« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A Natural Choice For Women
I've railed against sexism for years. Although male, I'm about as strong a feminist as you'll find.
But I was a little put off when I saw a NOWPAC ad for Senator Clinton today above the TPM banner. All it says is "A Natural Choice for Women." With a picture of the candidate.
I understand the subtext: Senator Clinton has been a strong advocate for women's rights for years. But still...it left me with the impression that the other candidates are unnatural choices for women. Not necessarily because of their stand on the issues. Simply because they are not women.
In this case, I guess a little nuance would go a long way toward making sure that the point is not lost.
Advertisement
Comments (20)
I would argue with you about your statement that HRC has been a strong advocate for women's rights for years. I just disagree with that. Show me some proof. As a woman, I find Obama far closer to what I value than Clinton. Maybe I have a bad attitude because I am the mother of sons; they had to register with Selective Service to qualify for college student loans. I consider that extortion, and HRC voted for this war. I don't think NOW represents the views of many women. They have lost their bearings.
May 13, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Obama and Clinton have perfect voting records as graded by NARAL and NOW, so I think it's fair to say she's been a strong advocate for women's rights—although no stronger than Obama.
May 13, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't find NARAL's and NOW's metrics comprehensive. Women are more than their reproductive organs. I hear what you're saying, but I'm tired of women's issues being defined on the basis of their biology. I have a problem with the possibility of my sons being required to fight an immoral war. NARAL and NOW don't put that in their tallies. Nor do they seem concerned about access to health care, public education, or public health. So, I take their scales with a grain of salt.
May 13, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, and I have both a male cousin and a female cousin who are currently in Iraq, so I'm not disagreeing with you.
I was just pointing out that it's not unreasonable to say she's been a "strong advocate for women's rights".
Also, and I could be wrong about this, but I would be surprised if reproductive rights were the only thing that NOW included in their voting records analysis.
May 13, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, of course. I am sure that Hillary has been a strong advocate for women. I would hope and expect so. I will have to do some research on how NOW and NARAL give their ratings. Perhaps I am ill informed.
May 13, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you're probably right about NARAL, and I don't claim to be any better informed than you are. :)
I'll also go one step further than your point about reproductive rights and say that I believe you can be a sincere feminist and still be pro-life. I realize that a lot of people here at TPM would disagree with that, however.
May 13, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am pro-choice but I don't think that gains me exclusive membership to a women's rights group. Choice means that--choice. By the way, I am also pro-life. I will not let anti-abortionists co-opt that term. So, I will try to figure out how NARAL and NOW give their ratings. In any event, I am sure that Obama and Clinton score well above Mr. McCain. But like I said, war is a mother's issue. And, I don't take kindly to people sending our children into war. Our boys still face the awful prospect of conscription--my husband was drafted in 1969 and spent two years in Southeast Asia--so I am well aware of the price to be paid for combat. I also work on behalf of wounded warriors with traumatic brain injury and PTSD. My point is, Hillary is a bit too glib about her commitment to this war. I'm not sure she, or anyone in her family, has paid the price for this or the past few wars. That's more important to me than her votes on late abortions.
May 13, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A Natural Choice For Women".
Sounds like a cardboard-applicator tampon ad.
Ick.
I'm a 43-year-old white woman, I didn't go to college, I voted for Obama in the NY primary, and I'm voting for Barack Obama in November.
Hang all the sexist banners you want, folks...Hillary Clinton is not going to get the nomination. And frankly, I'm fluctuating between a sense of irritation about her ongoing campaing, and a sense of boredom.
McCain is running for Bush's third term, Hillary is running for Bill's, and there's only one person out there who is running for US.
I'm voting for that person in November.
May 13, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, now that you mention it... Totally fits!
May 13, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, KateO, for challenging my statements. Turns out I only had a general impression. One peice of hard evidence is that she has a consistent 100% voting record with NARAL. Same as Obama. Exactly the opposite of McCain (despite his 'maverick' image). Hillary's statement on the NARA website has other accomplishments. Did she vote for the SS-registration provision?
I guess I don't consider the war a women's issue. For me, it's just a human issue. And I strongly disagreed with her vote.
I agree that Obama will be a strong advocate for women's rights.
May 13, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to be offensive. I just am tired of women's issues being defined in terms of reproduction (see my comments to Ben above). Women are multidimensional--we tend to make the decisions about our family's healthcare, we are highly involved in our children's education, we are more likely to be philanthropic, etc.....--so I would like NARAL and NOW to move away from the highly divisive issue of choice, as important as that is. It's not what defines women. But, as you say, McCain is no friend of women, or the issues that concern them. On that front, Democrats must be united, and I am sure we will be. Thanks for the post.
May 13, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
WHAT ARE YOU LANDLUBBERS YAKKING ABOUT?
REMIFEMIN IS THE NATURAL CHOICE FOR WOMEN!
WENCH HILLARY WILL BRING BACK THE CORPORATE RAIDER 1990S!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
May 13, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey there Pirate Peet. Welcome aboard!
May 13, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
AHOY, YE MATEY!
THE WENCHES ABOUND HERE, DO THEY NOT?
JUST THE PLACE FOR A PIRATE'S PILLAGING HEART!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE1
ARGH!
May 13, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful Pirate Peet. Watch out for the Venus Penis Trap.
May 13, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nuanced you say? I can't see it. You seem completel logical.
May 13, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
No offense taken.
Women are definitely multidimensional. However, the issues you mention (healthcare, education and philanthropy) are also deep concerns of many men. I am certainly happy whenever "women's" organizations champion these causes, but I don't know that it would be helpful if these were characterized as "women's" issues. "Issues that women care a lot about" certainly.
Of course, Clinton cares a lot about these issues, too. But I think Obama, at this time, will do a better job on these and many others.
May 13, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100%!!!
May 13, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been an advocate for women's rights since my 16th birthday, five years before 99 per cent of women go wind of the issue, and before the word "feminist" came into use. That's well over 30 years ago.
And you're only know discovering that FEMALE sexism is alive and well and STILL railing against MALE sexism, even when it doesn't exist? That for most "feminists" it's about power -- and truth and fairness be damned, except that demanded of and from others?
I can no longer count -- and this includes current 20-somethings -- the number of white women who lead with the claim to be oppressed, but never compare their relative oppression with that of black women. Or black men. Or non-white anybody. Or every male, regardless race, eligible for the draft during war time -- a "freedom" to have one's life involuntarily thrown away in war not applied to women.
May 14, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
War is a mother's -- and fathers's, son's, husband's, and brother's issue. See my prior comment.
May 14, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment