw enough parties or kiss their butt enough to be accepted.
Guess what I voted for both proudly. I could care less where you come from, I care about where you stand on the issues and your policies. I don’t like palin’s ideas or policies that is why I won’t vote for her.
Because I won’t vote for her or because I am not a repub does that make me not part of real America.
Well, it would help if everyone would stop using the term God all the time, because that means that one has to be all male in order to rule the universe. Which means that if one is male, one automatically is able to rule the nation. And if one is female, well, not so much able to rule and lead…
People need to think instead of Divine Almighty who has equal feminine and masculine qualities. Which has to make sense, if we believe that Holy One created both male and female. That means both female and male rule the universe. Which means that if one is female, one automatically is able to rule the nation just as well as if one is male.
And this needs to happen soon!
Anita learntoreadnow
During the general election I went to freerepublic,becasue they had a thread about how hillary was treated. Most of the comments were she was treated bad and republicans have never treated her that bad. Then a couple of posters were saying to go to puma blogs or hillary sites and say that hillary was treated bad and to keep complaing about how obama treated her. Then they were talking about to say that hillary gave up and palin will not give up against obama. Palin will defend women’s rights she is a better rolemodel for women and girls. So they wanted to be nice to pumas to get them on palin’s side. It was around September 2008, I will not go back there after they called obama’s daughter ghetto trash for wearing a peace t-shirt. I will defend palin’s kids and obama’s kids it is not their fault of who their parents are.
I have not read through the comments yet but just want to say: Excellent post Cinie! Yours is the first reasonable, well stated argument against Palin that has been put forward. I don’t agree that she’s an anti-feminist but you certainly make the case that anti-feminism is working to appropriate and destroy the feminist movement.
I’m going to take Sarah Palin at her word, that she’s a feminist. And, as a Gynocrat, she will get my vote if she runs for national office. The sad fact is that, as a liberal, I’m not going to get any chances to vote for a liberal candidate. So voting for Palin over Obama, if given that choice, is a no-brainer for me.
I would argue that much [but not all] of the “anti-feminist” movement, particularly groups like the IWF and CWFA, are hardly secular and march lock-step with the religious right- Sarah Palin in my mind, could be the poster-woman for either group- just a more modern version.
For those of us who consider ourselves feminists (I always have and I always will, just out of principle due to the hard work and sacrifice of the women who came before me ), anti-feminism is so invidious because as Cinie points out, it wears the mask of women’s liberation when attacking principles generally associated with women’s rights, particularly when espoused by younger women (as opposed to Shlaffly).
This is the problem I had from day #1 of Palin’s candidacy- reasonable people can disagree about abortion, gay rights, taxation and war, but to me, the key factor in feminism is choice- and to me, the anti-feminist wears the mantle of choice by saying “we can choose to be pro-life” (who said they couldn’t?) while simultaneously taking away my right to choose if I need/want one and/or my right to choose which gender my significant other could/should be and to have that choice legally recognized.
The status quo has long sought to maintain their system – it’s the very definition of status quo. But who better than to deliver the message of anti-feminism than a woman or a group of women like Concerned Women for America? It’s as though so long as it is a woman helping to uphold a patriarchal system in the name of “personal freedom”, instantly it must be OK! And to claim otherwise is “politically correct” or narrow-minded.
Great post Cinie- it’s an important issue and the links and background info. you provide is helpful.
Cinie,
I gave you linky love at TW. I think you will like my latest post.
MB HAKA
[...] seems pretty clear to me, especially after Cinie’s excellent piece about anti-feminism as an under-the-radar-movement, that the PUMASphere is being infiltrated once again by right-wingers. Their purpose is to destroy [...]
A lot to think about, Cinie, but I had to say Kim Gandy pissed me off in that youtube clip with her asinine “I like Cynthia McKinney, but we’ve worked with Joe Biden for decades, we haven’t worked with Cynthia McKinney.” Puh-leaze. What has Joe Biden done for women, just curious?
Go for it; we need all the damn dialogue we can get .. pro and con … because if you think “antifeminism ” belongs to DEMOCRATS or REPUBLICANS think again … we live in a PATRIARCHY …
even when I disagree with you … I still like your writing ..
[Sorry to be ot, but Cinie I hope you're serious about doing a post (exspanding) on your take on feminism? I for one would love to read such a post.]
Yeah Pips, but, they’re gonna come after me with all barrels blazing.
(sigh…)
I know, (double sigh!), but I’ll keep my hopes up never the less
. You know how important I and many others find your voice!
Woops, sorry to post in the middle of a heated abortion discussion. Abortion isn’t going to be made illegal in this country unless all the women are thrown into shackels.
Gotta agree that it is been bait to keep Democratic females in line. I’m old enough to have been around when they were illegal and that freedom will never be taken away without a gender war.
Gee, I wish I could be as complacent as all those who “know” abortion isn’t going anywhere. I’m old enough to remember pre-Roe, too, and nothing I’ve seen lately gives me absolute rock-solid confidence I won’t see post-Roe in my lifetime.
This is the gender war. And they are trying to throw us in shackles. And, most unfortunately, the Democrats are no longer on our side.
I always love your posts Cinie, they are thought provoking even when I find myself saying, “There Cinie goes again with the astroturf train again.”
I have to agree with you more than I disagree with your assessment of the PUMAs on many of the blogs today.
I have found the only way I can continue to blog with women that parade around for Sarah Palin is to agree that I like her as a female but I can’t support her politically. I support her against sexist attacks and attacks on her family, but that is as far as I go.
I do see a need for PUMAs to tolerate one another with broad opinions, even leaning too far to the right for my taste…I believe that this is the ONLY way women will get the frickin’ three last states to ratify the ERA.(All women need to fight for it and the Liberals can’t do it alone these days.
There are some that think the ERA is dead, I don’t feel like going into that here, but that is why I personally put up with others that don’t think Sarah Palin’s politics are that far from Hillary’s. There is a huge difference between these two women.
I have a profound need to blog as a PUMA since I am living and working in an area that is 99% Obots. PUMAs are the only people I can talk to about my political beliefs and frustration.
It is sometimes very lonely being a PUMA out in the real world.
I will share company with a Palin supporter any day over an Obot.
Perhaps if we could all agree that it is just a medical procedure we may be able to distance ourselves from the idea of an image of the Gerber baby. Not trying to be glib but, I do not consider my duty, responsibility, or right to interfere with someone else’s decision regardless of where I stand or what I would do under the circumstances.
That is the inherent right of choice. Anything else is enslavement.
Cinie
What about “pro-life and fuck choice?” Which is what “pro-life” generally means.
***************
What about “what the fuck part about pro-life, a PERSONAL choice concerning abortion, do you not understand?” Not everything a woman chooses for herself has to do with every fucking liberal walking the earth.
