wow, retarded assumptions, much?

so, basically any man who does not support hillary clinton chooses another candidate because he can't handle the idea of a woman president? gee thanks, NOW-NY for breaking that down for me.

I’m from Massachusetts and I frequently felt let down by Kennedy; I’m not even really sure where all this “stand by your man� type BS comes from in the first paragraph of the press release. Have I missed something? When did Kennedy become the go-to guy for feminists?

That has to be a joke or some hack job. Least professional and factual press release ever.

Thanks, NOW. We're now looking at years of having this thrown in our face.

What bullshit. I am a FEMINIST, no ifs, ands, buts, or posts- attached, and I have been since junior high. And I support Obama. NOW New York does NOT speak for me.

Wow. It makes me cringe that they put out this press release. I could maybe see this as some kind of individual person blog rant, but not as an official statement!

Going along with the "he chose his gender" card, which I'm not sure is true, NOW-NY basically laid out the reasons this should never have been a surprise. Why he had their support in the first place is beyond me [unless it's just, "he's better than the Republican choice"].

That press release was so poorly written and crafted no legitimate argument, that although I want to stand by NOW nationwide, I can't support this action.

It is so highly accusatory and without base that I dare to say it fuels the negative stereotypes associated with feminists. I feel let down to see such a prominent organization acting so immaturely and unprofessionally.

Wow. I mean, women and their hysterics right?

right? *gives you a nudge* Heh heh.

/snark

Wow that is some highly emotional, angry press release. Apparently a vote for Obama or Edwards is a vote against all women. Not just one woman. I thought we were all trying to make this about the issues- And not the oppression olympics?

Wow.

I'm a Hillary supporter, but I don't agree with this sentiment.

If someone expressly says they don't support Hillary because she's a woman, yes, I would have a problem. But when someone supports another candidate because of a disagreement with her platform or a preference for someone else's, I may try and convince you otherwise, but I won't feel betrayed.

They're also calling it "a psychological gang banging.�

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

Also, that is a crappily written press release. If it is legitimately from NOW NY, they seriously need to think about hiring some new PR people. I you want any sort of respect you do NOT release something like that with exclamation points in it.

The NOW-NY website doesn't have this press release listed (http://www.nownys.org/news.html, the last one is dated 1-11). That doesn't mean it's not valid of course. It seems weird to target Kennedy when he's far from the first prominent liberal to endorse Obama.

Yet another reason to distance ourselves from NOW, an organization growing ever whiter, ever more homophobic, ever richer, ever crazier. I was so appalled by the unprofessional and stupid panelists at the last NOW conference (right here in Dearborn, MI, erroneously advertised as being in Detroit) that I discontinued my membership. They are beyond out of touch with contemporary feminist scholarship, most notably that of postcolonial, contemporary marxist, and WoC feminists. Hence, this bizarre press release doesn't shock me.

Are we not fighting for women to be viewed PEOPLE, rather than utterly defined by their female-hood? To suggest that by not selecting Hillary it is a sexist, anti-feminist move, is to suggest that we are nothing more than female, and that the only reason to vote for Hillary is because she's female. Now I'm not suggesting she's a better or worse candidate than Obama, I simply don't know enough of the facts as a Canadian, however to vote for her SOLELY because she's a woman is dangerous and not, in my opinion, what it means to be a feminist.

Sorry, they called something else election-related a "psychological gang-banging" and it was released Jan 11.

Wow indeed. Seems like that national org is biting their tongues ... NOW nationwide's press release is quite the contrast from the release above
(http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html)

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

"January 28, 2008

"The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.

"Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote."

Oh dear God. I support Hillary and I'm completely embarrassed by this stupid thing. "Ultimate Betrayal Felt By Women Everywhere"? Really? Endorsing Obama is the "ultimate" betrayal? Worse than any other possible betrayal? Felt by women "everywhere"? Like, what, women in Kenya stopped dead in their tracks, looked up in the air, and felt a tremor in the force? Are you kidding me?

Also, way to slam Kennedy after he has been a staunch and reliable supporter of women's rights.

Jeez, NOW. Stop it. You're making us all look bad.

I was expecting to vote for Hillary this November. Not because I thought she was the best candidate, not because I thought she was even a good candidate, but because, like every other presidential election I've been old enough to vote in, I would be choosing the least bad candidate, holding my nose and voting because otherwise I was effectively casting half a vote for the opponent, who was even worse.

