Update: I heard an Obama radio ad this morning that targeted this very issue, and voila! There’s a YouTube version with video. This takes balls. I’ll give him that.
I could probably write a page and a half here about why the National Organization for Women endorsed Barack Obama and Joe Biden this morning, instead of the ticket that includes … I don’t know … a woman …?
Can you imagine the NAACP not endorsing Obama? Or the Veterans of Foreign Wars not endorsing McCain? Or the Global Association of Political-Speech Plagiarists not … well, you get the picture.
Oh, right. I forgot. A University of Chicago religion professor decided (in Newsweek, no less) that Sarah Palin isn’t actually a woman — but merely offers the “pretense that she is a woman.” You can look it up. So I guess that makes all the identity-politics wrangling moot. Gosh, I feel better now.
But back to why I put this issue in play. Here’s Barack Obama’s website on the issue of Pay Equity:
“Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Throughout his career, Barack Obama has championed the right of women to receive equal pay for equal work.”
Here’s Obama, talking two weeks ago in Toledo about GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin:
“[She] seems like a very engaging person, nice person. But I’ve got to say, she’s opposed, like John McCain is, to equal pay for equal work. That doesn’t make much sense to me.”
And now, here’s the interesting part. Scripps-Howard columnist Deroy Murdock took a look at the Senate staff salaries of both Barack Obama and John McCain, thanks to LegiStorm, a nonpartisan watchdog service that offers the raw data to anyone who wants to dig through it. Guess what Murdock found?
Obama’s 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama’s average male employee earned $54,397. Obama’s 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average … on average, Obama’s female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make …
McCain’s payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams. McCain’s 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878. On average, according to these data, women in McCain’s office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes.
Can anyone think of a living American feminist icon who’s not openly supporting Barack Obama? Just wondering.
Related posts:
- 50 Cent Sweet Talks the Ladies Into Buying His Fragrance Hey ladies, rapper 50 Cent wants you to know that...
- Past Obama Continues to Vex and Bedevil Present Obama As if Present Obama doesn’t have enough to worry about...
- Present Obama Suffers Another Outlandish Attack from Past Obama During the neverending 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Barack Hussein Obama...
- Janice Dickinson: Tyra Talks Out Both Sides of Her Face When word of judge Paulina Porizkova’s unceremonious dumping from American’s...
- Once Again, Past Obama Attacks Present Obama Hey, remember about six months ago, when President Obama told...
Yeah, I find it reprehensible that women don’t make equal pay for equal work on Obama’s campaign. So, do we know the job functions of each male and female staffer and what the pay grade would be for each job? Do women on his campaign performing the same function as a male, get less money? I’ll have to check your link.
However, your analogy that NOW supporting Obama is like the NAACP not supporting a black candidate. Organizations support candidates who “profess” to support their values and say they will advance their agendas. NOW is pro-choice, Sarah Palin is not. Planned Parenthood supports Barack Obama for the exact same reason. If a right wing, black candidate didn’t support the agenda of the NAACP, I doubt they would endorse that candidate so why is it so shocking that liberal bending organizations wouldn’t endorse a conservative female candidate?
And this is from the link listed in your article:
Over the last few days, a tempest has been brewing over an allegation made by Scripps Howard columnist Deroy Murdock that Sen. Barrack Obama (D-Ill.) pays less to women than he does to men in his Senate office. All the stories have accurately cited LegiStorm as the source for the raw data.
Naturally, the allegation has lit up the conservative blogosphere and made its way onto television, including ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopolous”.
But along the way, a few commentators have taken liberty with the facts about LegiStorm’s role so we wanted to clear that up. We carry the data and are happy to be the source for anyone, liberal or conservative, who wants to do analysis of that data. That’s what it’s there for – to provide openess in government and spark debate.
