What women's rights look like when the two sides come together as one.
What women's rights are when women are no longer manipulated by party rhetoric.


Thursday, August 18, 2011

Any Woman---Just Not THAT Woman

Cynthia Ruccia

I wrote a post the other day when Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll that caused quite a stir. Although alot of people agreed with me in concept, I also received vile, vitriolic responses laden with violence, character assassination, and frankly, the worst responses that human beings can conjure up. It was quite a display of the dark side of the human character.

Before we go any further to those of you who haven't read much of my stuff before, please note carefully and absorb what I am about to say-----THIS IS NOT A PIECE ABOUT MICHELE BACHMANN. THIS IS NOT A PIECE SUPPORTING MICHELE BACHMANN. OK? For those of you who viscerally HATE Michele Bachmann, I want to make that perfectly clear. For those of you who strongly disagree with Michele Bachmann, please note one more time---THIS PIECE IS NOT A PIECE IN SUPPORT OF MICHELE BACHMANN. OK everyone? I say this a couple of times because if you're one of those who hate or just don't like Bachmann, I'd still like you to be part of this conversation and not close your mind just yet.

My real point today is I keep asking myself why it is that we demand a level of perfection from our female candidates that we don't demand from the male candidates? We do, IMHO, elect flawed men to office all of the time. We may not like what these men stand for, but there is a level of acceptance about these men that somehow we are able to live with them in office, leading companies, etc. that we don't afford to women. For many, women just have to be, well, perfect in every way or they're not worth anything. I want to take issue with that whole idea today.

First of all, to demand perfection from women is a veiled prejudice. It is sexist. Why you ask? Because if a woman isn't perfect enough then it is too easy for all of us to assume that this poor imperfect specimen of female humanity must really just be a stupid woman. Or worse-----crazy or a slut, whatever. We all know the drill on that score. If the woman isn't perfect, we fall back into one of the most pernicious sexist slurs of all and that is-------any woman, not just THAT woman. That slur is awful because it masks every single stereotype with a false overlay of pseudo broad mindedness. The slur implies that the person saying it would actually vote for a woman, when chances are they wouldn't actually. And we blithely accept such a characterization---any woman just not THAT woman----with some unease inside. That unease is there because we know somehow that the slur is in there, we just can't find it efficiently.

We saw this phenomenon in raw display every day when Hillary Clinton was running for president. I wish I had $5 for every time I would hear it expressed----I'd be George Soros by now!! I'd vote for a woman, just not Hillary because she reminds me of a hectoring mother, or her voice isn't right, or her husband isn't right, or her cankles, or I don't like the way she dresses, or she's not cool enough, or____________, fill in the blank with the things you remember hearing. It didn't take much for a person to say any woman not just THAT woman because________. And almost always whatever filled in the blank was not a substantive criticism. It was just something to make Hillary not perfect and therefore not worth of support. You could substitute any woman's name for Hillary Clinton and come up with the same result. It was used against all of them------------Pelosi, Palin, Meg Whitman, the list would fill a page. And I am positive that if you supported any woman candidate and someone used that piece of logic, that turn of speech to tell you why they wouldn't vote for your person, it left you feeling uneasy. If it didn't, it should have.

A woman candidate not being "perfect" enough should set off alarm bells for another reason. This reason  could have easily been listed in my "Trouble in the Sisterhood" piece. Since women share such a small piece of what I like to call the "power pie" we have to compete with each other unnaturally for what little crumbs we get. That has been true for probably hundreds if not thousands of years. As a result we have become accustomed to learning and tacitly accepting that for a woman to get one of those crumbs on merit she has to be better than the others. She has to be perfect. SO---we women demand that perfection of ourselves, an extremely unhealthy way to live your life. And as a result, we project onto our female candidates this unhealthy and impossible drive for perfection, and when these women don't measure up to this perfection, which they invariably won't, we turn on them. As I said above, we don't make those same presumptions about men. We need to stop making them of the women as well.

The demand for perfection from women needs to become a cultural artifact. It is a drive that destroys lives. It causes endless depression. We humans, as my wonderful husband always reminds me, were not made to be perfect. We are ALL flawed. The most we can demand of ourselves is to keep striving to make ourselves better, to make our strengths stronger and to turn our weaknesses into strengths. That's it. Somehow we accept that better in men. In women, not so much. If the gal isn't already perfect, she's not good enough to assume leadership in any way. And we think we sound tolerant by saying "any woman, not just THAT woman." We don't. We sound sexist.

