Selective Feminism

[Dragonlady]

Please, liberal women lead the attack on non-liberal women. Non-liberal women don't single out women, they just think Democrats are stupid, they don't select liberal women in any way for extra ridicule.

Look at this discussion and all the liberal women who are incensed over criticism of liberal women, but yawn at attacks on conservative women.

So calliing feminists "femi-Nazis" isn't selecting women for special criticism, nor is calling Hillary Clinton a bitch, or mocking her for wearing pants suits, or her latest haircut?

Conservative women are quite capable of sticking up for one another. It's not the job of liberal feminists to defend what people say about the women who oppose their platform and are actively working against them. Should blacks defend the KKK?

Your dogged determination to defend conservatives' attacks against women's rights is hilarious. Hear no evil, see no evil. This is why 60% of women vote for Democrats, and only older married white women vote Republican.

 

[boilermaker55]

It make one wonder about those dutiful conservative older marrried white women.Why do they vote the way they do. Could it be they are doing their husbands bidding.
No what I mean!

Please, liberal women lead the attack on non-liberal women. Non-liberal women don't single out women, they just think Democrats are stupid, they don't select liberal women in any way for extra ridicule.

Look at this discussion and all the liberal women who are incensed over criticism of liberal women, but yawn at attacks on conservative women.

So calliing feminists "femi-Nazis" isn't selecting women for special criticism, nor is calling Hillary Clinton a bitch, or mocking her for wearing pants suits, or her latest haircut?

Conservative women are quite capable of sticking up for one another. It's not the job of liberal feminists to defend what people say about the women who oppose their platform and are actively working against them. Should blacks defend the KKK?

Your dogged determination to defend conservatives' attacks against women's rights is hilarious. Hear no evil, see no evil. This is why 60% of women vote for Democrats, and only older married white women vote Republican.

 

[kaz]

Please, liberal women lead the attack on non-liberal women. Non-liberal women don't single out women, they just think Democrats are stupid, they don't select liberal women in any way for extra ridicule.

Look at this discussion and all the liberal women who are incensed over criticism of liberal women, but yawn at attacks on conservative women.

So calliing feminists "femi-Nazis" isn't selecting women for special criticism, nor is calling Hillary Clinton a bitch, or mocking her for wearing pants suits, or her latest haircut?

Conservative women are quite capable of sticking up for one another. It's not the job of liberal feminists to defend what people say about the women who oppose their platform and are actively working against them. Should blacks defend the KKK?

Your dogged determination to defend conservatives' attacks against women's rights is hilarious. Hear no evil, see no evil. This is why 60% of women vote for Democrats, and only older married white women vote Republican.

I'm not interested in defending those strawmen. You have a flagrant double standard. You demonstrate it over and over. And BDBoop demonstrates she is my stalker.

 

[kaz]

It make one wonder about those dutiful conservative older marrried white women.Why do they vote the way they do. Could it be they are doing their husbands bidding.
No what I mean!

Please, liberal women lead the attack on non-liberal women. Non-liberal women don't single out women, they just think Democrats are stupid, they don't select liberal women in any way for extra ridicule.

Look at this discussion and all the liberal women who are incensed over criticism of liberal women, but yawn at attacks on conservative women.

So calliing feminists "femi-Nazis" isn't selecting women for special criticism, nor is calling Hillary Clinton a bitch, or mocking her for wearing pants suits, or her latest haircut?

Conservative women are quite capable of sticking up for one another. It's not the job of liberal feminists to defend what people say about the women who oppose their platform and are actively working against them. Should blacks defend the KKK?

Your dogged determination to defend conservatives' attacks against women's rights is hilarious. Hear no evil, see no evil. This is why 60% of women vote for Democrats, and only older married white women vote Republican.

In addition to not knowing how to spell, you obviously don't know any older white conservative women.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm not interested in defending those strawmen. You have a flagrant double standard. You demonstrate it over and over. And BDBoop demonstrates she is my stalker.

So what you're saying is you've got nothing. There was no straw man there. I used actual things that conservatives have said in criticism of Hillary Clinton. Rush is proud of his femi-Nazi label which he uses all of the time.

You're using the same flawed reasoning that TP keeps using: that his original premise is correct and women should defend any woman who is criticized just because we're women. The original premise isn't valid and neither is your defense of it.