I don't like Hillary. I don't trust her. Her gender is irrelevant, I didn't much like or trust her husband, who politically was almost identical. But I was planning on voting for her, expecting her to be the Democratic candidate. I don't think Hillary deserves support just for being a woman, as some sort of reparations for gender inequality. And I don't think she deserves my enthusiasm of support for simply being not as bad as the Republican alternatives.

Unlike Jackson or Sharpton, Obama is not running on a platform of "After 400 years of oppression, you owe us a turn as President." He's a leader I can actually support, possibly (and I am well aware of how much this verges on hyperbole) the best leader of our generation.

Not our best black leader. Our best leader, period. Hillary can't claim to be the "best" anything, she's never had a platform better than "I'm inevitable, and not that bad."

Whoever penned that for NOW-NY is petulantly protesting that a man, minority or not, is "stealing" Hillary's "turn" to be president, and that Ted Kennedy endorsed him. Frankly, I suspect she's more pissed over Caroline Kennedy's endorsement (which I expect to be more influential). But Ted Kennedy is an easier demon to rail against.

--Dave

Psychological gang bang? What the FUCK?!? I kind of feel more like using rape as a metaphor for something that's NOT rape is more of the ultimate betrayal to women everywhere.

Welcome to irrelevance, NOW.

With all of the shortcomings they list at the beginning of the statement, how can they be surprised by this development?

And, like a few other people here, I'm a full fledged Hillary supporter and I certainly don't feel like this is the "ultimate" betrayal - or any sort of betrayal at all!

That's not the platform Jackson ran on. As I recall he ran on a platform of interracial democracy, grassroots engagement with the political process, and economic justice, against lay-offs and the removal of working-class jobs from the US, de-emphasizing the "war on drugs," building coalitions among the poor and working-class of all races as well lesbians and gay men of all races, and supporting the ERA.

i shudder to think that such closed-minded simplistic rants come from our feminist "leaders." time for a change up in NY.

In saying that Kim Gandy is "biting her tongue" you seem to be presupposing that Gandy or National NOW support the view expressed in the press release. State officers are elected by NOW members in their state and are relatively autonomous. Gandy and the National office aren't directly responsible for New York State NOW's press release or the actions of state officers even though the actions of state and chapter officers can (unfortunately) reflect on NOW overall.

@EG: I'm over-simplifying, yes. But much of Jackson's rhetoric, the narrative of the campaign, was "America owes the black community a president", or so it seemed to me at the time. His positions seemed like a grab-bag of Democratic party wish-list points, not a coherent philosophy.

What's the point in beating a 20-years-dead horse? Jackson didn't inspire me. Hillary doesn't inspire me. Obama does, and I think saying that's because it's easier for a man to overlook race than gender is an insult. And that's what that NOW-NY statement is doing.

--Dave

So this was just Now-NY?

http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

So this was just Now-NY?

http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

yikes. i've been volunteering for Edwards. i had no idea that i was supposed to vote my vagina. silly moi. i thought he was the better candidate and still do...and if she wins the nomination, i'll work hard for her.

but in the meanwhile NOW - NY, thanks for playing into all of the hysterical feminist stereotypes.

Maybe someone hacked into the NOW website and released a parody piece....

That seems like their best defense at this point. I wonder if the writer will get fired?

"Unhinged" is absolutely correct, Ann. Yikes.

My fiance told me about this on my way home from work today and I said, "It's not that I don't trust you as the messenger, I just can't believe they'd write something so stupid. I'm not saying anything till I read it." And now I've read it and, yeah. Wow.

I sent the following email to "info@nownys.org":

Hello,

Regarding this press release:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-10.htm

I'm writing to say I'm really offended that as a feminist organization, NOW-NYS claims to speak for all women. Well, you certainly don't speak for me. Women everywhere do NOT feel betrayed by Ted Kennedy. I, for one, do not support Hillary, and do not think that her possession of a vagina is sufficient reason for me to vote for her just because I have one, too, and want one of our presidents to have one. I support Barack Obama because I believe he can deliver a better future for all Americans--including women and particularly women of color--and I welcome Senator Kennedy's endorsement of him. I understand politics can incite passion, but honestly, watch your rhetoric.

wow,I think we are dealing with a serious case of burn-out here. It seems that something has snaped deep inside that organization. This is not to say "they are frail women, and so fragile" but rather to say "they are frustrated people who have been pushed too far and have been working too hard".

Wow. And one wonders why many women, particularly young women, hesitate identifying themselves with the word "feminist."

Certainly, that feminists like Ms. Pappas are out there sounding like an irrational and vindicate, "don't betray the sisterhood" crazy, can't help.

I'm sure there are plenty of great people involved in NOW, but I've had nothing but bad experiences with them. I think they really need to get their shit together as an organization unless their plan is to actually drive younger feminists away.

I had thought about checking the group out, but that certainly won't be happening now.

I worked for National NOW for a few years after college and to piggyback off of patty's comments, they have no control over what state NOW organizations, or local chapters, say. The leaders of those orgs are voted into office by the NOW members in that state. I remember when I worked there the NJ state president put out a release concerning the lacy peterson case and Bush's subsequent unborn victims of violent act. In terms of PR, it was a heavy time to put out a statement that this was a slippery slope to banning abortion. We were flooded with calls and press outlets couldn't grasp that what state orgs said was not always reflective of what we said.

With that said, I completley agree with the posters that feel NOW is out of touch and does not represent them. It is why I left. I was subjected to racism, classism, sexism, ageism, homophobia and transphobia on a daily basis.

When us "younger" women formed an inter-office committee to address the critical in-house inter-generational problems, we were subsequesntly told that we were in diapers when they were clearing the road for us to even be where we are today.

When I formed a committee to address the exclusionary lesbian-only language (there are queer women, bi women, trans women, trans men, etc...), we were disbanded and told our membership, namely the old women who gave us the most money (verbatim), were not ready for that langauge. The officer that said that then ended the meeting by claiming, and anyway, I'm a lesbian separatist, the only man in my life is my son, we just don't deal in those (trans)issues. wtf?

My peer colleagues were constantly called "tarts" if they wore stillettos or short skirts and playing into the hands of patriarchy.

I am part Native American and when I dyed out my lighter highlights back to my natural color, the first person I saw in the office was our lobbyist who stated, oh look, you have your indian hair on today...you look like a real indian warrior princess now.

My FTM husband was ogled at during Christmas parties and asked disturbing sexual questions. My ineffective and near comatose superior, who spent all day web surfing, didn't want me to work for her because she felt my "look" (i can only guess young, queer, WoC, pierced) wouldn't resonate with our members, and actively worked to hurt me with gossip. NOW changed me from an idealistic and hungry to disallusioned and wary. It took me a bit to find my way back.

I could go on and on. But the last thing I will say is that NOW is dying. Not only are they completely ignored on the Hill and by most feminists and the mainstream, but they are financially dying. Funds are not (and have not) coming in. I disagree with them on such a fundamental level, but I would be lying to say that I do not fear their fall in a way, and the bs "proof that feminism is dead" rhetoric that would ensue.

Sorry for the rant. :) Looks like I still have not thoroughly cleansed.

Since when is Barack Obama remotely an anti-woman candidate? I mean, get pissy if Kennedy endorses Huckabee or Ron Paul or someone like that, but not OBAMA. Oy.

This kind of identity politics really pisses me off... and makes it easy for our right-wing enemies to paint all feminists as one-note voters.

I mean, the whole point of feminism is to make identity based on biological gender a thing of the past, right?

NOW is increasingly isolating itself as the voice of the reactionary old-guard, totally cut off from the feminists of this century.

That's disappointing. It betrays a deeply held and completely un-self aware insecurity on the part of the organisation.

As a fan of Clinton, I can only say that I would and have never considered her as a candidate strictly as a feminist, nor have I ever once thought to decry anyone, feminist or ally, for having the freedom and right to disagree.

We're all on the same side, damn it.

This press release was so utterly absurd I thought it was something out of The Onion or a blog post at first glance. It's just completely bonkers. That a feminist organization is basically saying "women should vote with their vaginas, not their brains" is so antithetical to the basic principles of feminism that it really needs little commentary. To claim to speak for all women everywhere is ludicrous anyway. Guess what, NOW-NY? Some women aren't even Democrats. To them the Obama/Clinton hullaballoo isn't even an issue.