The blindest critique though is reserved for the person who says that by supporting women, imperfect women, we are setting the cause of women back 100 years. I just laugh when I hear that rationale. After all, how much further back we go? We only rank 70th in the world in female representation government. Women only hold 24% of legislative seats, 12% of governorships, 2.7% of CEO positions at Fortune 1000 companies, 20% of senior management positions, and 38% of companies have NO women in senior management positions. We still make 75% of what men make for equal work. You call that progress? I suppose you could if you look at the time when women's percentages were zero. But women's progress has stalled-------we've gotten close to those glass ceilings, but we can't seem to break them. And if we continue to demand perfection from our women candidates, we will never break them.

We just need more women to be elected------everywhere. Even where we don't like what they stand for. One of our commenters, freemenow, made the best analysis when commenting on our Bachmann piece. She said that in the Iowa straw poll, a prolife social conservative was going to win no matter what. And of you're someone who doesn't like prolife social conservatives, fine. But why not a woman? Even in what you don't agree with?

If you examine your soul deeply, you might find the truth, and that is that when it comes to positions you don't agree with and vehemently disapprove of, it is more threatening when a woman holds those positions than a man. It is more threatening because it shows women aren't perfect enough and it makes us all look bad. It's a sorry piece of logic. And it is sexist. Women we disagree with aren't any worse than the men we disagree with. And the sooner we can absorb that idea, the better off we'll be. And that is why I support the notion that we need to just get lots and lots and lots of women elected. We just need to get used to seeing women in power. Once we becoming accustomed to it, our deep fears of women leadership will go away. We fear that which we don't know.

So there, you've gotten to the end of my piece, and I kept my promise. This was not an article about Michele Bachmann! Please comment with YOUR ideas and thoughts--------

39 comments:

  1. This approach just isn't going to work to help women, I'm afraid.
    It's one thing to defend Bachmann against sexist attacks - and all women should do so, no matter what Bachmann's views.
    But it's a very different thing to think that any women should vote for Bachmann or for any man who holds similar views.
    Bachmann's views are not pro-woman but rather will set women back.
    Women simply can't afford to elect people like this and the US certainly can not afford to.
    And women who vote for her do not necessarily support women.

    To ask people to vote for someone simply because she is a woman is going to drive women away in droves, not attract them.
    It is not sexist to attack Bachman's views - they should be attacked because they are very frightening - for the US and for women.
    Her views are an insult to women in my opinion and a vote for her is a vote against women.
    I love this blog but I think it needs to defend women against sexism but remain critical of women and view points that do not advance women.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Anonymous, we've remained critical of women...and look where it's gotten us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's GREAT that Bachmann is running. It's wonderful!
    If nut cases like Rick Perry can run, nuts like Bachmann should also be running, and I applaud and admire her for it.
    From what I can see, Perry's press coverage has been much rougher than Bachmann's. And you can not call it sexism when a man is ridiculed in the press.
    It isn's sexist to point out how dangerous his and her views are. Neither this woman or this man should be President of the US. And women and men should say so. Its very concerning that either of them has advanced this far.

    We need another approach to move women as far and fast in the next 40 years as we have come in the last 40. I have to disagree with you there - we have come a long way - just not far enough. With women like Bachman in power, we certainly won't move women forward - we will move them backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The myth that any one woman can do anything to set women back is one that persists, especially on the left. I just don't understand it. The reaction to conservative women the last three years has exposed the depth of liberal & progressive dedication to women's rights. It's pretty shallow to only want progress for women that agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The women's movement that made it possible for many of us to live rich and interesting lives (even in a man's world), lives our mothers could not even imagine, was not the result of the efforts of all women.
    It was the result of the efforts of radical women - who had to fight not only men but women who were embarrassed by them, hated them, and fought them. Though of course we were all willing to accept the benefits that came form those radical women's actions.
    Change simply does not happen without a pretty nasty fight.
    In the past 40 years that huge fight was undertaken by a handful of women on our behalf. That is where progress came from - and yes, from seeing a few women in powerful jobs - role models who proved women could of course do these jobs.