As for why older married white women vote conservative, beats me. I don't understand why ANY woman would vote for the Republican Party, who opposed the ERA, women's reproductive rights, and equal pay for women. Younger women are smarter. They realize Prince Charming may turn them in for a trophy wife when they turn 40 and they'll end up working to support their families making 77 cents for every dollar earned by the guy sitting next to them doing the same job.

Many younger women have daughters who they want to have career opportunities and reproductive rights. And many are minorities who know that as bad as things are for minorities in the US, they're worse for minority women and the Republicans Party doesn't care.

 

[emilynghiem]

Reminds me of the woman who called into my boyfriend's radio show asking:
"Where are all the prochoice feminists when Terri Schiavo is being put to death by
her ex-husband? Where are all the women against domestic violence?"

The Prolife vs Prochoice politics were so divided, the case got painted over in the media as political and people didn't see her as an individual much less as an abused woman.

When I invited Prolife friends to a prochoice liberal feminist group, it took weeks to argue that all women should be included and allowed to speak for themselves. The Founder of the group had to plead and beg the group to include the women with equal respect. Many of them were convinced it was just religious proselytizing by patriarchal men using women to speak for them as their propaganda.

The key is to get rid of the "patriarchal politics" and start making decisions as equals, based on consent of the people and not through hierarchies where people are seen as puppets "representing" agenda or groups, but individuals can speak for themselves.

What is standing in the way is people "not forgiving" other groups and holding these grudges and stereotypes. If they can forgive and let go, then the barriers can change.

It is a personal internalized issue, and is up to each person to change how they see each other. Before we can such changes on the outside, and especially in the public media.

Have you seen the news over the past couple of years? Sure you have. If you haven't, you've missed a broiling debate on the issue of abortion and contraception, not to mention some deep and wounding misogynistic commentary issued by opponents and supporters of this right passed you by. But enough of that.

In the midst of this heated debate I have noticed something. I have observed how some women treat other women differently than others. I have again noticed how this behavior is widely influenced by political or societal events. I also have taken notice of the hypocrisy that it entails. What I am referring to is known as selective feminism. No doubt you have heard the comments issued forth by the right wing political shock trooper Rush Limbaugh in reference to Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, and the firestorm that ensued afterwards.

In this instance you have Democrats, pro abortionists and feminists all across America crying bloody murder, saying that Limbaugh should be taken off the air for his comments. In fact, they have said things to the extent of "Fluke is just an ordinary woman, how dare he say such mean things about her?", "He should be taken off the air or apologize post haste!" (Which he did not soon after).

These very same people have gone on to say that Republicans only want to take away their rights to contraceptives and birth control pills, and that the men, as well as the government, should keep their nose out from between their legs, which I find odd to say the least, since they want a right only the government itself can provide, and also that they allow certain men to fight for them and their "freedom." Okay, lets jump the fence here, to the other side of the political spectrum. I made reference to Fluke and Limbaugh, now lets examine David Letterman and Bill Maher, both Liberals, and their comments about Sarah Palin In June of 2009, David Letterman was caught on air making reference to Sarah Palin as a "slutty flight attendant," going on to make a less than polite joke about her underage daughter Willow:

"One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game," Letterman said, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

After Letterman's comment, Sarah Palin immediately responded, accusing him of making inappropriate and sexually perverted statements that he would "have never said about anyone else's daughter, and that "acceptance of sexually inappropriate jokes about someone's underage daughter, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously [sic] high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others," she went on to say. But wait! We then have Bill Maher who, after finding out that Palin had accepted a job as a contributor to Fox News, made this remark about her and her child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome:

“Sarah Palin agreed to do commentary at Fox News, which is actually very similar to her day job, talking to a baby with Down syndrome. Speaking of dumb s**ts, it’s not because they have breasts. It’s because they are boobs."

Once again Palin and the Republican party were outraged. As you know, Sarah Palin is widely known as Republican nominee John McCain's VP candidate, and a Republican herself. In this instance, only the women on the right wing side of the aisle were heard condemning the remarks. Now, here's the kicker, where were the feminists? Where, indeed, were the female Democrats? Not one was to be heard burning her brassiere over these sexually tinged comments, which leads me to my point.