I really don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about. “Pro-life” is a blanket position for everybody. You can’t be dedicated to abolishing abortion and be “pro-choice.” “Pro-choice” is just that, the freedom to choose whatever works for you without infringing on the rights of anybody else. How does that equate with forced anything?
that’s simply not true. most women (i’m talking about WOMEN, not politicians running for national office, or leaders of christian issues groups, just regular WOMEN) have decidedly mixed feelings about abortion. LOTS of women say they are pro-life but wouldnt want to force their choice on all women. They are pro-life at home but wouldnt pull the lever to overturn Roe v Wade.
They dont identify as “pro-choice” in the same way you are vocally NOT a feminist — they feel insulted, condescended to, and disagree strongly with what they see as the militant, exclusive, college-educated, anti-working class, anti-religious, and anti-stay-at-home-mother world-view of “feminists” and “pro-choicers.”
So I disagree that the definitions are clear. Plenty of women are both pro-life and against abortion being illegal. Even Sarah Palin — she favors the legality of abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. Even the SHE-WOLF of anti-feminism doesnt favor making abortion outright illegal.
I am not a feminist because I am not an activist, not because I disagree with them on the whole. I also don’t believe the movement embraces me, but that’s a separate issue for another post. If you believe abortion should be a choice, you are “pro-choice.” What you would personally choose is irrelevant.
As far as what Palin would choose here’s a sampling of what I could find, with the last article being the anti-abortion crowd’s reaction. Make of it what you will.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/eveningnews/main4493062.shtml
http://washingtonindependent.com/49790/palin-still-finds-fans-in-anti-abortion-movement
Sarah Palin isn’t just under attack from the Left she is also under fire from inside the Republican party, there are dirty tricks being played behind the scenes. The MSM has a microphone and is noisier so the Left attacks are more noticeable. I can’t tell who all the players are but they appear to be among the evangelical men and like Santorum who is Catholic. Maybe Mitt Romney, who knows what they are doing behind the scenes to undermine her, they HATE that she energizes and attracts the crowds and can raise the campaign dollars. They don’t like the competition it sets a standard none of them can achieve. Anyone hear answer me this, who on the Republican side is causing any stir, any flash, any excitement? I don’t mean the bedraggled scandals Sanford and Ensign …..I mean in the course of a usual new cycle. Who excites any of the conservative or republican voters. I can’t name one Pawlenty? Jindal ooo la la. They really wish she would get lost, she is using up all the oxygen in the MSM, and they don’t get much play. Sarah Palin is really upsetting their old standard apple cart. Imagine if any of them had to come off in the least bit say engaging LOL!
Sarah Palin is taking it from both sides but it really doesn’t matter she can take it. Another reason they really really hate her…the longer she last, the better odds she has.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/07/09/kennedy-townsend-newsweek-obama-more-catholic-pope
Sorry to mess up the thread, my post above was a response to Murphy’s post @5.
In the case of labor, yes. Most of the men in my husband’s family are union. In the case of women’s rights, the Irish-Catholic contingent in Philly at least, were much more conservative. These guys (my affectionate term for my in-laws) were in John Wayne land. I had my consciousness-raising work cut out for me.
Interestingly, I understand there is some article in which Kathleen Townsend-Kennedy is now claiming Obama is more Catholic than the Pope. Yikes! I’ll see if I can find the link.
‘Pro-life and believing in choice’ means that on a personal level abortion is unethical, but respecting the privacy and choices of others that believe otherwise.
‘Pro-abortion and believing in choice’ means promoting abortion for self and others, but disrepecting the privacy and choices of those that believe otherwise. Hence, the term ‘forced pregnancy’.
What?!?!
What about “pro-life and fuck choice?” Which is what “pro-life” generally means.
those who are “pro-life and fuck choice” are a very small (though rabid minority). I deplore that viewpoint as much as you do I bet.
And there are women who say over and over again, “I’m pro-life personally but think abortion should be legal but regulated.”
Where do you draw the line that separates the “feminists” from the “anti-feminists”? Are women who believe parents must be notified before a teenager gets an abortion anti-feminist? What about women who support programs to reduce abortions by promoting abstinence or adoption at the same time they think abortion should not be illegal?
I think Ginsburg thinks the war is over and those still fighting it from the forced-pregnancy side are the losers. Freedom won. Modern science won.
I agree with her.
It’s like the creationism vs evolution battle. Yes there ARE christian fundamentalist who fight quixotically to take science out of the schools and put the bible in, but does anyone really live in MORTAL TERROR of that? Of course not — it’s a fringe battle.
Imagine if the entire feminist political movement was vulnerable to a schism or to being dismissed as irrelevant and hopelessly out of touch because of battles over creationism. It just wouldnt make sense.
We dont see OTHER fundamentalist christian viewpoints being used as a sword of damocles over our heads, even though they ARE profoundly anti-woman, like Proposition Hate and Rev Warren’s philosophy of battered wives “healing” their husbands.
which isnt to say there aren’t still smaller battles on the sidelines, like the issue of unrestricted Constitutional rights for ALL women, regardless of how much money they make or whether they can afford private health insurance.
Did you read the Femisex article I left for you over on PUMA Pac? I think it’s dangerous to assume the battle’s over, the fight’s won, there are only a few bitter holdouts left, let’s go home. There are forces at work who would like nothing better than for that to become the prevailing attitude.
http://www.femisex.com/content/safe-and-legal-abortion-a-blessing-big-media-wont-admit-why-support-abotion-may-be-slipping
And, as an analogy, I would offer the black Republican phenomenon. Most black people see them as just as big a threat to the rights and freedoms gained by the Civil Rights Movement as any other rabid right winger, though they too are a relatively small faction. In fact, in a way, they are more dangerous because their blackness is seen to give their argument more weight than it deserves.
going to read it now, thanks.
Where are the articles on the attitude that the battle is won and the little bridezillas did “their part” by voting for Barack “this is what a feminist looks like” Obama and now they can sit back in ignorance because NO ONE is asking them to hold their lightbringer accountable for Kaine and the faith based office and the warm fuzzies with the pope, etc etc etc??
That’s the article I’m waiting for. Not really interested in what the “enemy camp” is doing…since…newsflash, apparently…they are NOT IN POWER. Swinebama is.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other, Zee.
why would it take the lower class more time to come around?
the “lower class” is historically at the vanguard of progressive social change.
Perhaps because as Justice Ginsburg, in the quote you cited, says that lower class, or poor women, aren’t fully protected currently as far as abortion is concerned. How you, or anyone, can say that a law that discriminates is settled, and therefore, so is the entire matter, escapes me. Ginsburg goes on to talk about how the law is nibbling at the edges of Roe, yet, for some reason, she thinks it’s irreversible. That escapes me, too.
What’s so settled about an ongoing battle?