    What we need - and do not have as far as I can see - is women who know how to lead on this issue. Who are willing to use their power to make change. Thanks to radical women and their vision, we have moved past the point where simply putting a woman's body in a job advances the cause significantly. We've been there, done that. It is no longer front page news that a woman becomes CEO of a company, or head of a government, the first woman to do this or that.
    It matters now that women get to the top and lead - truly lead - on behalf of women. Michelle Bachmann can not do that because her views belong to past centuries - not decades - centuries. She is an embarrassment to women's progress, (while perhaps only being able to run because of feminist views she herself does not hold.)

    It's GREAT that Bachmann has the guts to run.
    But women are not going to advance imo, if women like Bachmann and men like Perry get elected. I totally disagree with you about where the women's movement is today. I think we have come further than you do. We are past symbolism. We need action.

    But thank you for engaging in this discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Saying that voting for Bachman is a vote against women is VERY hypocritical. Aren't we as women supposed to support all women in their viewpoints? Women do not have to agree on every issue. In fact, I think the greatest equality will come when we start respecting other women's points of view that don't fall in line with what the democratic party tells women that their views should be.

    In case you haven't noticed, it benefits no one but the men in both political parties when women are divided and fall for the "she is against women's rights" nonsense that the democrats push against women candidates from the other party. Who are the democrats (who are mostly men) to decide which women's rights are the "right ones" anyway???

    Personally, I can't stand either party and I think both of them manipulate women's votes. I just wish other women would see how they are being manipulated and stop swallowing the party lines. This is why I refuse to affiliate with any party and remain an independent voter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The thing is Democrats are not running women for President or vice President. Rather than attacking Conservative women and Republican women who run and calling them sluts, and dangerously crazy, it would be better for Democrats to work to run women candidates they do agree with. I don't see that happening. I don't even see women being included in this administration and when they are they are simply set up as eventual scapegoats. Even the White-house commission on Women and Girls is a joke and token appointment. The real truth is Liberals and Democrats are not intellectually advanced enough to value women in leadership positions. I don't care what they say, I look at what they do and that is mock and degrade Republican women while simultaneously not running any women themselves. Yes I am aware Hillary ran in 2008 and I vividly remember the reaction of the Power That Be within the Democrat party.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No. We are NOT supposed to support all women in their viewpoints. We may defend that woman against sexisim, but we have to make it clear that we don't support her views if they are anti-woman.

    There were women who opposed giving women the vote. Should we support that view?
    NO!
    There are women who practice genital mutilation.Should we support the practice?
    NO!
    There are women who defend polygamy. Should we support that view?
    NO!

    We can try to be respectful of women who hold these views I suppose, but we are obliged to point out the incredible damage these views do to all women.

    I hear you on hating both parties. And that point of view seems to be taking hold!

    ReplyDelete
  9. To my mind, there has never been anyone less qualified for office than our current president, and the state our our economy and standing in world affairs proves it. Yet, he got the nomination instead of Hillary because, if you recall, there was open dialogue within the Democratic party that there would be rioting in the streets if Obama wasn't the nominee. So through documented caucus fraud and other sleights of hand, Obama was handed the nomination that rightly belonged to Hillary. Obama has set the bar so low in terms of competence and experience that any woman with a pulse can and should be elected. Tell me, when was the last time you repeatedly heard *any* female politician in office or running for office compared to Jimmy Carter -- by members of her own party, even. I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Cynthia, for keeping this conversation going. I agree with the post above. As of May 31, 2008, I am an independent voter. As Carolyn Maloney's book on women's progress notes, we must have at LEAST 30% women in positions of power to create positive change in laws pertaining to women. We're at 16% in U.S. congress. Women were making 77 cents per dollar when I was in college...and we are still making 77 cents per dollar now that I'm retired. Women need to elect women to improve our status. Face it, men are NOT going to do it. Have not and will not. Thanks again for your pro women remarks!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Alot of interesting ideas here. To anonymous, whichever anonymous you are LOL!! although it is not completely front page news when a woman runs a company, it almost is. 2.7% of Fortune 1000 CEO's are women, an embarrassment. In my piece above is a link to that statistic. And while the world is an amazing place for women compared to the world my mother and grandmother had to embrace, and the radical women who fought for those gains are to be commended, feted, and adored, that progress is unfortunately old hat. The thought that we should wait for a powerful woman to use her power to do something about it is long gone as well. There isn't a critical enough mass of women at the top to accomplish much other than mere tokenism. WE women, all of us, have to take matters into our own hands to effect the kind of change we want to see. We are completely stalled. And there are so many glass ceilings left to crack, we need to get busy.

    Sadly, I see the idea that the people on the right are anti-woman as little more than leftist propaganda. Both sides as are guilty as charged for stalling out women as Bes refers to above and for different reasons. As long we hew to any party line, we're going to be kept in our places.

    For now for all of us wherever we stand on the political spectrum, we need to keep speaking up about sexism wherever we see it whenever we see it and create the ripple effect that will wave through the culture. We may not agree on what a "pro-woman" agenda looks like, but we all agree that sexism is wrong. We have been completely lax, lazy, and wussy in standing up for ourselves that way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I say, any man... just not THAT man whose mansion in Chicago was practically a gift from a shady crony, who still won't accept accountability for his actions (or lack of it) 3 years into his term, who was the editor of the Harvard Law Review but never wrote anything for the paper, who got into Harvard because an Arab philantrophist asked the trustees to admit his protege into the university in exchange for a big donation, who socialized healthcare but made his "reforms" effective after the 2012 elections... even if you can get past that, the man's obstinancy is killing my 401(k)!

    ReplyDelete
  13. P.S. to my post above, Any woman or man... just not THAT man!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cynthia, I see where you're coming from, and I can agree with much of it.

    But I don't agree that just ANY woman will do, any more than just ANY man will do. To put a stepford-woman like Bachmann -- whose every life move, by her own admission, has been at the behest of either her (male) minister or her husband -- on the same level as independent-minded, accomplished, feminist women like Gov. Palin and Sec. Clinton serves only to diminish the latter two in the public's view, and by extension diminishes the accomplishments of all women who think for themselves and actually expand society's view of women's capabilities.

    Bachmann has exactly ZERO legislative accomplishments to her credit, ZERO executive experience, an alarming habit of taking credit for things other people have done, and a pronounced tendency for saying all manner of things that are either outright lies, uninformed claptrap, or vast, illogical exaggerations. She is very much the female, Republican version of Obama.

    (And don't even get me started on Bachmann's truly hysterical homophobia, which is just as bad IMO as Obama's misogyny and race-baiting.)

    Just as I would never support Obama, neither would I ever support Bachmann. Period. If that's the only choice given me, I simply won't choose.

    Some women, just like some men, are no more fit to be president than my cat. And IMO it is a fatal mistake for feminists or pro-women folks to fail to acknowledge that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey JB---I get what you're saying and actually I understand and respect where you're coming from. All of us have some women we could never vote for----even me believe it or not. But for different reasons than you. We all have our reasons. A better approach might be for most of the women to vote for most of the women most of the time. We'd get a better result perhaps!!And for those people who can vote for all of the women all of the time-----go for it!!!!

    JB in VA, I wrote in a comment above that unfortunately I see the "pro-woman" rhetoric as little more than party propaganda. I'm glad that I became an independent and feel out from under alot of it....

    but keep talking!! sounds like we've got alot of common thoughts....

    ReplyDelete
  16. Like so many of you, I too worked on HRC's campaign in 2008 and cringed hearing "I'd vote for a woman, just not THAT woman." But being a lesbian, I'd have to say that I would find it very, very difficult, actually impossible to vote to empower a woman who is running her campaign on an anti-gay platform (so she can win the hearts of the money powerful Evangelists). If you think its difficult for straight women in society "try being" a lesbian!!! LOL

    Any female (or male) candidate for President that implies one's sexual orientation can be corrected is not showing signs of intelligence, rational thinking or humanistic quality. In short, there are just some women who I could never support because their lives are dominated by hateful religious ideology. I've suffered too long in my own life through discriminatory actions to embrace hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  17. JB, I'm calling false equivalence on your assertion that Bachmann's so-called "homophobia" is as bad as Obama's misogyny and race baiting. Have you considered that misogyny effects 51% of the population and racism effects 13%, whereas homophobia effects less than 5% of the population? I'm not suggesting homophobia is right, and I fully support gay & lesbian rights, but I think it's important to keep things in perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We need MORE Women, not more "perfect" women in office. We have had 44 imperfect Male Presidents, it's high time we have an imperfect Female President!! If left to both party elites, we will never have any Woman President, perfect, imperfect, or anywhere in between. Face it, we have been and are being played..Time to create our own "talking points".
    Thanks for leading on this, Cynthia!