This press release is just a joke, a culmination of some sad "oppression olympics" that has overshadowed what should have been an interesting Democratic primary season. Obama vs. Clinton has turned into "the black guy vs. the white woman" as opposed to much analysis, if any, of their policy positions. Women and men have the right to vote for the candidate they think is best, which means if a man supports Obama it may not be because he's a man, but because he likes his positions better. This kind of thinking is so antiquated, and steeped in so much prejudice, that it has no place in modern thought, much less feminism.

It's also stuff like this that puts the average guy off from feminism. The idea that Ted Kennedy isn't just sexist, but the "ultimate betrayer" of women for choosing a male candidate based on policy is so threatening to the average guy that it makes them think that much of feminism is like this.

I know it's a cliche to say it, but Jesus Christ, that really reads like something you'd see in the Onion. At least the first paragraph or so anyway.

Thank you Marcia...for making us all sound like a bunch of crazy people...

That press release was unbelievable and also, as someone else said, poorly written

Jesus H. Christ on a stick.

Is it just me or is there something supremely racist about laboring to point out that white progressive men are so misogynist that they'd rather vote for a black man than a white woman?

*headdesk*

You've got to be kidding me. No, seriously, this is a joke, right? Right?!

How confirmed is that "confirmed"? And if it's serious--I'm still in denial--this is humiliating. NOW that's what I call fucking up.

Where are the feminists on this website?!
This campaign is absolutely about gender. In 2008, a woman is not allowed to be president in the United States. We fall way behind most other developed nations in the # of women in government - we have a tiny 16% in the House and Senate.
Vote for whomever you want to, our votes are not counted anyway. But think about this: if a woman is smart and strong and says 'no' she's the 'B" word. If she's sensitive and caring , she's "weak". We are so influenced by TV and Hollywood in this country that we want the guy with charisma and charm, never mind that he WORKS FOR THE SAME BOSSES as she does!
Wake up America!!! If we are ever going to talk about a general strike, the first step in a revolution, you have got to start using your brains.

I hate the way that people continue to claim that this election, people should vote for their race or their gender. I second the head to desk motion.

Below is the letter I wrote to Ms. Pappas. I'm so disappointed in the NY Chapter of NOW.

Dear Ms. Pappas,

I was shocked to read your statement on behalf of the NY chapter of NOW today with respect to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama.

First let me say that I am a longstanding feminist and would love to see a woman be elected president. To see Hillary Clinton as a viable candidate for the presidency has been such an encouragement to me and I love how her being on the campaign trail has forced commentators to use gender inclusive language with respect to the office of presidency, i.e. when they say the future president, he/she will be or do this or that. She does have equality of opportunity and to me has demonstrated that a woman can rise to the highest office of the land. Unfortunately, she does not represent me or my concerns and so I feel completely free not to vote for her. That is also a hard won gain of feminism…..to choose who I feel is the right person for office, not who someone in NY who I don’t even know dictates for whom I should vote.

Ted Kennedy has not betrayed women by choosing to endorse Obama and I think you overstate your case. He is free to endorse who he thinks is the best person for the office. I’m very disappointed in you and in NOW for the bitter tone. You give feminism a very bad name and it is this sort of attitude that alienates young women of today from becoming feminists. There is a new wave blowing for us that means we no longer have to indulge in the identity politics of the past. To me, Obama transcends identity politics of both race and gender.

I long for the day there is a woman I can vote for. I’m prepared to wait for that person. Whilst I appreciate Hillary breaking further ground for that to occur, she’s not my ‘woman.’ Given her reliance on her husband’s campaigning and going on the attack for her, given that she relies on his coat-tails and his name, I don’t see how she represents the aspirations that I have for myself as a woman or the aspirations I have for a woman President. It’s complicated for me and just because a person is a woman does not mean I will vote for them.

Also, I was appalled by your press release of January 8, 2008. To use the language of rape and physical violence to describe how Hillary was a victim of misogyny in the campaign was a gross overstatement and demeans and marginalizes what women who’ve been actual victims of rape and physical violence have gone through. There is a rough and tumble of the campaign, something she herself has indulged in as we’ve seen last week in South Carolina. If she wants to play with the ‘big boys’ she has to just get on with it. I don’t know of any such whining on the part of women CEOs who have endured far worse to get to the top of their professions. She wants to be President so she needs to take it. Most of the ‘rough and tumble’ have nothing to do with her being a woman. In fact, it’s actually probably a compliment. She’s tough so the male candidates don’t patronize her or treat her with kid gloves.

Anyway, to me you’ve dishonoured the name of feminism. I’m disappointed in you and in the New York Chapter of N.O.W. I reject the type of feminism you espouse.

Sincerely,

nkhogan

Something about this is bugging me.

I mean, i know that state organizations don't always move in lockstep with the national parents, it happens.

But this release seems so weird, maybe NOW's New York chapter really is that nuts, But does anyone else think this doesn't pass the smell test? Or is the NY organization down to three people in a borrowed office? That's the only explanation I can think of. Because NOW is too politically mature an organization for this kind of idiocy, isn't it?

Maybe that's wishful thinking. But this looks like it was written by a hung-over undergraduate. (Maybe it was).

Of course, as one of the linked stories notes, NOW isn't the player in NY politics it was and is less so than NARAL. Maybe that's the problem. Has anyone spoken to Pappas to ask what the heck is going on?

I guess I am just shell-shocked. It's like seeing an otherwise rational person suddenly go on a rant and put on a tinfoil hat.

Wow - I am more shocked than anything else. Stuff like this is are the reasons I am kind of disenchanted with the movement. We have no solidarity, it seems. Moreover, it makes us look bad.

Just to post a question to the poster who said she was appalled by the NOW Conference in Detroit: what did you say as being wrong with it? It seemed fine to me. I was particularly impressed with the YFLI panel members and actually learned quite a lot from them.

The press releases referring to Kennedy's endorsement and the male candidates treatment of Hillary as equivalent to gang rape are on the website of the New York State Chapter of NOW (this is different from the NYC chapter)

Here are the links. She really does appear to have said it. It's on their official website in the press release links as follows:

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

Here's a letter I just sent them:
To whom it may concern:

I am a lifelong feminist from Rochester, NY. I was appalled and
disgusted at this press release from NOW New York State regarding Ted
Kennedy's endorsement of Obama:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-10.htm

To suggest that Kennedy betrayed women because he endorsed Obama over
Clinton is to engage in the worst kind of identity politics. By that
logic, anyone who supports Obama is against women, and anyone who
supports Clinton is against blacks, and I guess black women are in
trouble. It is to suggest that feminists cannot disagree over the best
way to promote women's interests in the presidential election; and that
we must automatically support whatever woman is running for office,
regardless of her policies, character, and qualifications.
Nothing in Obama's policies or politics suggests he would be bad for
women; and many people believe he would be better, especially for women
of color. Hillary Clinton does not represent all feminists, and
certainly not all women. Many of us have profound misgivings about her
votes on war and the conduct of her campaign. NOW New York State gives
feminists a bad name when it issues such intemperate and impolitic
statements.

Further, regarding this press release:
http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

It is deeply, profoundly offense to compare a political debate in which
a powerful woman argues with two powerful men to gang rape. Do you
understand how that minimizes the actual experience of women who have
been raped? I was shocked and horrified that a feminist organization
would be so callous. Rape has always been a problematic metaphor, but
I've never seen self-proclaimed feminists take it to this level. SHAME
ON YOU.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX

Betsy, I love that letter!

NOW is increasingly isolating itself as the voice of the reactionary old-guard, totally cut off from the feminists of this century.

Cut off from this century altogether, it seems sometimes. And doesn't it seem like by getting all frothed up by this endorsement, they're making an even bigger deal of it than it originally was? I mean, a lot of people hate Ted Kennedy.

This is egregious. The news release is so over-the-top that it looked to me like a transparent parody written by an anti-feminist, maybe an MRA, to portray as many virulent stereotypes about feminist women as possible.

These stereotypes persist, harm us, and undermine our interests. We have a PR problem. This news release is not helping.

Kennedy is not representing me and made no claim of speaking on my behalf. I feel betrayed by Ms. Pappas, not Kennedy. Speaking for all women everywhere? That, in itself, reads like something no well-informed feminist would say.

I support Pappas's right to express her personal rage in personal fora. However, I expect more from any on-the-job feminist (There's pressure in that, I know, and I am sure those of you here who represent feminism to the media are already aware of this pressure, too. I acknowledge and thank you for accepting the job.)