What you saw here was members of feminism being selective of which women to defend, after she is slandered. But then again, a woman is a woman, right? Wrong. Somehow only a Liberal woman is worth defending, but a Conservative one, well, she's on her own. If you happen to be a Liberal woman reading right now, here is a question for you. How come you will defend a woman such as Sandra Fluke, but not ones such as Sarah Palin? They are both women. How can you not be angered when a woman, akin to yourself in all senses of the word, is sexually denigrated by other men? Might it be because she is a conservative? Or maybe it is because she is a pro life advocate? I fail to see the logic in this rationale that one woman is somehow different than another.

If Liberal women (men too, to an extent) are to be angry at Rush Limbaugh for inappropriately targeting Fluke, they should be equally angry when someone like Bill Maher or David Letterman make crude and sexist comments about Sarah Palin, her daughter, or her mentally afflicted son. To ignore it is to be a hypocrite, to defend it is foolish, and to do so is to take part in the act of selective feminism. Come on ladies, where did all the girl power go? Palin has the same set of ovaries and sexual organs you do, so why is she so vastly different? A woman should be quick to defend one of her own, whether be she a Liberal or Conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. If you are going to be sympathetic toward one woman, be so for all of them. If you are going to be outraged at a man who slanders another woman, again be outraged in unison with her and with all of womankind. These feelings should be indiscriminate. A woman is a woman, regardless of what she believes in or what viewpoints she holds to be true. To borrow a couple of verses, love your enemies as yourself. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Finally, take heed readers, that some of this can be said for Conservative women too. Remember, every woman should be in this together!

Yes, I run into this all the time. I remember being the only person in a group defending Sarah Palin and asking the others to remember how the media jumps all over Hillary Clinton the same way. Why do that to Palin and complain when it is done to Hillary?
I told them I liked Palin, even with her flaws, she spoke for herself and did things herself.
I don't think she is properly credited for combating the good old boy politics in Alaska that was corrupting the party and govt. You can say she jumped right in and did the same old things. That happened also with the City Mayors in Houston not changing everything at once, but making openings here and there for change, while still doing the same old thing in other areas. I think it is the political system that resists change, where anyone who steps in is going to have trouble fighting or changing the system. no matter who you put into office, they are going to make the same compromises and mistakes and get blamed!

 

[bendog]

I'd rather the premise were any woman should defend another woman when the criticism is aimed at her physical attributes or sexual actions. But, of course, that should be true of men too. Rush is in reality a comedian whom some people take as a serious commentator, and those people tend to be very angry and percieve themselves as somehow being victimized by segments fo the govt and society. And that makes it hard for gopers to call Rush out over his outlandish, and offensive, statements.

 

[emilynghiem]

Please, liberal women lead the attack on non-liberal women. Non-liberal women don't single out women, they just think Democrats are stupid, they don't select liberal women in any way for extra ridicule.

Look at this discussion and all the liberal women who are incensed over criticism of liberal women, but yawn at attacks on conservative women.

So calliing feminists "femi-Nazis" isn't selecting women for special criticism, nor is calling Hillary Clinton a bitch, or mocking her for wearing pants suits, or her latest haircut?

Conservative women are quite capable of sticking up for one another. It's not the job of liberal feminists to defend what people say about the women who oppose their platform and are actively working against them. Should blacks defend the KKK?

Your dogged determination to defend conservatives' attacks against women's rights is hilarious. Hear no evil, see no evil. This is why 60% of women vote for Democrats, and only older married white women vote Republican.

???

isn't this like arguing if you are criticizing all Blacks or target Black Women to criticize?
and if all people in a group are targeting the Black Women for criticism, or if it is the women in the group doing that?
what difference does it make, isn't the criticism just as negative in projecting blame outside instead of oneself?

isn't the critical factor if
* you are making CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms and trying to help X Y Z person/group
to CORRECT a problem that you EQUALLY share responsibility for correcting (as a common member of society INCLUDING this other person/group equally as yourself)
* you are projecting blame on some OUTSIDE person/group that "is not you"
so you can discredit that person/group as opposed to assume shared
responsibility for fixing whatever problem you feel this "person/group" represents
"that is not your problem or fault"

isn't that the key difference in if the criticism is effective and responsible or not?
if you are taking an equal/inclusive approach (treating this person as an equal to yourself)
or if you are dividing and excluding by group identity? (projecting blame in opposition)

NOTE: I find all people follow this process of projecting outside of ourselves and associating by groups,
in one form or another. We all have different biases, and respond to different situations while letting others slide.
So you lost me there, on why is one form of doing this projection
"any better or worse" than another form of the same thing?
why not correct it, no matter what form it is in?

