gender politics

It's Always Great When the NYT Links to One of Your Posts About Antonin Scalia Being a Legally Arbitrary, Self-Serving Jerk

Tue, 2011-01-11 13:51

Screen Shot of NYT Online - Link to Real Adult Sex re: Scalia on 14th Amendment
Screen Shot of NYT Online - Link to Real Adult Sex re: Scalia on 14th Amendment on 1/11/2011

They linked to this post: Marcy Wheeler on Antonin Scalia's Unlikely But Implicit Strict Originalist Repudiation of the "Personhood" of Corporations.

Actualy my original post just quoted Avedon Carol quoting Marcy Wheeler

Marcy Wheeler, fascinated by Scalia's ruminations on whether the Constitution protects us from discrimination (he says no), suggests he has clearly just killed corporate personhood: "If the Fourteenth Amendment shouldn't be applied to women and gays, then it sure as hell shouldn't be applied to railroads, right?"

Source: The Sideshow

Wheeler's referring to an 1886 Supreme Court decision granting 14th Amendment personhood protection to the Southern Pacific Railroad. Scalia likes corporations so he's going to arbitrarily agree that the 14th Amendment makes companies protected "persons."  But Scalia also hates women and gay people so he's going to turn right around and claim that the same 14th Amendment does not provide protection for actual women and gay persons! Must be great to practice self-serving opportunism and call it "original intent."

And speaking of self-serving opportunism, have you've ever thought about linking to this site but worried what you'd tell your editor, family, or neighbors would say?  You can say the New York Times does it too.

In 1910 Right-Wingers Said They Couldn't Get Away With Mauling Women for Voting, Modern 'Wingers Give it a Try

Sat, 2010-10-30 23:05

Item #1: 90 years ago: On the 90th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment Christine Stansell of had this to say about resistance to granting women the right to vote:

Female voters would also pose practical difficulties, described bluntly by a Mississippi man: “We are not afraid to maul a black man over the head if he dares to vote, but we can’t treat women, even black women, that way. No, we’ll allow no woman suffrage.”

Source: New York Times

Modern Republicans are clearly made of sterner stuff — the have no problem at all mauling women over the head. Or neck. With their boots! While one or more Republican comrades hold her down.

Item #2: This year: Lindsay Beyerstein of Big Think says

A group of Rand Paul supporters accosted an activist from MoveOn.org before the Conway-Paul senate debate in Kentucky last night. As you can see in the video, some Paul supporters grabbed the victim and forced her to the pavement. A man in a black and white shirt pinned her down while another guy in a baseball cap stomped on her head and neck. She reportedly sustained a concussion.

Source: Big Think.

Instance #2 This year: David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo said

The Washington state activist who was allegedly assaulted while protesting against Republican Senate nominee Dino Rossi at the GOP headquarters in Walla Walla County tells her story to TPM.

Source: Talking Points Memo.

Just sayin’

The Real Heart of "Chivalry"

Thu, 2010-08-26 07:15

In an op-ed commemorating the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment ratification that gave women the right to vote Christine Stansell, in a NYT op-ed dredges up a… pretty telling quote explaining exactly how men in the region who were nominally most committed to the “women as the fair flowers” sex really felt about them.

Thirty-six of the 48 states then needed to ratify it. Western states did so promptly, and in the North only Vermont and Connecticut delayed. But the segregated South saw in the 19th Amendment a grave threat: the removal of the most comprehensive principle for depriving an entire class of Americans of full citizenship rights. The logic of women’s disenfranchisement helped legitimize relegating blacks to second-class citizenship.

Female voters would also pose practical difficulties, described bluntly by a Mississippi man: “We are not afraid to maul a black man over the head if he dares to vote, but we can’t treat women, even black women, that way. No, we’ll allow no woman suffrage.”

She said it here

Lest I seem to be singling out southerners it’s worth remembering that 52 years earlier, in 1868, the text originally proposed for the 14th Amendment had to be watered down in order to pass in southern or northern states: Stansell reminds us the original words prohibiting the denial of voting rights to “any of the inhabitants” of the states was changed to “any of the male inhabitants” of the states. Still, I’m pretty sure the earlier, nation-wide exclusion of women wasn’t so much to avoid “mauling them over the head” to keep them from the polls.

Sigh.