We were not, however, the source for the analysis that led to conclusion about equal pay. That analysis was solely done by Murdock. We do not take a position either for or against Murdock’s analysis. We will simply note that there has been some debate about the validity of his claims because he did not include consideration of whether the men and women were doing equal work. Whether this criticism was valid is also something we do not take a position on.
We welcome hearing more about this issue in the future and hope that our data can serve as a useful source for both sides as they try to discover the truth.
I’ve now seen pictures of both of them. I think Wendy is the one pretending to be a woman. And shes not doing a very good job.
Oh crap! She’s at the University of Chicago! What if “she” finds me?
The National Organization of Women endorsed Barack Obama and Biden based on their analysis of the candidate’s Gay Rights platforms, which NOW considers a feminist issue.
NOW considers Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be stronger on gay rights than McCain.
http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/marr-rep-2.html
Hmm, so if women are making less than men in the work force then why is it most of the women I work with are mking as much as I am, while my time on job is 14 years compared to their 2 or 3 years. Not to mention more than 60% of Bank of America’s work force is women.
I call BS on the NOW organization. Basically unless you support their radical Liberal agenda you don’t qualify as a real woman. I beleive that qualifies them as Elite Hypocrites.
You are mistaken, this information was proven to be falsely skewed. McCain’s numbers look higher because he has a slightly larger amount of women in executive positions then Obama does. So the executive positions get paid larger salaries. The women that Obama employs get paid the same or more then many of the men he employs. Check your facts, I am taking your blog off of my reader due to your obvious right leanings. I started reading your blog because I thought it was non-partisan or biased, but I have seen way too many offensive articles about Obama and not nearly enough about all the crazy things McCain does. I am an idependent who has not decided who to vote for yet, but I will not listen to biased blogs to make my decision.
Also, just because I am a female and wear skirts, does not mean that I am obligated to vote for the ticket that includes a woman. Just because NOW represents women does not mean that they are obligated to vote for someone just because they are a woman. If a woman votes for Palin solely because she has a vagina, it is a measurement of their intellectual capacity. All people should vote due to issues, not due to gender, skin color or religious affiliation.
Thanks for stopping by, Kylene.
Oh, you’re back! Yes, on that we can all agree. Well, most of us, anyway.
“You are mistaken, this information was proven to be falsely skewed. McCain’s numbers look higher because he has a slightly larger amount of women in executive positions then Obama does.”
So in other words, Obama proves yet again that he can handle women just fine… so long as they ‘know their place’. Seriously, do you listen to yourself? You’re saying it proves that he’s not sexist because he has less women in executive (read: important) positions, and that’s why they get paid less. So, women deserve the same pay for the same work – they’re just not entitled to the same kinds of jobs.
This smear attempt just shows how desperate the so-called “PUMA” crowd (whose founder, by the way, has only ever donated to McCain, despite professing to be a disgruntled Hillary supporter) is to paint Obama as anti-woman.
If you take a look at the highest-paid positions in the Obama and McCain campaigns, respectively, Obama has fewer women in top positions. Does that mean he refuses to hire women? Absolutely not. It means that he, in alignment with his opposition to quotas for the hiring of minorities, hired the most qualified individuals for the job, as did McCain.
Besides, does anyone really think Barack Obama sits down and decides how much to pay each person working for him? No, he hires someone for that, too! Who, I am sure, assigns pay grades due to each individual’s responsibilities and experience.
Barack Obama employs 30 women to McCain’s 25. I wonder if we threw out the outliers– the highest and lowest paid women from each campaign– what we’d find? Probably approximately equal pay, with Barack Obama employing a few more women in lower-paid positions than McCain.
For all of the above reasons, attacking Obama’s pay rates for women is nothing more than deceptive mudslinging– the kind of deceptive mudslinging that led NOW to endorse Obama rather than the party engaging in such tactics, which distract from any real efforts to advance the position of women in the workplace. If a black candidate ran who did not support affirmative action of any kind, hate crime legislation, minority-owned business grants, and who supported racial profiling, I think NAACP would pass that candidate over in favor of a white candidate who supported their platform. NOW and NAACP aren’t in the business of racism or sexism: They’re in the business of advancing their agendas, regardless of the color or sex of the person helping to advance that agenda.