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'Power wears out those who do not have it'

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just curious, but people keep posting things here like "Pro-women" and "anti-women" and "women's agenda" and views that do or do not "advance women" or will or will not "set women back". Anybody want to be more specific than just using divisive Dem party talking points. Is it just that you have to be a Democrat or that's it? Which views specifically are and are not allowed to be considered "pro-women"?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't think it's just women we expect to be perfect, unfortunately. In terms of a woman I'd actually vote for, you're assuming (incorrectly) that I believe in voting. Of that very narrow group within our society who can and who want to run for office, no, I'm not crazy about most of the female candidates I've seen. But I don't like their male counterparts any better.

    In terms of actually making decisions, cooperating on goals, government that is actually moral, representative of the people? For that government, I would happily give you a list of ten women I know personally who would not be perfect but would be AMAZINGLY beautiful and good, making decisions with intelligence, based on good information, with the welfare of everyone deeply in their hearts, minds, and souls.

    Fine: I'll make it explicit. And JUST as easy to come up with a list of ten men JUST as wonderful.

    And if ten isn't enough, let me know. There's LOTS more where they come from....

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would never have been the type to vote for a candidate just because she was a woman. Michelle Bachmann is hostile to those things I care about. 10 years ago I would have agreed with those who said we cannot support Bachmann just because she is a woman. But then----the 2008 primary happened and I witnessed the humiliatingly sexist ways she was attacked. Alleged equality guys like Chris Matthews talking about her cleavage. And all the other stuff that I won't list right here. I understood that it makes no difference to these guys if a woman is liberal or conservative. Hillary or Bachmann.....so, since that time, I will support a woman NO matter what.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anna Belle, thanks for bringing that up. The statistics were going through my head as I wrote my comment, and I probably should have written "just as indefensible" rather than "just as bad".

    But on thinking about it, one has to consider a few things:

    1) It's still largely acceptable in many quarters to be openly anti-gay in the most hurtful terms, and far less so to be openly sexist or racist. When prominent officeholders legitimize such homophobia, it finds more fertile ground than overt sexism or racism.

    2) Such a mindset and resulting policies may directly harm gay individuals the most, but in many cases it also affects their family relationships and family members as well. For many gay people, coming out means they are rejected by one or both parents, with siblings or sympathetic family members caught in the middle; or their families may accept them but feel constrained to hide their child's orientation from their neighbors, friends, extended family, congregation, workplace. That sort of extended family/community stigma doesn't apply to women or members of minorities.

    So, on second thought, I'll stand by my remarks, and add "indefensible" as well.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cynthia---Once again, a wonderful post.
    THANK YOU for your vigilance!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Radicals? Really? How is this for a radical idea? Start thinking like a majority force instead of small groups of teenagers running in packs!

    Women should start thinking as the majority instead of radicalizing and behaving as minorities! As 52% fighting together and electing women representing the majority constituency known as the typical American woman - we will have a balanced view in DC and across the states . As of now we only have a male view. I for one prefer a balanced view and one which represents typical citizens not radicals or just minority issues. While I may agree with minority issues- - Women as a whole are dying, raped, beaten, underpaid, losing their children, exploited and enslaved and it is happening to the majority as well as to the minorities. I’ll be damned if I will ignore the majority plight for the sake of any minority. The time is now for women to unite for the sake of us all. What minority women will not benefit from HUMAN rights?

    WE need more women in office- period! Men do not agree with us 100% either. Again we are always going to have both conservative and Liberal representatives. And we have Liberal representatives which we disagree with on many social issues as well, for example which candidate inc. Hill , Bill, or Obama approves of Same sex marriage? None and yet I read so many Gays here commenting on Bachmanns position on the same issue as more negative than theirs. Why? Confusing to me to say the least. Are we really going to let abortion and gay ideology keep us from ERA? Really? Bull!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Truth be told- we are slaves to political parties and radicals just love to hack up other women from the other party just for their own personal issues and to hell with the rest of us and I say it needs to stop and stop now. The majority of us can and should stop it. We can by simply shutting it down!

    WE will always have conservatives - is it not selfish that the minority of say 5% demands all women (52% of the citizenry) to hate any women who disagrees with that minority?