“by definition pro-choice” — I get that, but there ARE gradations in there as well. There are women for whom it is VERY important to declare their personal pro-life stance at the same time that they sort of “allow” for choice. many of those women are also in favor of highly regulating abortion, to a point that would ENRAGE the average NARAL member.
Is there a place for the “moderate” choicers?
I really think there should be, because in fact CLEAR and sustained majorities of Americans (more women than men, but even among men) favor at least some degree of choice. In other words the percentage of ALL americans (including Republicans, church-goers etc) do NOT want abortion to be illegal across the board.
Why are women so afraid of a legal eventuality that even those who HAVE the power to change the laws have said is EXTREMELY unlikely (ie Bader Ginsburg and Sarah Palin)?
other than a really small minority, ALL Americans believe abortion should be legal.
Not hardline “pro-lifers,” Murphy. They just don’t. And, they’re freaking relentless.
i mean, why are SO many women opposed to the feminist MOVEMENT?
Depends on what connotations you attach to ‘feminism’. I married into a family of Kensington street-fighters (like Rocky Balboa) who were teamsters, firefighters, bus drivers, etc. I’m from the same neighborhood but had very strong grandmothers so my sisters and I easily embraced feminism. My husband’s family were very circumspect around me when they found that I was a feminist. Their definition of feminism was “man hater, baby killer”. If we fast forward thirty years, most of our daughters are college-educated, self-determining women (married and single) and their fathers are very proud of them. Sometimes it just takes the lower class more time to overcome stereotypes and to come around.
I have an answer to your question as to opposition to the “feminist” label, but, it’s gonna take a long opinion piece that’s gonna take me a coupla days to compose with the depth, research, attention to detail, and sensitivity it deserves. Since I know it’s bound to be unpopular and sure to cause some fireworks, I’d also like a little while between battles to prepare myself for negotiating that particular minefield.
what would it mean for the Civil Rights movement if fully 40+ percent of African Americans were opposed to it?
why are women so afraid of pro-life women?
why are SO many women opposed to the feminist women?
I think the latest polls have been moving in that direction.
Pat J, but what about the commenters in this very thread who have said they are personally VERY opposed to abortion but believe it should be safe, legal, rare, and highly regulated?
they say they are pro-life but believe in choice. I would describe myself as pro-abortion but in favor of choice. what’s the difference?
The difference is, if you believe in abortion for women who choose, for whatever reason, to have them, you are, by definition, “pro-choice,” whether you would ever have one yourself, or not. It’s the “pro-lifers” who seek to deny that option for any and everybody, based on their own personal choices, that are the problem.
I think Bader Ginsburg’s view, that abortion IS off the table for women with insurance but not for poor women is very true.
“Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.’”
I want to say it more often.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all
Cinie, sorry. I am not yelling at you, I’m yelling at the world. I’m sorry that it seemed like yelling at you. Reproductive choice IS a really important topic and I want to talk about it. Your post brings up LOTS of different topics/views to discuss.
Again, sorry for not being more clear.
There is an active anti-feminist movement with strong ties to the right wing and its AstroTurfing machine. That faction sees Sarah Palin as an ally and poster girl. You may or may not subscribe to that, you may object to those terms. But, it’s out there as information to be accepted or rejected as you see fit. As a PUMA watching the destructive effects of such efforts, I’m upset. However, as “feminist” denotes a level of advocacy and activism I have never committed to for a variety of reasons, my purpose is primarily to offer information. Hopefully that will help to nullify those deliberately fanning the flames. Do with it what you will.
Sadly, choice is still on the table. The Supreme Court has nibbled away at the edges of it for a while. The real danger is the prominence of state’s rights arguments which the right wing has always defended and the democratic party, moving rightward has adopted.
State’s rights arguments are coded for affirmative action and civil rights laws. If federal protections for civil rights, choice (Roe v Wade) are lifted the states will go back to discriminating. Marriage (as it applies to gays)is a state right to control and Obama not only confirmed that but defended it specifically by defending DOMA which imposes a federal jurisdiction to DENY equal protection. The 14th amendment was used to enforce a federal protection for interracial marriage. Obama is specifically excluding gays from equal protection coverage to appease the right wing.
The Obama creep into state’s rights territory demonstrates that the demos, as now constituted, intend to poach the right wing while the fake right wing interest in a female or feminist candidate is the right’s attempt to poach disaffected dems.
If abortion is off the table, (which it isn’t), or Dr. Tiller wouldn’t have been assassinated (to the glee of the right) contraception, refusal to artificially inseminate lesbians, gay and lesbian custody rights and vaccination of girls against STDs still is. There are a whole host of sex related issues the right can congregate around.
If abortion is off the table Palin may still not be just a low taxes, small government, half-way liberal republican, (repubs talk small government but sometimes have the biggest governments and the highest deficits) she’s the spearhead of a corporatist, neoliberal, cristo-centric, imperialist, and probably end times believer, possibly anti-environmentalist crusader that could lead anywhere depending upon where she chooses to throw her support. I don’t know enough about her to decide where she really falls on a lot of issues or where she’ll be once she has a leadership position of her own. It would be interesting to review the beliefs of her brand of Pentecostalists, because I believe she is a fervent one.
If being a feminist means that I have to want to show Sarah Palin the door regarding political leadership, then count me out. Feminists don’t want me walking with them in their parades or chanting with them at their rallies. Feminists don’t want Republicans being part of their group. Too bad for them, my voice is loud and my message crystal clear. I work my butt of every day in the physical sciences, encourage women to become physicists, mentor women through the male-dominated programs, lead the women and minorities groups of my scientific society, profile young up-and-coming women in a journal read by 20,000 members across 100 countries. Feminists don’t need people like me who support ANY woman joining a male-dominated system. Sarah Palin supports women being rulers of their own destiny, and if that is anti-feminist then that is the feminists’ loss.
The only label that should be applied to abortion is “pro-privacy”. If a man chooses to have a vasectomy, that isn’t any of my business. Privacy in medicine is governed by HIPAA regulations. The terms pro-life and pro-choice are too emotionally laden at this point whereas both liberal and conservative women can find some common ground around privacy, especially since that is a legal requirement. Pro-choice vs pro-life pits woman and against woman and also woman against child. We need to reframe the dialogue. As I cross-posted elsewhere, I am starting to believe the terms pro-choice and pro-life are as confining as corsets and Chinese footbinding. There is an entire spectrum of opinions and personal experience about abortion that has to be acknowledged and doesn’t easily fit into either/or construct.
So, Cinie, I have to object to abortion as the defining issue of feminism. I’m not Latina but I am an ex-Catholic. There are, however, many hard working socially liberal Latina women who are fervent Catholics and opposed to abortion. Just because I no longer practice Catholicism, I can hardly fault them for their source of spiritual strength. If they are opposed to abortion, I can’t fault them for that either, although I may disagree with that position.