As a final note, I do think women are in part to blame for pay discrepancies. Statistics show women are more hesitant than men to negotiate salary upon the intitial job offer. Women instead choose to accept a lower starting salary and later negotiate a raise, which places them in a position of less power, because the employer can simply refuse to give the raise, while keeping the employee. When a job is offered, countering the initial salary offer by asking for a slightly higher salary and coming prepared with industry statistics that show why one deserves the higher figure is more effective than accepting a lower figure and hoping a raise will be given later.
-Lisa
I am voting for the male candidate!
Note to John McCain: the oodG-ay ldO-ay oy-Bay lubC-ay would like to speak with you for a minute.
“If a woman votes for Palin solely because she has a vagina…” Kylene, may I vote for her just because she has a vagina?
They’ll keep changing their reasons, if need be. What a crock these supposed feminists are.
It cracks me up that the instant there are one too many so-called “right-leaning” articles, liberals get fussy and pack their bags. “Well I’m leaving! (Harumph)” Okey dokey then. But I think Deceiver does an excellent job remaining non-partisan… and I believe that the constant presence of those like Obama on this blog is an indication rather than an attack…
I didn’t support Hilary, a liberal female, for president because I didn’t like her views and ideas. Does that mean I lose my credentials as a feminist? Feminism is about having the ability to make choices, not fall in line when a politician with a vagina is on the ballot.
This is fuzzy math. Means nothing. He advocates same pay for same WORK. We have no idea if the job descriptions and/or seniority of these staffers are the same. Idiotic. But your right to insinuate that McCain is a friend to woman: when his wife tussles his hair, he graciously call her a
“…does anyone really think Barack Obama sits down and decides how much to pay each person working for him?”
Hmmm, I guess not. But that sure is a convincing argument *cough* for putting him in charge of the federal government. Cuz ya know, only about 3 million people are employed by the fed.
About all the “vagina” arguments … Look: I don’t have one. So I don’t pretend to have some magic insight into how individual women may want to vote.
But I just think that a group called the “National Organization For Women” ought to be doing backflips when a woman — any woman — has a real shot at breaking a glass ceiling.
Otherwise, they should rename themselves the “National Organization For Liberal Women Who Embrace Our Narrow Policy Objectives.”
That acronym probably wouldn’t fit on the campaign buttons, would it?
“Can anyone think of a living American feminist icon who’s not openly supporting Barack Obama? Just wondering.”
I’m confused by this line because you ask “who’s NOT openly supporting Obama,” but you provided a link to someone who IS openly supporting him.
If you meant to ask if there is a living American feminist who IS supporting Obama, and not the ticket with a woman, then that answer would be Gloria Steinem.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7541303.story
You see…when Republicans hire and place Monorities and Women in postions of power, they do it for all the wrong reasons.
When Democrats do it,(rarely) it is for all the right reasons.
Now, come on, was that really that hard?
No get back in the kitchen and make me some dinner, bitches!
Well, define “living.”
Right — I meant it as written. I thought perhaps at least one major living feminist movement icon would be openly supporting the only female candidate on a major party ticket, instead of reflexively supporting Obama. Can anyone think of one? I’m trying to see if there’s one feminist movement leader who’s supporting the woman instead of the liberal.
I linked my train of thought to Barbra Streisand just to be glib. Sorry if that was confusing.
Oversneer – it just goes to show that these groups are rarely about what they claim to be about.
Thanks, Oversneer.
Hey, thanks for clearing up the confusion on this political race. Forget the issues, experience and background of each nominee… just vote for their sex. Brilliant.
And as several others have tried to point out, without knowing what, exactly, the jobs performed are, you can’t really compare male and female paychecks. Some of the men might have law degrees, some of the women might be secretarial.
