Ammunition for anti-feminists. FREE!

Politics and religion
1

NOW New York just released this press release, calling Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama “the ultimate betrayal,” with a bunch of other rhetoric that can only be called unhinged.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-10.htm

ALBANY, NY – January 28 – Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).

It should be pointed out that this is just the NY chapter of NOW, which the central organisation has no control over, to avoid any confusion. The central organisation has a pretty standard statement:
http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

Meanwhile, feminist bloggers say “whuh?”
http://feministing.com/archives/008495.html

Wow. This is completely unhinged, and frankly, mind-boggling. (Apparently the press release’s authenticity has been confirmed by NOW-NY president Marcia Pappas.)

All I can say is, NOW-NY does not speak for me. And it does not speak for all feminists.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/01/28/the-ultimate-betrayal/

In case you didn’t get that, women have been betrayed by voting on the issues instead of according to what’s in their pants. It’s like the Lifetime Movie version of a shitty-to-begin-with press release.

Not only am I not a die-hard Clinton supporter,* but I work for Alternet, which is apparently on the release-writer’s Organizations to Kill list. I suppose I must have been psychologically gang-banged into whoring for the patriarchy — it’s the only possible explanation.

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/01/now-wtf.html

Ted Kennedy has abandoned us? I can kinda see an argument that, say, endorsing anyone other than Hillary suggests that women’s issues are taking a backseat, and that this has historically been the case, but “his abandonment” has overtones that I’d rather not put under the feminist microscope; it’s too embarrassing.
[…]
Ayiyi. I get that some people–including, apparently, the president of NOW-NY–are really adamant Clinton supporters. And hey, great.

But you know, she is a candidate. Not the feminist messiah. It’s not inconceivable that some people–good feminists, even–might endorse or vote for someone else. And yes, she’s gotten some sexist bullshit thrown at her, and it sucks, but dealing with sexist bullshit is not gang rape.

The things about gang rape is from an earlier press release:
http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

2

I don’t get it. Ted Kennedy’s always been about the women’s movement, including their furious struggles to survive at the bottom of a lake.

Well, I for one don’t want to be counted among those that wanted the psychological gang banging to stop. Consider me Banging for Obama from this point on, Marcia Pappas. And put on some lipstick, you look like shit.

Those links are really something.

3

Hey, how do I get in on this gang-bang? Do I just vote for Obama, or do I have to go to some meetings and stuff?

4

I prefer to think of myself as more of a banber, personally.

5

Her home state supporters are getting a little unhinged. Kind of reads like the Clinton hate here in reverse, ho ho ho.

6

Awesome. How did he get re-elected after that? How does he keep getting elected? I mean I guess it was a different time back then but can you see a politician today surviving that?

7

This happened in 1969, long before cel phones, computers and the Internet so it wasn’t as easy to blow holes through a story as it is today. Plus, the Kennedys were still considered royalty back then.

On the other hand, though significant, this is really the only skeleton Ted has in his closet, which makes him look downright angelic compared to, say, half the Bush administration.

8

To be fair, even given the sleaze rampant in the Bush administration few if any can actually be charged personally with manslaughter.

I mean, the guy Cheney shot in the face lived!

9

Valid points, sir.

10

Major architect for No Child Left Behind, until the very day Row vs Wade was decided he was a Pro-Life advocate, staunch supporter of gun control, until recently an IRA supporter and a sexist hypocrite. What’s not to hate about this guy?

11

Well, given the fact that he managed to “betray” women, there had to be some redeeming quality, nay, something noble and feminine about the guy.

12

Well, the NCLB has largely failed because of under-funding, from what I have read. And I wouldn’t characterize his stance on abortion as political expediency, since he’s Catholic. On gun control, that stance is perfectly in line with his liberal views. As for the IRA, I think he was politically naive and influenced by his heritage.

Chappaquiddick, though, there’s no explaining away.