Meanwhile, my question for female candidates is no longer “are you feminist/or anti-feminist”. The question is “Are you your own woman?” Randi Rhodes is as much a non-feminist as Schafly was, since both are or were posse girls shilling for The Man.
I like the way you think, AniEm…pro-privacy. All we should say if butt the hell out!
Whenever I hear someone declare themselves pro choice I know they consider the individual options and decisions involved. To terminate or carry to term, the choice is with the woman and her doctor.
Whenever I hear someone declare themselves pro life I know that those options are off the table. And when the infamous “but” that follows is inserted at the end of the sentence I opt out. That’s if I have stayed around long enough to let them finish.
true, the Democratic House members who will cut reproductive freedom out of health care reform say nothing about Palin. What they say is something about the Democratic Party — its leadership, its principles, and its commitment to women’s full civil rights and freedoms.
my point is that you are trying to establish that there is an astro-turfed PLOT to lure otherwise savvy Pumas into the REPUBLICAN PARTY using Sarah Palin as bait, and that when the trap slams shut we’ll realize that we’re 5 months pregnant and stuck in there with nothing but a clothes hanger.
I think you are missing what so many Pumas are saying loud and clear: BOTH PARTIES SUCK. BOTH PARTIES DO NOT DESERVE OUR SUPPORT.
These 19 Democrats, and the fact that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will probably cave, and will definitely NEGOTIATE with them, makes the REAL plot obvious to me: the Democratic Party has been holding the coat hanger to our throats for 20 years now and it’s time we wake up and realize there is no more coat hanger. Forced pregnancy is OVER. It’s gone the way of smallpox and polio.
Women can support (or not) Palin politically by focusing on her POLITICAL views. Who gives a shit what she thinks about abortion? Abortion is extra-political. Roe v Wade is settled law. There are enough conservative judges (5) on the COurt today who could overturn it tomorrow. Abortion as a political wedge issue is DEAD. and THAT scares the fuck out of the Democrats AND the Republican, who BOTH have used the issue like a club lo these many long years.
Take abortion out of the equation and Palin becomes a small-government, lower taxes, somewhat hawkish Republican with major charisma and massive populist appeal (in other words the Dems worst freaking nightmare, which is why THEY wont stop beating us over the head with this LIE about abortion (the lie isnt that Palin is anti-abortion, she clearly is. The LIE is that how she feels about abortion matters AT ALL),
And politically, with abortion off the table, Palin is pretty much the absolute mirror image of Democrats Jim Webb and the current chair of the fucking Democratic National Committee.
Frankly, I don’t see why you’re yelling at ME. This is obviously an emotional issue for you that you take very seriously. Fine. That being said, AstroTurfing works. In large measure, that’s why we’re stuck with the president we have. It is a convenient and effective way of dispensing whatever KoolAid one wishes to serve, and, many thirsty people will drink before they realize they’ve been poisoned.
Abortion is not a dead issue, and, as I said, settled law can be changed. The key is to recognize the trends that could lead to having those laws changed or nullified, and nip them in the bud. Affirmative Action is also under attack, an attack also born on the right wing, though, like abortion, taken to heart and adopted by many on the left.
I am in no way promoting Democrats for being Democrats, just like I won’t promote Palin for being female. Each threat to reproductive rights and all other forms of gender equality should be dealt with as they arise.
The way I see it, abortion is the underlying wedge issue, but Palin is being used as the larger one.
As I said in the post, imo, Palin and Obama need to go. I’ll amend that to read, Palin, Obama, and all those who push the same agenda vis a vis women’s reproductive rights, need to go.
Amen, sister. A-MEN.
Of course it matters how Palin feels about abortion. It also matters what she is willing to DO about it.
She has not done a lot in her year and a half as governor, but she does have a history of associating herself quite strongly with the pro-life movement, which is anti-feminist in its activism. Why is she doing that?
If she is really willing to leave her personal feelings at home, where they belong, and govern from the center, so be it. But going around screaming how pro-life she is every second of the day is not going to help me trust her on choice.
And for the record, neither Jim Webb nor Tim Kaine have huge and devoted anti-feminist followings due to their personal stances on abortion. Sarah Palin does. If she should run for office, who will she answer to?
My money’s on her dancing with the ones that brought her. And that ain’t PUMAs.
oh sorry — I mean to say “I like abortion.” When we change it to “like abortion” I say it even more strongly. I more than like abortion. I LOVE it. Safe, non-intrusive abortion, esp in its most modern form as Plan B is a miracle for women’s freedom on the same order as penicilin or the small pox vaccine was for all people.
i LOVE abortion.
but yup, like I said, I agree with you: who gives a flying fig how i feel or what i do. Sure my feelings affect how I act and what I think, but what does that have to do with the Constitution and the State’s right to force me or any woman to be pregnant.
we can all have a million different feelings about abortion, all the long way from one end of the spectrum to the other, but how are those feelings relevant to what powers the State has over what we do with our bodies?
sorry, forgot the link for the 19 (!) Dems who will force Congress (the DEMOCRATIC Congress that is) to cut women’s rights out of health care reform because of their forced-pregnancy FEELINGS.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1909178,00.html
honestly, women’s rights belong to NEITHER Party anymore. Why would I support a party that doesn’t champion my personal freedom?
what about the 17 democratic house members who sent a letter stating they will NOT support health care reform if abortions will be covered?
how does that change this equation you are establishing cinie?
the puma pac blog is a heavily visited Puma blog with thousands of registered users and I dont think we have one single commenter with “palin” in their username. Plenty of “Hills” and “rodhams” and “hillary” themed usernames, but not one “palin” name. Do you have any links or evidence to back up the statement “4Palin” is as prevalent on PUMA blogs as “4Hillary.” ?
Phyllis Schlafly is a red herring and a strawman, in my opinion. She’s CRAZY. She’s also like 110 years old. She also FAILED in her anti-homosexuality agenda. Her ties to Sarah Palin, or really any woman in the Republican Party at the national level are tenuous at best.
I’m not a Republican. Not a Democrat anymore either.
Nothing in my post targeted PUMA Pac, Murphy. I read many PUMA blogs and see “4Palin” a lot. Perhaps my statement was an exaggeration, but the “4Palin” appellation appears far too often for my taste. I don’t see how the Democratic House members position mitigates for or against Palin, one way or the other. That’s part of the problem as far as I can see, conflating issues as being equal, or even relevant to each other, when they’re not.
That there are antifeminist factions working against established feminist gains, and that Palin seems to me to be more closely aligned ideologically with them, and they seem to think so, too, is also my point.
Third, that the antifeminist factions are aligned with known rightwing AstroTurfers is another point worthy of note, imo.