    I find it offensive any minority would demand the rest of their sisters join in solidarity in hurling rancor and venom toward any other woman asking us to radicalize or otherwise throw the full power of the entire army of its women away over ideology the majority of us no longer care to devote ourselves to. There is a bigger picture here. How much longer are we going to be slaves to party or ideologies of the few?

    ReplyDelete
  28. freemenow----I was wondering when you were going to show up!! Did you see yourself quoted in the piece?

    I like it-----start thinking like a majority!!!How unique!! You mean we don't have to be whining people who let themselves be divided to show loyalty to one or another of the parties? You mean we don't need to prove our loyalty to the men in charge by attacking the women from the other side? How refreshing!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Jeanie- thanks for the support! And yes that is exactly what I mean damned it! There are more of us than there are of them but you would never know it! I say it is about time we show them our mettle! It's about time we the women of America are known by our majority instead of labeled by the minorities among us.
    Let's face it- we may have minorities among us but as a majority we can lift them along with us rather than be dragged down with them and their issues which are only holding us back.
    Break loose ladies - the time is NOW even if NOW doesn't know it! Our day has come to Unite! The Majority United - can not be underestimated nor denied nor ignored!

    We need to move ot just down 5th ave but down Pennsylvania Avenue and in numbers too big to ignore and this time with a very unified voice -ever to be splintered again.


    BJ-Founder The Majority United WOMEN

    ReplyDelete
  30. Women never leave High School. Most men don't either, but women never do. Catty, bitchy, petty, gossipy, High-School girls tearing each other apart. The guys do it to them, too. They love to start the catfight, and women rise to the bait.

    Just a tip to you feminists out there, there will not be a Democratic female President until after there is a Republican female President. That's because the Dem Party is extremely misogynistic. So, bite the bullet and vote for the female Republican. Deal with it for 4-8 years.

    60% of the Dem delegates in '08 were women. Could Hillary get on the ticket? No. Word is, Michelle Obama did not want her there. Only room for one woman around her man.

    Women fight for territory, the territory being a man. They do not fight with fists, however. They fight with their poison tongues. Meow!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Right on Anon,

    Are we tired of the Hedda Nussbaum syndrome yet? After what they did to Hillary - dragging Obama over the finish line by taking her superdelegates in spite of her winning every one of the states thuse delegates were sworn to represent proves the DNC would rather abrogate our rights than have a woman as POTUS. ( ooops run on sentence)
    Anyway- as long as we contine to return to our abusers - the will continue to abuse us!

    It's time to teach the DNC that they are not the only game in town and that we will vote for women whereever we find them.
    I firmly believe once women are empowered we will learn to stick together rather than cave in to our churches - our men or parties. Once we can firmly trust each other we may not have to rely on other groups for support. We will have each other. All men don't agree on everything yet- they run every damned thing and keep us down- we need to rise!

    It's worth a try. Time is running out - believe me we are dying at the rate of 5 a day at the hands of our men- we are loosing our children in the court systems by the millions, we are raped every 9 seconds, and now foretgn religions are infiltrating and courts who are not protecting women in divorces or DV or child custody are even siding with Sharia laws.
    God help us if we do not take a stand NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Amen to calling out the misogyny (and therefore hypocrisy) in the democrat party. I'm so tired of hearing the men in that party use "reproductive rights" as some kind of rallying cry that means all women are supposed to fall in line and support democrats because they "protect our reproductive rights".

    When enough women realize that there are more women's rights than just the "reproductive rights" which they so generously protect for us (snark), then maybe we will stop voting for the hypocrites in that party who have done more damage to women's rights than good.

    Does anyone find it as offensive as I do that they think all we care about is having babies or not having babies? I don't know about the rest of you, but my mind is a little bit more advanced than that. And I'm saying that as a mother of two.

    This "let me protect your reproductive rights" crap is no different than thinking women should be barefoot and pregnant because it assumes ALL we can do is worry about having kids.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sondra---I think that what you said is well put.I hadn't considered that being barefoot and pregnant had a relationship to abortion being controlled by men's votes. Hmm. You've got a point.

    ReplyDelete
  34. How degrading to to womankind to put us in a box - litterally the box between our legs!

    How huniliating that we have allowed it this long! What we do or don't do - think or don't think about our reproductive organs or our sexuality is our business not theirs and certainly not their right to regulate or dictate.
    It's not the men- the church or the government's telling the citizen men how to procreate so why tell us? I think it is about time women tell all theee to get out of our private business in terms of politics. I think we need to stick together and tell the politicians we don't want to hear about it anymore - instead we want to hear about women's issues such as JOBS, the economy, taxes, war and peace, equal rights etc. etc.