Ok, I am not saying this press release is at all professional or even logical, but this thread in general kind of rubbed me the wrong way.

Here are my thoughts: Why is it so chic all of a sudden to be a feminist and not support Hilary? Everyone is jumping up and down about how proud they are of themselves that they didn't vote for Hilary because people expect feminists to vote for her. Why is there a knee jerk reaction to say "I won't vote for her because I agree with Obama more on the issues." I'm sure that is true of a lot of people, but come on, at the same time we are feminists here and Hilary is a woman! She is a strong candidate to become our first woman president! It reminds me of people who claim they are sooooo not racist that they don't even see other people's skin color. "Oh, that guy was Asian? I had no idea! His friend was black, I didn't even notice!" At a point it becomes ridiculous.

I'm not saying everyone should support Hilary and I'm definitely not saying anyone should vote based on their anatomy, but pretending to be completely blind to the fact that she is a woman doesn't accomplish anything. Identity is a huge part of politics, it just is. People vote not only for health care and tax cuts but also for people they can relate to in some way. I don't think refusing to acknowledge that one of the things that makes Hilary a great candidate for me is the fact that she is a woman is undermining my political stances at all.

I don't know if this made any sense. I'm just putting it out there.

Lucie, thanks for your comments. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, so if I get it wrong, please let me know, okay? For me, I'm not voting for or against anyone because it is chic.

Hillary is a woman and that's great. I think she's broken new ground for women by running and by being a viable candidate for president. However, I choose not to support her because I don't think she's the best person for the job. I'm not going to vote for her just because she is a woman the same way I wouldn't vote for Obama just because he's a man. I want the person in the job that I respect, that I think can do the job.

My reaction to Pappas is that she implies that a man like Kennedy, by endorsing Obama, is deliberately sexist and against women and is not capable of being led by a woman. That is reverse sexism. And I react against that the same way I would if some man explicitly said he wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton soley because she was a woman.

What I resent as well is that Pappas makes the claim that she's speaking for all women. It's impossible to speak for all women the same way it is impossible to speak for all blacks, all hispanics, all whites, or all of any group. No one identity group is homogenous--everyone has intersecting identities depending on one's ethnic background, one's race, one's education, one's nationality, one's economic class, etc.....

What Pappas does is perpetuate some of the mythology of second wave feminism and feminists, at least in theory, have moved on from there.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts. If people on this thread were just choosing a different candidate as a reaction to Pappas that would be wrong, but I really don't get that from what people are saying.

Amie Newman has a thoughtful post on this issue over at RH Reality Check. I like that she acknowledged the valid reasons behind the answer, even when it's been misdirected in such an impolitic way.

Gee...I sort of assumed that I could evaluate candidates' stances on the issues, analyze policy, and use that as a basis to determine who I will support. I'm glad NOW-NY has set me straight and told me that my only real decision point is gender. Makes life much easier!

NOW National has a nuch better take on this. I kind of wish that feminist blogs weren't giving this press release so much attention -- I somehow doubt that there's going to be a shortage of other media sources trumpeting this ill-conceived release to make feminism and Hillary look stupid.

AAAAAARGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Let me list the reasons why this kind of shit sucks:

1. It diminishes feminism by catering to the worst stereotypes of shrill identity politics.

2. It diminishes feminists by limiting choice and insisting on voting strictly based on which candidate has a vag.

3. It plays into the bullshit media meme that thie election is all about gender & race. This is the first race since I've been politically aware that is driven -- at least in part -- by specific policy issues and not generalities. There's real stuff being debated out there, but it's getting overshadowed. When they get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers. Which set of questions do you think is more relevant:

Iraq? Iran? Warrantless wiretapping? Obscene tax cuts for the rich? Corruption? Rule of law and accountability?

or

Would the country be better served by a black penis or a white vag?

I personally have a hard time with the reasoning "I'm voting for so-and-so because s/he's charismatic." To me, that's far worse than voting for a woman because she's a woman or a black man because he's black. Vote for the person who you feel will do the best job, not the one who talks purty.

Then again, I don't think voting based solely on gender or race makes any sense, either, because having a certain set of genitals or a certain color doesn't mean that you are going to do what's best for that group; besides this, neither group are homogenous enough for all members to have the same needs and wants. The whole concept is preposterous.