And, lastly, that infiltrating blogs and websites whose stated position is counter to theirs, and assuming sympathetic identities that then push their agenda is a known tactic of AstroTurfers, and is undoubtedly being used on just about ALL Puma blogs is another point I wanted to make.
Murphy, if you want to be pro abortion that is your choice! and I support it, I am pro birth control myself, and education, because as a nurse .. I think any medical procedure where anesthesia and bleeding are involved is well worth avoiding . But I am just coming from the medical POV on that one . but I disagree that any state control on a medical procedure other than the ones for all procedures is necessary for something that shuold take place between a woman and her MD .
But I am a ” where the rubber meets the road ” and “where the knife meets the flesh “kind of person , and I think dealing with the reality of the experience takes me there .
I like abortion. I am unequivocally PRO-ABORTION for any woman or girl who wants or needs one. I dislike breast implants much more viscerally than I do abortion. Who cares what I like or dislike? Who cares what some people’s moral views are about plastic surgery?
I also agree with Swell528 and would accept strict regulation on abortions after 16 weeks.
this is an issue of State Control. Why do we always talk about how we FEEL about abortion? WHo gives a crap? How you or I feel is utterly irrelevant. What matters is that the State can make no law impinging on personal freedom unless it has a compelling reason to do so. What the hell compelling reason does the State have in forcing women to remain pregnant?
maybe I’m just missing something.
but it’s not true that “no one is pro-abortion.” I am.
I said, nobody likes abortion. And nobody is for forcing women to have them. But, isn’t being vehemently pro-abortion how you feel? Doesn’t how we feel affect what we do? I think the point is, laws can be changed. Who’s in charge, and how they might govern, based on their stated opinions, positions, and public record has to be considered. IMHO.
I dont see why anyone would “viciously ” attack this, when it simply is not a true premise for many women , PUMAS or not, and many independent women voters who would never dream of being a PUMA . No one will ever “trick me ” into thinking being pro choice is pro abortion , or twist my thinking into believing a pro choice stance can be changed to pro life . The head of the REPUBLICAN PARY here in my district locally felt the first thing she had to tell me was that she was PRO CHOICE … so in many cases there is no “GOP TRAP ” but simply individual women still struggling against antiquated patriarchal sterotypes , no matter what party they “espouse”
Phyllis Schlafly played on the fears of women on the edge of feminist movement ; from “not getting a man ” ( her now famous Don’t Marry a Career Woman ) to the fear of women being drafted to promote her antifeminist agenda . The backlash against feminism was not simply antifeminism , but the cultural backlash against the forward and renaissance thinking that brought us Civil Rights, Anti Vietnam War and the ERA . every cultural forward movement in history has met with a backlash before establishing itself as the new cultural norm . Some of the scare tactics Schlafly used are no longer viable , as women took those strides anyway, and probved that women do not have a unilateral’feminine” view of life ; and we now know some women like some of the same activities that men do and are no longer considered masculine for doing so .
Phyllis may like Sarah , but I do not think Sarah would like Phyllis.
Hillary Clinton’s backing down and promoting Obama last year was nothing if not anti-feminism. The message was one that would make Schlafly proud. Professed feminists, with their rules and regulations deciding who is qualified to join the ‘club’, have done more to damage the quest for equality than those who are upfront with their opposition.
Cinie,
Q.E.D.
An anti-feminist comes into this thread and claims that feminists are to blame for…something or other. The Democratic Party’s refusal to allow Hillary to win the nomination she so clearly had earned? Hillary’s decision to become Secretary of State instead of running away and dying in a corner?
No, there are REASONS that conditions apply to feminism, just as there are reasons that conditions apply to any “ism.” If you don’t want to meet those conditions, then you don’t get to be a feminist. And, you don’t get to blame feminists for not being one.
PERIOD.
It is a good thing that we do have some very clear thinking and well educated Feminists in the PUMA army. Because this blog entry shows how complex and convoluted anti-feminist rhetoric can become.
The arc toward history is long, my friend, but failure is impossible. And we will overcome.
SYD – but history is full of examples that we can go backwards. Here’s a list I posted elsewhere:
1809 – New York recognizes black marriages
1810 – US bans blacks as mail carriers
1818 – Connecticut disenfranchises blacks
1821 — New York maintains property qualifications for AA male voters while abolishing the same for white male voters.
1821 – Missouri disfranchises free black male voters.
1822 – Rhode Island disfranchises black voters.
1827 – New York & Tennessee ban slavery
1829 — More than half of Cincinnati’s African American residents are driven out of the city by white mob violence.
1831 — North Carolina enacts a statute that bans teaching slaves to read and write.
1831 – Alabama makes it illegal for enslaved or free blacks to preach.
1838 — Pennsylvania disfranchises black voters.
1847 – Missouri bans the education of free blacks.
1851 — Sojourner Truth delivers her famous “Aren’t I a Woman” speech at Women’s Rights Convention in Ohio
1855 — Massachusetts Legislature outlaws racially segregated schools.
1857 – Dred Scott case: congress cannot ban slavery, and slaves are not citizens
1858 — Arkansas enslaves free blacks who refuse to leave the state.
1864 – Dr. Rebecca Lee Crumpler of Boston is the first African American woman to earn a medical degree
1865 — Lincoln signs the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing slavery throughout the United States.
1865 – Ku Klux Klan is formed in Pulaski, Tennessee
1872 — Charlotte Ray of Washington, D.C. becomes the first African American woman to practice law.
1877 — The Compromise of 1877 effectively ends Reconstruction. Although Democratic Presidential candidate Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, Southern Democratic leaders agree to support Rutherford Hayes’s efforts to obtain the disputed electoral votes of Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina in exchange for the withdrawal of the last federal troops from the South and the end of federal efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans.
1889 — Florida becomes the first state to use the poll tax to disenfranchise black voters.
1896 — Plessey v. Ferguson – Supreme Court rules that Southern segregation laws and practices (Jim Crow) do not conflict with the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Court defends its ruling by articulating the “separate but equal” doctrine.
1898 — In January the Louisiana Legislature introduces the “Grandfather Clause” into the state’s constitution. Only males whose fathers or grandfathers were qualified to vote on January 1, 1867, are automatically registered. Others (African Americans) must comply with educational or property requirements.
1913 – President Wilson initiates racial segregation of work places, rest rooms and lunch rooms in all federal offices across the nation.
1942 – U.S. Marine Corps accepts African American men for the first time.
1948 – California Supreme Court voids the law banning interracial marriages in the state
1955 – Rosa Parks refuses to relinquish her bus seat to a white man
1962 – James Meredith becomes the first black student to enroll at the University of Mississippi.
1965 — Malcolm X is assassinated
1966 – James Meredith is shot by a sniper.
1967 – Thurgood Marshall takes his seat as the first African American Justice on the United States Supreme Court
1968 – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee
1968 – Shirley Chisholm of New York is the first black woman elected to the U.S. Congress.