 

[kaz]

I'm not interested in defending those strawmen. You have a flagrant double standard. You demonstrate it over and over. And BDBoop demonstrates she is my stalker.

So what you're saying is you've got nothing.

Another strawman. What I'm saying is that I pointed out your double standards and you didn't see it because you can only view it through partisan eyes. What is said about Democrats bothers you, what is said about Republicans doesn't. Unless it reaches "C" word level. That's what it takes. So I am losing interest now. Your badgering me isn't regaining interest, you developing a standard you believe in where you are consistent would interest me.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'd rather the premise were any woman should defend another woman when the criticism is aimed at her physical attributes or sexual actions. But, of course, that should be true of men too. Rush is in reality a comedian whom some people take as a serious commentator, and those people tend to be very angry and percieve themselves as somehow being victimized by segments fo the govt and society. And that makes it hard for gopers to call Rush out over his outlandish, and offensive, statements.

How about focusing on making any criticisms "constructive,"
pointing out the good with the bad. with a focus on correction and improvement
(not discrediting to attack).

If you point out the bad on one side,
why not point out the equal bad on the other.
And same with the good sides of both.

 

[Dragonlady]

I strongly agree with Steinem's criticisms of Pallin's candidacy for Vice-President simply because she wasn't qualified for the job by virtue of her experience, or her education. While it's impressive that she was elected governor in such a macho culture as Alaska, and regardless of her skills at dealing with local issues, she lacked experience or knowledge of issues outside of her own state.

Republicans did think women would vote for her just because she's a woman without due consideration for the policies and beliefs that women want to support. Condaleeza Rice would have been a much better choice in terms of experience and credentials, but she was tainted by her association with GSB.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I think much confusion comes from misleading titles. For example N.O.W stands for National Organization of Women. Of course they do not defend ALL women. It would lead to less confusion and charges of hypocrisy if N.O.W. had changed their name to National Organization of Progressive Hysterical Shrews.

 

[bendog]

I strongly agree with Steinem's criticisms of Pallin's candidacy for Vice-President simply because she wasn't qualified for the job by virtue of her experience, or her education. While it's impressive that she was elected governor in such a macho culture as Alaska, and regardless of her skills at dealing with local issues, she lacked experience or knowledge of issues outside of her own state.

Republicans did think women would vote for her just because she's a woman without due consideration for the policies and beliefs that women want to support. Condaleeza Rice would have been a much better choice in terms of experience and credentials, but she was tainted by her association with GSB.

McCain picked Palin to energize the emerging base that disliked any compromise, and frankly any government, viewing govt as an evil, and not even a necessary evil. Certainly, Palin was unqualified, but what made her a joke is the same thing that caused a supermaj to find the gop a joke for shutting down govt over Obamacare. They are viewed as spoiled children having a tempertantrum, and needing a time out.

What made Palin's criticism ... uncomfortable was, as we discussed yesterday, criticism of her lack of clothes and styling. In part it showed the not ready for prime time, but you look at other people from rural areas and you see some of the same: John Tester's hair cut (ok he probably was in the marines or something but most of gave up the flat top) or Amy Kolbacher's earth mom glasses, bangs and baggy dresses, but she's from Minnesota, which is next door to Lake Wobegon. It was unfair criticism, and based in large part on the fact that she was a woman, and female looks are viewed differently than male looks.

And, Palin injected her own daughter's pregnancy and the downs' baby into it (I forget who was the mom of that baby). But it turned into, literally, a bad reality tv show. But, still, the poor girl got "the slut treatment." And the dems were wrong to not call that out, but with Palin dragging the kids on stage ALL the Damn time (as opposed to the traditional group family photo op) I don't think anybody knew HOW to react to the circus act.

I'm not really happy using Palin as an example. She's, blessedly, unique.