Personally, the trend that scares me most is that so many of the candidates are either overtly religious, or at least openly positive to religion informing politics. By now, it should be pretty obvious that:
1. There is a very narrow definition for "acceptable" religions in this country, which puts many "atlernative" religions at a serious disadvantage
2. Both racial minorities and women are still marginalized by many mainstream religions
3. Allowing religious beliefs to inform political actions is not in the best interest of the country as a whole, but rather in the best interests of those already in power.

Seperation of church and state, baby! I don't want to know anything about any of the candidates' religious beliefs (I really don't care what they believe, as long as they keep it out of their political lives), and the whole thing smacks of pandering to former Bushites.

Frumpiefox, I do think 'charisma' is an asset. A good speaker can rally more of the people to a good cause, and I think we can all agree that's a good thing (at least when we like the cause!).

I kind of wish that feminist blogs weren't giving this press release so much attention -- I somehow doubt that there's going to be a shortage of other media sources trumpeting this ill-conceived release to make feminism and Hillary look stupid.

That's exactly why I'm glad the feminist blogs are speaking out on this, though. If NOW-NY goes unanswered, we're endorsing them by our silence-- especially in this anti-feminist, judgemental political climate.

'Would the country be better served by a black penis or a white vag?'

jfaustus- THANK YOU.

That made me momentarily not angry because I was laughing.

It's also exactly on point. Personally, I don't trust Hillary. Obama and Edwards are both very pro-women. I don't believe Hillary will create more social programs or uphold women's rights any more than either of them. The mere fact that she is a woman does stir a bit of pride in me, but on pretty much every issue- the war, health care, the economy- I find her a little too conservative.

I am a proud feminist. I don't think that I should vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet. Although I only have about a week to decide for the primary... I just think we should focus on who will be the best president long term.

Back on point- It would be awesome if NOW could stop betraying women by making us look like a bunch of on-the-rag liberals with unshaven legs.

As a long-time NOW-NYC member, I am upset and discouraged that one individual’s comments (that of state president, Marcia Pappas) are being misconstrued as representative of the organization. I read that NOW-NYC president, Sonia Ossorio thinks differently: “Senator Kennedy has been a tremendous friend to NOW and to the movement. NOW has endorsed Hillary, and we think she is going to make a fantastic next president.�

Similarly, National NOW’s president, Kim Gandy has issued a statement, “The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that. Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote.�

NOW is doing tremendous work on advancing women’s rights. NOW-NYC, specifically, has done a lot of great work against human trafficking in the city. (check out the recent "voices of..." series on this website. I hope that people can see past this egregious rhetoric to the women and men of NOW who respect a diversity of opinion and are fighting hard every day on behalf of women.

BWrites--Charisma can be an asset. Then again, I believe there are many charismatic people who are absolutely horrible and use their charisma to do horrible things. (Not to say any Dem in this race is any worse than any other--personally, I'm not nuts about any of the Big 3, but any would be an improvement over the current state of things.)

If you think a candidate has sound ideas, enough experience, and a great personality, wonderful! But to vote for someone based on how charismatic/cool/trendy/etc. they are is a little too much like voting for prom. And that seems to be the main reason many people like/don't like certain candidates: don't like the personality, do like the speaking skills, good looking, seems like someone you could have a beer with, and on and on.

This is politics, not Hollywood.

Hillary is decidedly to the left of Obama on healthcare (her plan is pretty much like Edwards') and economic issues. She may appear stodgy and middle-of-the-road, but the substance of her platform appeals to working-class Democrats for a reason.

BWrites--PS: Sorry if that last post comes across as a bit grating--I guess voting basded on personality is one of my pet peeves!

To those who want Hillary to president in order to make a point about women: you need to wake up! Feminism is not dead, nor is its mission over, but there are *gasp* male feminists too, and Obama doesn't exactly have a shoddy track record when it comes to feminist issues. The "Make History with Hillary!" rallying cry is essentially telling women to vote for Senator Clinton just because she is a woman and it would be a new thing for the US to have a female president. Guess what everyone seems to be forgetting? Having a non-white president would be breaking new ground too! So as long as you don't vote Republican, you're making history, whether with Clinton or Obama. Let's focus on issues now, plz.

I am supporting Obama because I don't like Senator Clinton's voting record. The fact that she possesses the same set of genitalia as I do makes me pause in backing her opponent, but hey, I'd rather see a man I do agree with politically in office than a woman with whom I disagree.