Perusing the blogs today with the “Feminist Sarah” talk, it sunk in that they’re using the liberal definition of feminism to define her as feminist. “Women can do whatever men can do.” Because she said something like that herself.
When I learned the difference between liberal and radical feminism I understood why the liberal version is ultimately so impotent and unsatisfying. Because what males do remains the standard. When an awful lot of the time, they are pretty poor standard bearers. So-called equality is a start, but that’s all it is.
It’s not just the abortion issue that’s the measure of feminism to me. It’s being against the military industrial complex, not worshiping male gods, believing that patriarchal institutions in general are unhealthy. I spent a long time breaking away from the “medical” industrial complex after they did me little good for decades and often harm (though I escaped in better shape than many). It’s about breaking the paradigms, even on a personal level, which can be mighty uncomfortable at first, but in the longer run ensures your better health and survival.
I guess sometimes women need to see themselves win according to the male rules at least a few times before they can see through them, and start to break away. For one example, I remember when women started winning the Iditarod. At first, I thought that was pretty cool! Wow, to win such a grueling contest. Then as they kept winning it begun to ring more hollow. Years later, I look at the Iditarod and think….how cruel. I wouldn’t *want* to win that race. I get tired just *driving* over a thousand miles, and I can stop whenever the hell I want…unlike those dogs.
Sure, “they like it”. That’s easy for the mushers to say. And then there are all the puppies that are culled because they’re not good enough. And how they’re culled. Many times we never know because so many mushers live out in the middle of nowhere.
Anyhow, I think women need to spend more time subverting the patriarchy in as many ways as they can. Pulling the rug out from under it while others attempt to rise to the top. (Though not necessarily pulling the rug out from under *those* women, LOL). I find it funny sometimes to call myself a radical feminist, being such a quiet soft spoken person in general. But I suppose that can make it easier. I can often get things done my own way before anyone even has time to notice and screech in horror that I’m doing it wrong.
Thanks for this post. I worry about the Pumasphere – we are a goldmine of disaffected + engaged voters. What better lure than to swap what might have been for what might be.
Cinie – I have thought about this post all day. The video’s, too. The part about walking down the path to a fork in the road was a very powerful analogy for me. I do like Sarah, but I’m a blue dog, so many of her views aren’t so foreign to me. I have always considered myself a feminist, and have battled and been scared personally and professionally in that fight. Just because I am older, does not mean that abortion rights are not important to me, as I have a daughter who’s rights I will defend with more vigillance than I did my own. As a Christian who has stuggled with pro-choice issues, I have made my conclusions, which cannot be changed for party or sisterhood. When we get to that fork in the road together, I stop when a baby is left to die on a table, when a teenager is allowed to have an abortion without their parent’s consent, and when women are not fully informed of the possible consequences, both physical and psycological, of an abortion. For me, abortion is not an on-demand, routine office procedure, it is the ending of a life, whose consequences are suffered by more than just the mother. Abortions, however I feel about them, must be safe, legal and accessible, because they will happen, no matter what, history proves this without question. It is my personal belief that reproductive rights end, when a baby is viable without the mother, if the mother can survive the birth. I have the utmost respect for you, and the men and women who fight for the rights of women. All I ask is that nobody calls me an anti-feminist, or diminishes the scars that I bear, because my principles differ from yours on this one issue. If women can’t have mutual respect when they differ in opinion, then we sacrafice too much, which diminishes us all.
Why on earth would I call you an antifeminist? You say you will fight to protect women’s rights, and that abortions must be safe, legal, and accessible. That’s pro-choice, as far as I can tell. Nobody likes abortions, and nobody’s trying to force anybody to run out and get them. The only real problem I see is the assumption that women need to be scared even further out of their minds before they “qualify” for an abortion. I really can’t see the benefit of that. I take that back. I’m also ambivalent about requiring teens to get parental consent, especially considering the truth about who’s most often responsible for child abuse, sexual and otherwise. Notification might be an option, but I’m not really ready to make a blanket decision on that one fine point.
thank you Cinie,
you are wonderful and right on the mark! Personlly I was attacked after Hillary dropped out, by the group I was working with during the primary. that I should support Sarah now that Hillary was out of it and if I didn’t I was betraying women! well ,pretty much what you have just posted and way better than I can express is my take and the way I beleive we need to make our judgements on how or who we support.
I really appreciate this and if anyone attacks you well that would say it all, sometimes people canot handle facts.
Cinie,
I was watching an interview of ex senator Rick Santorum on Fox News. I can’t remember who was interviewing him but Sarah Palin was done in politics as far as he was concerned, she made a big mistake resigning, and she could make some speeches for the Republican Party or Conservative Movement if she wanted to make herself useful
There is not a bigger anti feminist in the Republican Party as far as I am concerned…and while we are at this anti feminist movement dohicky thingy…how come I am watching clips from the movie so I will be outraged with the Iranians….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stoning_of_Soraya_M.
We are being shown just how primitively women are being treated in Iran. What is so civil about the way women are being treated out in the open in the MSM in our country? I don’t get where do the powers that be get off being so high and mighty about the treatment of women in this country? Okay I guess we should be happy we are not being stoned in the street….WOW how progressive, we are so superior to Iranian culture/sarc.
I honestly believe the breakdown of any society, can be traced to the oppression and abuse of women it is like a barometer (symptom) of the health of the society. I think our country is “unwell” the powers that be need a check up from the neck up
Brava, Cinie! Had a crazy day and didn’t get a chance to check in till now.
Your post was especially excellent, as you followed a very clear and logical path to your conclusions. And, you pointed out the anti-feminist movement, which is indeed flying under today’s radar (There’s also the “Christian Patriarchy Movement,” which is almost funny in its cartonish blatancy. Almost.)
In addition, I also believe that people in this time have lost touch with their guts, as one commenter said so eloquently.
My gut told me Bush was a lunatic. My gut told me Obama was a lying, narcissistic, contemptuous fraud. My gut told me Hillary was the real thing. And my gut is telling me that leaving the issue of choice off the table in order to appeal to pro-life “feminists” is buying into an anti-feminist scam, because really, cui bono?
They do.
There is no issue more important than the right to control our own bodies. None. If we give that up, we will be enslaved forever to the patriarchy, always asking our husbands and pastors permission for, well, everything. And wouldn’t Barack “abortion isn’t a civil rights issue, it’s a moral and ethical issue” Bananafanafofama love to see that happen?!
Abortion is not the issue. The issue is civil rights, and the “pro-life feminists” have been trying to take them away for 37 years.
PUMAs, feminists, men who support us, we must not let this happen. We must speak out against it loudly and often, has Cinie has done so beautifully today.