Any Way to Put Organization Back in the National Organization for Women?

Sun, 2010-01-10 13:25

Summary: Reflections on a pointed question from a website that’s usually not on the forefront of feminist activism.

Angry Mouse, in a toweringly angry post at Daily Kos asks a question that, post Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson, keeps gaining traction: Compared to the (literally!) lunatic fringe teabaggers W exactly TF do NOW and NARAL and Emily’s List actually do anyway?

You know those emails? The ones from NOW and NARAL and Emily’s List that declare, with great urgency and lots of ALL CAPS and exclamation marks, that you must give money right now? Stop this bill! Block this nominee! Protect Roe! Save the Supreme Court! And give, give, give!!!

And since you often agree — why yes, I do want to stop this bill; why no, I do not want that nominee confirmed — you click and give. It won’t stop this bill or block that nominee, but you will get another email at the next crisis.

And it’s always a crisis. Even under a Democratic president, with a Democratic supermajority in Congress, the nation’s biggest feminist organizations are in crisis mode, raising money but unable to deliver results. They’re just as effective as they were under Bush. Which is to say, Not. At. All.

...

Remember way back in the fall of 2008, when one clever person decided to donate to Planned Parenthood in “honor” of Sarah Palin?

“Make a donation to Planned Parenthood,” the anonymous e-mail message urged. “Of any amount. In Sarah Palin’s name.”

The message, which began circulating widely on the Internet last week, had one more instruction: request that the personalized thank-you card from Planned Parenthood be sent to Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee and a vocal opponent of abortion, at the McCain-Palin campaign headquarters in Virginia.

So far, the scheme seems to be getting a strong response. As of Friday, Planned Parenthood had taken in $802,678 in donations from 31,313 people, said a spokesman for the organization, Tait Sye. More than two-thirds of the individuals are first-time donors to Planned Parenthood, Mr. Sye said, and money came in from all 50 states.

Nearly a million dollars raised for women’s health care, not by any of these organizations asking for money, but by one anonymous email. If it really is about the bottom line, if feminist advocacy has been reduced to how much money can be raised, what purpose do these organizations serve that can’t be achieved by one person with a good idea and dial-up?

Perhaps it is time for women to examine whether the largest organizations that claim to represent them are really delivering on their promises.

They’ve failed to organize the millions of supporters they have into a coherent and powerful movement. ‘Cause when your movement looks like an amateur mess compared with the “keep your government hands off my Medicare” teabaggers, you’re doing something wrong.

There’s quite a bit more here.

Angry Mouse is absolutely clear the problem isn’t feminism itself. Witness her endorsement of the Planned-Parent letter and its awesome grass-roots response. Which got a lot of acceleration from non-institutional feminist and progressive blogs and websites. (I first heard about it on either Feministing or Feministe.)

It’s also possible those organizations launch tons of initiatives that… um… just aren’t very visible, exciting, base-mobilizing, or particularly cost-effective compared to their high-visibility, highly exciting (or at least stress-elevating), highly-effective but clearly not-at-all base-rallying fundraising.

Just for the record I don’t want to hear that the deck is stacked against women in politics. Or even that the “establishment” welds the whip. Deck-stacking has not hampered Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, for instance, both of whom are doing even though both are women and cordially despised by a conservative establishment that would very much prefer nice well-heeled white men like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. That these women’s most enthusiastic support comes not from the establishment but from the very demographics that, say, NOW says is most inimical to women: MRAs, super-patriots, evangelicals, secessionists, xenophobes, skinheads, and all-round knuckle-draggers. Also for the record I don’t want to hear yeah-buts about how Palin, or Bachmann, or Liz Cheney, or Michelle Malkin, or Kellyanne Conway, or Mary K. Ham, or Virginia Foxx, or (going back a generation or two) Margaret Thatcher, Ayn Rand, Phyllis Schlaffley, Jeane Kirkpatrick, or (before her welcome but peculiar turnaround) Arianna Huffington, and on and on and on were or are just parroting, mimicking, or sock-puppeting for behind-the-scenes male power brokers. Each one of them believes that shit way more passionately than any 10 John Boehners, Mitch McConnells, or Rupert Murdochs.

