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.


Wednesday, September 14, 2011

"She Will Have a Hard Time Winning...
Because She's a Woman"

Cynthia Ruccia



While I was on my elliptical this morning with Morning Joe on the tube, I heard these words slip out of someone's mouth during a discussion about Elizabeth Warren's chances of beating Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race in 2012. WTF???? Will it never end?

As I got to thinking about it, I realized that at least it was better than saying "she's too shrill," or "she's too divisive," or "she's way out there," or whatever the code words are these days that one uses to minimize women. At least these men talking about Elizabeth Warren are just telling the truth-------women DO have a harder time getting elected. As the statistics in most of my pieces always mention, women hold less than 20% of the federal legislative seats, 24% of the state legislative seats, etc. You can check out the stats and their links over in the right column under the 2008 sexism videos. But these are the same men that are IN THOSE SAME VIDEOS who were promoting the noxious sexism of the 2008 campaign-----the same people calling day after day for Hillary to quit, who giggle incessantly over Sarah Palin while they imply that she's a ditz, etc. You can watch those videos too. The sexism of MSNBC is a subject for another day.

The other thing is that Massachusetts is one of the most liberal, left-leaning states out of our 50 states. If the left and the Democrats by extension are the "party of women," why is it that in the arguably most leftist state in the union women can't get elected because they are women? How much more proof is needed that the Democrats and the left are NOT more women friendly than anyone else? It is a conceit of the left that they think that they are the party of women, a moniker that needs to be retired. NEITHER party can claim the mantle of being the "party of women." And by extension, MSNBC is hardly the cable channel friendly to women either. In truth, they have been one of the major perpetrators of the sexism on the air.

I'm not sure how I feel about hearing that Warren can't win because she's a woman. Our country should be ashamed of itself for making that value judgement against women. With all of the problems the country is having right now, most of them the result of actions taken by men, why do we want to continue to tamp down the talent of women just because they are female?
Watch the video below, and tell us what you think!!


6 comments:

  1. I don't know how I feel about it either. I guess I'm glad they are being honest - but WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, they like women...Just not THAT woman. Or that other one, or that other one - or any other SPECIFIC woman.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And this country Still lacks an equal rights amendment to the Constitution. The
    argument, of course, is that it is not needed. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It 's not our country that has a problem with women. It is Liberal Democrats, Corporate Media and Eastcoast elitists who have a problem with misogyny and women candidates. No one subscribes to MSNBC, it is forced on people when they sign up for cable, they may be in 80 million homes but the whole world ISN'T watching. Apparently you can't be that sexist and still have viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I watched the "Morning Joe" video. Is this what passes for a "liberal" talk show on cable news these days? A perfect example of why I stick with PBS and NPR. That joker in the glasses (he's the host, isn't he? ugh!) doesn't seem serious at all, in spite of his supportive language. I'm not sure the commentary was so much sexist (beyond the standard-issue reminders that this is a politician who bucks the trend by--shock!--possessing a vagina) as openly admitting that sexism is bound to play a role in the election. (And the Beatles reference was just irritating.)
    There's no question but that Elizabeth Warren is going to have a hard race for the US Senate. I almost wish I was a Massachusetts resident (alas, I live on the opposite side of the country) so I could vote for her. I really want her to win. She's a champion that a leftist like me can get behind. I think her populism and appeal to liberals amongst the Democrats will give her an edge in the primary, and possibly an edge in the race vs. Scott Brown. Go Elizabeth Warren! We really need more politicians like her.

    ReplyDelete
  6. why is it that in the arguably most leftist state in the union women can't get elected because they are women? How much more proof is needed that the Democrats and the left are NOT more women friendly than anyone else?

    Your thoughts above mirror my first thought when I saw your post title. I'll be happy to declare a party of women when I see something closely approving 50% women office holders in said party. Until then, neither party has our best interest as a priority. Period. Not expecting that would help progress. Getting women elected is the only sure strategy. But we need a critical mass to notice Amy benefits and we are still far from that. Lots of work to do.

    ReplyDelete