Oh, I forgot. My gut told me about Bush, too. I was so freaked out in 2000 when the media called the election for bush, that I jumped off the couch, called all my friends and said “we gotta get out there. this is going to be a nightmare.” No one wanted to go protest with me. I went to walgreens, bought poster board, a red sharpie, and wrote “George Bush is Not My President”. When I was writing the signage on the top of my car, the car window next to me went down. Scared the crap out of me. The lady stuck her head out and said I agree. It encouraged me enough to be the fool and go stand on 3 different street corners freezing my ass off.
oo, leave it to madamab to get “brava” right! ditto.
but onward. yeah, what you all say is correct, but the twit bridezilla generation doesn’t deserve a bailout. They want to swoon over a swine throwback, let them be the handmaidens our generation warned them about.
Sarah Palin is not in POWER, so she is NOT the PROBLEM. How this is not glaringly obvious still escapes me.
The young women whose reproductive freedom is on the line voted for a narcissistic GOON who is chortling and cozying up to the Pope discussing how they want to clamp down on women’s bodies.
If they aren’t saying PEEP about that, who the hell cares one way or the other about the Palin sideshow? We are missing TWO huge opportunities.
1. The media Palin-bashing gave us an opening to say, see, it’s not only Hillary. Being totally squandered in this squabbling. More than a darn shame…it’s inexcusable.
2. Who cares about a not in power Republica’s POV on choice? WE SHOULD BE HEADLINING OBAMA’s EROSION OF OUR RIGHTS every day. EVERY. DAY. And asking the nubile young bridezillas why they have not been holding their Lightbringer accountable and screeching to high heavens on this.
But HEY. The young twit Hopium Huffers are getting a total pass while the (cough) overeducated likes of Anna, etc., target “undereducated” menopausal women as the problem.
I will be sitting next to Paul Krugman and saying “told you so” —only, unlike him, I won’t be the equivalent of a gentleman about it. I will be CACKLING my head off when Obama accomplishes what you stratospheric flutterers are chirping about not-in-office Palin!
SHV over at TW posted more than once about his young friend who parrots whatever her Hopium Pimp tells her. She told SHV that she “agrees” with Zero that abortion is bad. When he asks, “So is forced pregnancy good?” she has no response.
THIS is what our headlines should say every day. EVERY day we should be discussing ONLY this : Your Messiah is chuckling it up with the Pope–are YOU for forced pregnancy?
It is pathetic that “they” have succeeded in making Palin’s views the distraction.
How is this not obvious?
Give me time Zee, give me time. People are still denying there’s an anti-abortion, anti-feminist agenda being aggressively put forth and AstroTurfed by conservative factions. It’s going to take a fully loaded arsenal of information to convince the other half that Obama is their frontman. But it only takes a little research to recognize how fluently he speaks their language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQcVllWpwGs
Double Dutch Bus? Electric Slide? Skate it off.
That’s funny as hell. Don’t know why it won’t embed, though.
I don’t think Cinie will take a beating from PUMAS for this post. I think she expressed her feelings quite well (as usual) and she should not be put down by anyone for publishing her thoughts. This is what freedom means and we should all respect everyones right to express their feelings. I for one like Palin and I don’t think she is the big conservative she was made to appear as during McCain’s campaign. I think she is more of a feminist than we were lead to believe. Time will tell and after all, we have plenty of it until 2012. I was a Democrat until they smeared Hillary, the best candidate running in ‘08. I am now watching and listening to all. When the time comes, I will follow my instincs and push for the one whom I think can lead our country in the right direction, man or woman.
Thak you, Amarissa. I know you’re a “Palinista”
so your comment especially means a lot.
You’re welcome,Cinie. I sincerely meant what I wrote. You are a great and very enjoyable to read blogger and I admire you for expressing what you truly feel. Even if we might disagree on some topics (hardly happens)I love reading what you think on them, sometimes you could even change my mind! LOL. On Palin, though, I am giving her more time, better yet, I am giving her a chance. I cried my eyes out when Hillary was ousted and that is why I will watch this woman and condemn lies told about her and her family. Who knows? Maybe she has more positive qualities than people think, time will tell. So, if this makes me a “Palinista” as you think I am, (I do blog a lot about her..)then so be it. It’s a new adjective I can add to the many I have been given! LOL
Keep up your humorous writing style on your very, very serious topics, I really do love them!
Cinie, I didn’t think it was possible, but you keep getting better. Well done m’dear, you’re batting a thousand!
That song always makes me cry. I hate to cry, but, I’m a girl so you know that’s bullshit. We cry for happy.
M’dear, you ain’t no girl….. you are an intelligent, accomplished women who has the gift of insight – seems to be a rarity these days. And you are wonder-ful, because your retain the ability to see things clearly, rather than through a lens darkly. I admire you, as do many if not all of your commenters, and you should recognize and appreciate the gift that you have given to us. You are one in a million – a very special person – and have your sister read this because I’m sure she would agree with me.
HT – Thank you and all the others who acknowledge the gift of brains, insight and words bestowed upon my sister. I have witnessed her gifts for too many years to mention. However, as her sister, I have also witnessed that other older sister who delights on tormenting younger sister side. These days, however, I agree that she is truly a VSP (very special person)!
Hey, How ’bout them Skating Babies?
“…some PUMAs were more than willing to express their disgust by cutting off their own noses to spite their faces, so to speak, and vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in protest, reproductive rights threats be damned.”
To menopausal, lower-educated women, that is a non-issue. The ones who will need their reproductive rights won’t know that there are many other ways to exercise them until they’ve undergone “the change.” For those PUMAS, it’s a tradition of where we come from. Weatherwomen rebelled against the murderous Weathermen they aided and abetted out of some grievance that they weren’t “making policy.” Bill Ayers’ girlfriend Diana Oughton pushed the envelope a smidge too far. Oops! Next. They step over yer dead body and go on with their lives, relieved to be rid of that “Fill-In-The-Blank.” When you get in a street fight, know when to tuck and roll. Take the fight to your level and never submit to terrorist threat. At that point, hold your ground. Women have strengths even they don’t suspect, until the heat is turned up. Support comes from some unexpected but undeniable corners.
Oh, please. Kiss my withered ass, SWP. The ones who need their reproductive rights and voted for Brand Zero are saying ZIP about his appointing prolifers and antichoice activists to head the Dem party and in key positions in his newly expanded Faith Based Office.
We “lower-educated” women knew better than you full of yourselves useless twits that if McCain-Palin were elected at LEAST the Hopium Huffers would FIGHT for their rights.
SWP Anna, if you were “educated” my sympathies to your parents or whoever footed the bill for THAT waste of time.
Thank you for writing this Cinie. The PUMAs are making fools of themselves over Sarah Palin. It’s starting to remind me of the Obie cult with the desire to follow a celebrity candidate who is younger and better looking than the average pol, and from an “exotic” locale (although in Sarah’s case, we actually know where it is — Idaho, LOL) right over a cliff.