I think Bachmann's looks have been referenced in less than gentlemanly terms. It's funny that she's really good looking but her husband may have had the gay cure treatment, and she's so stridently anti-gay. There are a lot of bi-sexual people in marriages, and so long as they don't make a hypocrisy issue, it shouldn't be part of the public discourse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think much confusion comes from misleading titles. For example N.O.W stands for National Organization of Women. Of course they do not defend ALL women. It would lead to less confusion and charges of hypocrisy if N.O.W. had changed their name to National Organization of Progressive Hysterical Shrews.

It's already been pointed out repeatedly that NOW took a stand against David Letterman's rude jokes about the Palins,

so shut up, for god's sake.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I think much confusion comes from misleading titles. For example N.O.W stands for National Organization of Women. Of course they do not defend ALL women. It would lead to less confusion and charges of hypocrisy if N.O.W. had changed their name to National Organization of Progressive Hysterical Shrews.

It's already been pointed out repeatedly that NOW took a stand against David Letterman's rude jokes about the Palins,

so shut up, for god's sake.

I'll give NOW credit for eventually disagreeing with Letterman's joke but I'm not going to pretend that this is the only stand NOW has ever taken. NOW was apoplectic when it came out against the "sexual harassment" by Clarence Thomas and insisted that women do not lie about being harassed sexually. Yet, when Juanita Broderick insisted that she was raped by Bill Clinton, NOW's response was to suggest that we will never know what really happened.
By all means, cling to the Letterman joke. Especially if that's all you've got.

 

[Dragonlady]

I have had some time to consider the arguments that activist women's groups should include women with a variety of opinions, even those with views at opposite ends of the political spectrum. After some consideration, I just don't think this is a wise approach. I think activist groups should consider opinions from all ends of the spectrum when formulating their goals, but at the end of the day, you need to pick your options and chart your course.

I think that a large part of the reason for the dysfunction in today's Republican Party stems that it encompasses a broad range of viewpoints across the right wing political spectrum. The party spends more time fight amongst itself than it does in opposing Democrats, and they come across as unfocussed and lacking in convictions. The Tea Party wing is determined to force out the moderates who they view as RHINO's. The moderates are fed up with the obstruction and tactics of the Tea Party. The religious right is frustrated that their agenda opposing gay marriage and abortion is not being implemented fast enough.

Candidates trying to appeal to all factions are so relentlessly negative in order to get the nomination, that by the time a candidate is nominated and he/she has been destroyed in the media by other Republicans. It wasn't Democrats who produced and distributed "When Mitt Romney came to town", it was Republicans.

When you are working against entrenched interests, you need a sharp focus and a clear agenda. And that simply cannot be achieved with a one size fits all working group.

 

[kaz]

I strongly agree with Steinem's criticisms of Pallin's candidacy for Vice-President simply because she wasn't qualified for the job by virtue of her experience, or her education

She was more qualified than Obama. What a disaster he is, and he has followed up his poorly thought through and executed policies with an endless inability to recognize, own up to learn from his mistakes.

 

[bodecea]

I strongly agree with Steinem's criticisms of Pallin's candidacy for Vice-President simply because she wasn't qualified for the job by virtue of her experience, or her education

She was more qualified than Obama. What a disaster he is, and he has followed up his poorly thought through and executed policies with an endless inability to recognize, own up to learn from his mistakes.

Obama was head and shoulders more qualified than Palin, and his ideas were more....shall we say....sane than hers. And still are. She's a nut job and an opportunist.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

"Feminism" doesn't mean "defending women from attacks".

As to your theme, liberals don't rush to the defense of Palin for the same reason that Conservatives didn't rush to the defense of Fluke.

I have defended Michelle Obama & her children on multiple occasions.

 

[kaz]

I strongly agree with Steinem's criticisms of Pallin's candidacy for Vice-President simply because she wasn't qualified for the job by virtue of her experience, or her education

She was more qualified than Obama. What a disaster he is, and he has followed up his poorly thought through and executed policies with an endless inability to recognize, own up to learn from his mistakes.

Obama was head and shoulders more qualified than Palin, and his ideas were more....shall we say....sane than hers. And still are. She's a nut job and an opportunist.

Agreeing with your politics is "more qualified," got it.

She ran Alaska, Obama ran squat. And it's pretty obvious by his arrogant condescension while he screws up everything he touches. He's not even a competent socialist, you just like him because he's a socialist.