And finally, from my childhood encounters with conservative protestantism it’s very often women in churches who let their ministers know when they seem to be going soft on hard-line issues. The point is that if there’s a problem for feminists it’s probably got surprisingly little to do with the fact that women are advancing the issues and way more to do with the issues. And this is why, I think, it’s a mistaken strategy in… I dunno… industrial feminist organizations to imagine that “if you fundraise for it they will come.” And why I think it’s absolutely catastrophic to wait till the bus you’re being thrown has too much momentum to be stopped before saying anything about it. You’ve got to sell it. Promote it. In advance. Sell it to women, far too many of whom are on the bus! Even sell it to men! Who are served by the status quo better than women but only relatively so and only scarcely so. (On this point: if men were that much better served then you’d expect to see neither Mary Matlin advancing the status quo nor me feeling confined by it. Instead you see similar dynamics all over the place.)

Going back to Angry Mouse’s point about the Planned Parenthood fundraiser. One email, multiplied by a thousand forwards, reposts, and retweets turned into a million dollars in donations to an organization that, however perfectly or imperfectly, actually does something. That’s a lot of pent-up interest that in turn suggests there’s room for advocacy and action.

I mean… it’s… I mean… doesn’t it says something right there that Angry Mouse’s angry thesis appeared on the only-vaguely-sorta-gets-women’s-stuff DailyKOS rather than something like, oh, say, the organization-ought-to-be-its-core-mission National Organization for Women?

I feel really, really on thin ice saying this at all but it seems like two of the possible alternatives moving forward would be for, say, some serious reinvigoration of the aforementioned groups under the leadership of new generations of unapologetically feminist-activist women like Jessica Valenti or Pam Spaulding or Jill Filipovic… or else the establishment of additional organizations that might actually do something about the adverse gender climate instead of just complain about it.

Update: I should mention, as Angry Mouse does, that Stephanie Schriock, a Gen Xer, former Deaniac, and progressive political-organizing powerhouse, has just become the new president of Emily’s List. If she’s a feminist activist as well as a political pro that could be a promising development.

Daly and Limbaugh's Peculiar Dynamic

Wed, 2010-01-06 16:23

By the way, you know who I think is going to be more sad about Mary Daly’s passing than anyone in feminism or on the left? Rush Limbaugh. In the last 30 years he’s made on the order of billions of dollars tarring all of feminism with her supremacist, separatist spew. When he said “feminazi” he meant her and a very small handful of people like her.

This is not to say Rush Limbaugh was her responsibility — if it hadn’t been her he’d have picked someone or something else to demonize. But she believed largely what he accused her of believing. Advocated largely what he accused her of advocating. And he called that all of feminism. Nor, since she agreed, would she have disputed it. She, in turn, would have been able to point to Rush Limbaugh and say look how he proves my point about men. And of course Limbaugh would gloatingly agree as well.

Even though both were wrong it’s been in both their interests to maintain the fiction that everyone who disagreed with them were wimps, sellouts, or dupes and agents of their opponents. At the expense of many other kinds of feminism.

When you see a million grown men rolling their eyes and wetting their pants about “teh femininiminists” I think Daly had something to do with that. When you see a million grown women saying “I’m not a feminist but…” or “I’m a feminist but…” or, especially “feminism doesn’t speak for me.” I think Daly was a big part of that too.

And yeah, maybe that’s a little harsh. Fine. She’s the one who, as an individual, thought her would would be a better place if I, and half my children, as a class were “decontaminated” from the Earth. So I, as an individual, am sincerely sorry she’s passed away. As I would have been sincerely sorry had Rush Limbaugh passed away during his recent health crisis. I just as sincerely hope that, having passed away, their particular assumptions, ideas, and dreams of world transformation pass away with them.

Qualifications Vs. Disqualifications For Office

Mon, 2008-03-10 15:54


Photo by Flickr user JimNtexas. Used under a Creative Commons license.

It’s probably no secret that I’m less enthusiastic for Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Presidential bid than I am Sen. Barack Obama. And while I do support Sen. Obama I also spend a lot of time wrestling with the question of would I support any woman candidate (yes, off the top of my head I’d cheerily support a number of them including Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire, my state’s senior Senator Patty Murray, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and it sounds like there are a number of other rising-star women Governors who either are now or soon will be wonderfully qualified and likely to get my support.) The other question, one that gets posed any time I go back to my paleo-liberal roots in southern Appalachia, is whether America, especially conservative America is “ready for” a woman president. As it happens, I said yes several years ago and now someone else has taken up the point.

Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker says, with a difficult-to-determine amount of tongue in cheek, that John McCain should designate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be his vice-presidential running mate.

If McCain really wants to have it all—to refurbish his maverick image without having to flip-flop on the panderings that have tarnished it; to galvanize the attention of the press, the nation, and the world; to make a bold play for the center without seriously alienating “the base“—then he can avail himself of a highly interesting option: Condoleezza Rice.

To deal first with the obvious: Rice may be “only” the second woman and the second African-American to be Secretary of State, but she is indisputably the highest-ranking black female official ever to have served in any branch of the United States government. Her nomination to a constitutional executive office would cost McCain the votes of his party’s hardened racists and incorrigible misogynists. They are surely fewer in number, though, than the people who would like to participate in breaking the glass ceiling of race or gender but, given the choice, would rather do so in a more timid way, and/or without abandoning their party. And with Rice on the ticket the Republicans could attack Clinton or Obama with far less restraint.

By choosing Rice, McCain would shackle himself anew to Bush’s Iraq war. But it’s hard to see how those chains could get much tighter than he has already made them. Rice would fit nicely into McCain’s view of the war as worth fighting but, until Donald Rumsfeld’s exit from the Pentagon, fought clumsily. And it would be fairly easy to establish a story line that would cast Rice as having been less Bush’s enabler than a loyal subordinate who nevertheless pushed gently from within for a more reasonable, more diplomatic approach.

Rice is already fourth in line for the Presidency, and getting bumped up three places would be a shorter leap than any of the three Presidential candidates propose to make. It’s true that her record in office has been one of failure, from downgrading terrorism as a priority before 9/11 to ignoring the Israel-Palestine problem until (almost certainly) too late. But this does not seem to have done much damage to her popularity.

Read the complete column here.

Jason Zengerle of The New Republic says of this proposal

...the more I think about it, is so cynically brilliant that I’m sort of surprised Hertzberg actually put it into print, lest someone in the McCain campaign take him up on it and ride it all the way to victory in November.

Zengerle says it here.

To be honest I’m not even sure it would be a cynical choice. As Hertzberg points out, all of Rice’s perceived political liabilities are actually major benefits inside her party. And her perceived social liabilities — her sex, her class, her race, her education, her speculated-about orientation — would or ought to be benefits to Democrats, feminists, liberals, and progressives. And goodness knows that compared to Senator Obama, let alone Senator Clinton, let alone Senator McCain, while you don’t want her within eleven time zones of the “red phone” during business hours (when she’d surely consider using it to launch simultaneous “preventative self-defense” wars against Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia, and very likely France) there’s probably no one in government except possibly Dick Cheney who’s more qualified to answer it at 3:00 A.M.

And, without the least bit of irony intended, if recent defenders of Senator Clinton have been sincere in their belief that sex should trump character or policy, then they would surely be equally vocal in their preference for a ticket with Sec. Rice at #2 behind a very old Sen. McCain in very poor health to a vital if extraordinarily progressive Sen. Obama with.. any choice at #2 including possibly Sen. Clinton.

Speaking for myself, if the Republicans did select Sec. Rice (as I suggested they might several years ago) then I’ll say good for them for sticking with what’s really essential to their core values about Rice in their eyes — her cynical corporate corruption, her adherence to neoconservatism, her cold-war era Russian Studies education, her experience as the National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, her deft ability to coach unschooled, my-pet-goat-reading bumpkins through intricate preparations for war, her unwavering commitment to military adventurism, her willingness to accommodate communist China and excoriate communist Cuba — and ignore what’s really not very essential at all: her membership in classes, sexes, and races who’s bodies her party has raised itself to prominence by grinding under its wheels.

Of course I’d then turn around and work my ass off to elect a Democrat whether it was a less-qualified-woman-than-Rice Senator Clinton or a man like Senator Obama. But that doesn’t mean I think it would be a bad idea to nominate or elect a woman, just that it would be a very bad idea to elect Condoleezza Rice. (Or, if she continually insists on taking pages from Karl Rove’s playbook, the otherwise eminently vote-worty Senator Clinton.)

But yes absolutely, if even conservative America ready for a woman President the question of “whether” has been resolved and now it just boils down to a matter of who.

User login