The attacks on her and her family have been ridiculously ugly, and I’ve never agreed with them one bit. But…she’s not a feminist. Even if she “says so.” She was attacked for being a woman. Not for being a feminist.
As an Alaskan, I never fell for her star power. She was the opposite of me in almost every way, and I’ve seen myself as a feminist for awhile now. In fact she felt quite dangerous. A patriarchal tool wrapped up in a pretty, energetic female package. Ready to breathe new life into the failing Bush era, as far as I was concerned. Only I didn’t expect her to come out of Alaska and get right to it so fast. Oh well, they have Obie to do it in the meantime.
I felt Bush was dangerous before he was selected. I was turned off by Obie’s preachifying “speech” back in 2004 and never was seduced by him either. I think my record of seeing through the most dangerous pols is pretty good and I think Sarah qualifies. I believe you’re right that as president she would be freed up to be a right wing hero and would be pretty scary. She’s a big Reagan fan and the announcement of “Reagan Day” in Alaska was one time I had to turn off the car radio in disgust.
She’s given too much credit for not forcing her beliefs on the state of AK in a year and a half as governor. Men can force their stuff on us right out of the gate (Bush and Obie) but women don’t have that luxury. Down the road I suspect she would have used her popularity to start making her stamp. She had already made noises about replacing government services for the needy with faith based programs. And who knows what else. Like with Bush, I paid as little attention to her as I possibly could. I felt a physical revulsion at the sound of her voice or sight of her.
I would have liked her to be VP this time around, however. She wouldn’t have had much power in that slot and would have been even *less* likely to become prez because let’s face it, a McCain presidency wouldn’t have been a real successful one (but I was all for Reps having to be responsible for cleaning up some of the mess they just made). Palin would have been “demystified” as everyone would have seen her enacting Republican policy on a regular basis and not be fooled into thinking she was anything else. Projecting their wishes onto her.
Most importantly she would have kept Barky from the Presidency. But also she would be out of Alaska. I never thought that after getting a taste of the national limelight she’d ever be happy here again, and I believe I was right. She couldn’t fit back into her old mold. Her horizons had been expanded. I would have been happy if she’d just decided not to run again for Gov, because there was no way she could have won. The Chicago machine would have seen to that. But not even finishing out her first term has made a lot of Alaskans feel disappointed and abandoned.
Also Sarah as VP would have helped staunch the gusher of misogyny that occurred in the election, as well as serve as a constant reminder, and punishment to Obie Dems, who could have had Hillary instead but chose to incinerate her.
I still feel conflicted in some ways. Anything that causes Obie mental anguish, including Sarah’s star power taking attention away from HIS “magnificence,” is fine by me. I’ve even been able to watch cable news again, now that they’re almost entirely Michael Jackson networks. It used to disturb me quite a bit over the years whenever MJ would get a new round of surgery on his face. I couldn’t stand what he was doing to himself. Now I could watch MJ all day long. His face is much more bearable (than BO’s).
Thanks, NoBO. For some reason that WWI song, “How Ya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down On The Farm?” came to mind while I was reading your comment.
Thank you, Cinie. I am glad you are finding evidence of what many have puzzled over as possible coordinated attack. I personally think teamsarah has learned much from us via the puma blogs. Heck we could have helped enable the birth of teamsarah. I tend not to go research evidence for what my gut feels…until I want to present my case to others. I “gutted” it out with Obama and now Palin, the DNC and the RNC (six of one half dozen of another) then went in search of policies and positions to validate the gut. I want to thank you, taggles, pat johnson, madamab (and the many bloggers) for gathering more info and presenting facts. I honor the gut and facts combined. Those folks that can synthesize those two realms then communicate via writing deserve applause and support. (I found this so at the beginning of Party Unity My Ass and offered my support there as well). Knowing you are going to take a beating, or better said, some are going to try to beat you down, when presenting the alternative view, is worthy a nod.
Doesn’t look like the beatdown is imminent, fingers crossed. Maybe everybody got too worn out this morning over at TW.
Cinie, In my book, no one can explain and document better than you! Thanks for all your work and thanks for trying to help us see what is happening. Yep, your the best!!!
Awwwwww…
cinie, I have been a PUMA from day one but if that means I have to put all my reasoning and concerns aside to support a candidate I do not approve of, then I may have to reconsider.
I thought we were supposedly a group advocating “principle before party” and I will stick with that resolve. Principle tells me that her agenda is not mine and I will not support that.
cinie, though you are unable to see me doing this, please be advised that I am standing and applauding in your behalf!
No doubt you will be taken through the wringer for this, but IMHO, you are 100% correct. A certain transference from the backlash owing to Hillary’s defeat has taken root and critical thinking has been pushed aside from what I can determine.
They simply refuse, or perhaps do not deliberately wish to consider, that Palin’s positions are representative of groups who would like nothing more than to “gut” the movement and withhold equal rights if given the chance. It is beyond my comprehension why they refuse to see this.
Well, Pat, you can’t see me, either, but, I’m bowing to your applause!
It just seemed to me that after witnessing the near total destruction of the PUMAsphere that there had to be some sort of evidence, if not outright proof, that we were under coordinated attack. I keep coming back to the fact that Republicans are very good at AstroTurfing, too, and I would hope that our disdain for Obama would not preclude us from recognizing the tactics he employed against everybody to get elected when used against us directly, by him, or anyone else.
“..they conveniently disregard the fact that no matter how detrimental to women’s rights Barack Obama turns out to be, Sarah Palin will be worse.”
Not sure about this part Cinie. After all, isn’t the game still just in the first quarter. What I am sure about though is that you are a remarkable thinker.
3W, the reason I think Palin would be much worse is, if elected, she would have no further incentive to hide, sugarcoat, or fudge her commitment to her stated agenda. She also would not have to worry about anyone on her side of the aisle trying to stop her, as I said, on the contrary, they would aggressively work toward advancing her/their goals.
You are welcome. I hope other Pumas take a “think” and see what you are saying.
also, I am down to two blogs I read, [the primary being the first time the # went down]. The wonderful Cine and “the unnamed other”, ha! I can’t go anywhere that isn’t SARA!! I defend her on the sexist attacks but I’m tired of the non stop Sara, Sara, Sara. I actually was glad to escape, to give a moment of my day,and live with my heart for Michael Jackson’s children. Especially having lost my father in February who lived with me. ………He was the best father you could ever imagine.
I am so sorry for your loss, PD, please accept my condolences, as well as my gratitude and appreciation of your compliment. Thank you.
Cinie, It is not an attack on Pumas to me. You just said what I know. Yeah, I watched Fox news during the primary because my I couldn’t watch CNN and MSNBC. But I agree with everything you said.