At least Hillary votes unlike Obama who just calls himself present. I AM voting for Hillary because she's a good candidate, has experience, and YES because she's a woman. It about time we shattered that ceiling.

And while I think Marcia's press release was less than professional, whatever, I'm glad she said it. God knows I was thinking that endorsement was totally lame. Old boys club hard at work....

Frumpiefox-- no, I totally get what you're saying, it'd be a really stupid reason to vote for anyone.

But I do think that it matters, even though it shouldn't-- those people voting for Bush because 'they'd like to have a beer with him' come to mind.

Efeminist, the "present" votes that Obama got slammed on by the Clinton campaign were actually part of a legislative strategy crafted by Planned Parenthood. Read the details at mediamatters.

BWrites--sad but true. I suppose that's why there's an electoral college and not direct voting. Oh, wait, the electoral college is why we got Bush for a second term....

Ahhh, politics!

efeminist - not to deny that the old boys' club is alive and well or anything, but do you really think that's what was going on here? really?

what about the high-profile endorsements hillary has gotten herself? if there's anyone who can go toe to toe with said old boys, it's hillary clinton. i'm not a big fan of hers, but i will give her that.

i can't read ted kennedy's mind, but it seems a bit paranoid to automatically assume that he's endorsing obama because he's like, a dude and not because he finds him a refreshing alternative to the status quo.

gimme a break. neither obama nor clinton are gonna be our saviors. and ted kennedy sure as hell isn't.

Goddamn right, El Jay.

I'm horrified by this press release. I almost worked for NY-NOW and now I'm glad I didn't. Shocking.

gimme a break. neither obama nor clinton are gonna be our saviors. and ted kennedy sure as hell isn't.

Very true, though I'm not religious and I'm also not seeking rescue. I'm voting for the candidate who can play the game, get started immediately on Day One, and maybe implement some of the policies I support.

Ideally it would be great to have Clinton as pres with Obama as VP, then let him continue after her first term. The transition would be less painful, and he can acquire the experience to maintain the right path. You don't want a repeat of the Carter administration (his heart was in the right place, but his reputation was ruined by mistakes due to inexperience). Some people may not "like" Clinton, or find her lacking "charisma," but she's familiar enough with the system to begin fixing things right away.

I hope this NOW release isn't getting a lot of exposure outside of NY State, because it will surely mean a lot of ribbing from my conservative cousins during my upcoming trip to Michigan. Also, I realize the US NOW has no control over the state chapters, but it would seem to me that with any chapter sharing your name, you'd want some kind of "official," unified opinion. Clearly this was not important to Ms. Pappas.

What concerns (as well as confuses) me is this: what exactly is the structure of the voting officers with NY NOW? Can the president just send out a press release without first consulting other officers? If that were the case, I think there's some serious overhauling to be done.

If the decision to send out this press release was a consensus, then what's their reasoning behind this? And how come no one is actually defending their positions here?

I can't wait 'till July for the national conference in DC. I am sure this will be brought up one way or another.

Marc

Papas is way out of line, and it's unfortunate for the rest of us who are state NOW board members to have to fix the damage she has created. I mean, it isn't like we have 48249572874857248 other things we have to do - and this is just our volunteer work!
-Jessica (31, Nevada)

P.S. Kim Gandy (national President) put out a quick statement on this:

January 28, 2008

The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.

Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote.

http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

I agree with the criticism of Kennedy. Why is he endorsing a guy's who's even to the right of Clinton, anyhow? Clinton's way to the right of me.

Here's how sexism works: if you bring up gender, you get slammed for bringing up gender.

Meanwhile, the media whore media gets to play the b*tch card 24/7.

Think about it -- Clinton's carefully-crafted b*tch image was carefully-crafted by -- Karl Rove.

Hi all,

I understand everyone's negative reactions to this extremely weird and upsetting press release. But really, I work in NOW grassroots, and I know that the vast majority of NOW people do not think this way! National NOW and the other grassroots leaders did not know Pappas was going to do this, and would never have supported it. She doesn't speak for all of NOW, any more than any one woman can speak for all women or any one X can speak for all XX's! Please don't blame all of NOW for this, or judge us by this -- the rest of us work very hard and are not crazy!
love,
s.