    When its not our issue anymore - they can't use it to pit us one gainst the other can they?

    Ok ladies let's think outside that box and show them that although they think with their package we have a lot more going on and we think with both sides of the brain. And that women's issues are founded in the Constitution and demand equal representation in all our governing bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  35. First forgive the typo's my keyboard skips some keys -

    I just got back from the movies- we saw "The Help" it made me think about us a women. Women who most often act as if they are a helpless minority who have not yet attained their rights.

    How sad that the majority of the world's citizens -- those of us that hold up more than half the sky and are responsible for the very existence of every damned thing -- are still enslaved, still looked down on, still second class citizens and all because we are unable to stand as a majority.

    Still today - like our sisters of color in the 60's in Mississippi-- we just take it as if it is our lot and there is no way out. Yeah we bitch amongst ourselves but we stick in our own little groups bitching and never do a damned thing about it.

    We cringe but we have not stopped them from calling us ho's, bitches, cunts and worse. Sure you can't call a minority a slur - racism is taboo but curse the majority -- is open season on women in general. So long as you don't attach a minority slur to it - you can slander women any way you like. Remember Imus' comment - "nappy headed ho,” It was the "nappy" that got him fired - "Ho" should have been enough.

    Why don't we fight for all of us? We all deserve respect. Do you deserve to be called ho, bitch ands cunt by these punk rappers? Did Hillary deserve to be called a bitch and a cunt-and to top it all off by those on her side yet?

    I can almost understand the Dems calling Sarah those names but the Dems and the MSM did it to their own first - then they went after Sarah with a vengeance then every other woman running after that. Why? Because they could- because we allowed it. Yet Imus was fired for a not so funny joke!
    Hillary's daughter was called ugly; Sarah's daughter was dragged through the mud. Is there no end to what women will tolerate? As the MAJORITY - we will swallow crap, but we will fight to the death for any and every minority? Why - what is wrong with us? Don't we deserve to stand up for ourselves? Gimme a break!

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Sondra

    Amen! I am sooooo sick of both parties (but the Dems are the worst because they use it as blackmail) assuming the only issues I care about are related to my ability to reproduce or what is done with the fruit of my reproduction. Blech! It's so irritating I can't even listen to it any more. SHUT UP about my vagina and let's talk about the economy stupid!

    ReplyDelete
  37. I am fed up with having women's issues conflated with gay issues or racial issues. Women's issues are issues that affect ALL females. That would be equal pay for equal work, equal and relevant health care (we don't need equal access to prostate screening) equality in medical research (most studies are done on men only), media images of women and girls, equal access to schools and education, etc. Women are 52% of the population not some minority. When we are talking of women's issues, don't bring up gay issues or racial issues. Those issues have their own action groups and they don't give a rats ass about the issues of women in general so can we just focus on our own issues not every possible wronged group? Could our issues not come after every other group is dealt with?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bes--

    Boy are you and I singing the same song!! I totally agree that if we align or intersect our cause with other causes, regardless of how worthy, it just succeeds in putting our issues at the back of the bus and at the bottom of everyone's list. Where we remain!! It's not that the other causes aren't just, and I argue all the time that as women we need to take an interest in those other causes that have an effect of some women. I get that completely!! It's just that since we have done that over and over, or at least we have allowed our issues to get confused with those other issues, it has been a contributing factor to our stalled progress. I would hope that those other causes would understand that we need to keep our eye on the ball right now and not dilute and confuse our message. And that includes gay rights, abortion rights, racial issues. again it needs to be said----it's not that we don't support those things, it's just that we need to keep our focus on our own cause right now. My mentor, Mary Kay Ash, always told us that you can't chase two rabbits at the same time. I rest my case!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. When we raise women we raise all women along with their minority status. But when we raise the minority we seem to leave the woman behind. For example- Black men got the right to vote but not their women. When we ended black slavery - we ended it for men but somehow women and children are still enslaved to one degree or another -- be it wage discrimination or sex slavery. Freedom of speech means we can call women bitches,whores and cunts but we can't use racial slurs.
    Women need to demand equality. We simply want to stop the inequality - women's rights are human tights and we need to demand them just as every minority has!

    ReplyDelete