I’m surprised; this site was so incredibly detail oriented with their research on the John Edwards scandal. This column doesn’t have nearly enough information to make the deductions to which you’ve arrived.
“…just vote for their sex.”
What’s wrong with voting for sex?
I consider myself to be a feminist, but Palin’s inclusion to the Republican ticket does nothing to persuade me to vote for that party. The reason why I am not doing backflips over her is because I am looking at her credentials as a potential vice-president and not as a woman. I really don’t believe that she has the experience required, nor do I agree with her on a multitude of issues that are core to my own values.
If McCain had chosen a more experienced conservative female for his running mate, I may have considered differently – there are several conservative females that I think are incredibly intelligent, even though I may not agree with them on every issue. However, to feel that I, as a woman, should endorse just any candidate just because she is a woman is a bit like expecting me to certain behaviors because I am a woman and us women all want the exact same things.
Wouldn’t that be a tad hypocritical to expect a segment of the population to disregard our personal beliefs to vote for someone we feel is unqualified for the position just because she resembles that segment of the population in appearance? Oh wait, this is a blog that points out hypocrisy? Really?
True, Sarah Palin is a woman, however, she is NOT a feminist. She gives the female form a bad name, and for that I condemn her. Endorsing a candidate’s ticket simply because there is a female in the running is like saying you’re voting for her because you share the same favorite lipstick. A woman’s organization gets it’s power from having a choice, not from simply settling for someone “who will do” because she’s a lady. Kudo’s to ANYONE who supports Obama/Biden, the more the better!
And correct me if i’m wrong, because I haven’t done any research on this, but I would think Obama had more important issues to handle then the staffers pay. Isn’t that for like, HR to handle? I don’t know.
Let me see if I get this straight, the numbers are skewed because McCain has more women in executive positions? Isn’t it a good thing that he has more women in executive positions earning higher pay?
I read some of the responses here and if the situations were reversed and it was McCain underpaying women, there would be no “does McCain decide how much to pay women?” the argument would be “damn sexist republicans don’t pay women what they’re worth.”
And this:
“As a final note, I do think women are in part to blame for pay discrepancies. Statistics show women are more hesitant than men to negotiate salary upon the intitial job offer. Women instead choose to accept a lower starting salary and later negotiate a raise, which places them in a position of less power, because the employer can simply refuse to give the raise, while keeping the employee. When a job is offered, countering the initial salary offer by asking for a slightly higher salary and coming prepared with industry statistics that show why one deserves the higher figure is more effective than accepting a lower figure and hoping a raise will be given later.”
I can’t imagine that being said in defense of a Republican. But I’ll remember that, women get paid less because they deserve it.
90% of black voters support Obama.
0% of Now supports Palin.
Couldn’t NOW pretend they are for all women (instead of just being the pro-abortion lobby group) just once and remained neutral?
Okay, I don’t dislike deceiver, it is fuzzy math but whatever I can realize that by looking at it and there is going to be equivalents of fuzzy math that are against McCain. What I am sick and tired of are comments against feminists/feminist organizations because they are not supporting a female candidate. If she does not have the same values as them, which to my understanding is the case, why should they vote for her. Is it not possible for a feminist to think “oh a female candidate, good to see more women in/up for higher positions but I don’t agree with her so I’m not going to vote for her.” As far as I am concerned supporting someone just because they are women is just as bad as ignoring a candidate because they are a women. I have the same opinion when it comes to minority and white candidates too.
-Right — I meant it as written. I thought perhaps at least one major living feminist movement icon would be openly supporting the only female candidate on a major party ticket, instead of reflexively supporting Obama. Can anyone think of one? I’m trying to see if there’s one feminist movement leader who’s supporting the woman instead of the liberal.-
Well, Camille Paglia sort of fits that description.
I think that Paglia counts feminist icon, but then again, the old-school Steinem-eque feminists really seem to hate her brand of feminism.
In her most recent column on salon.com, she talked about the Democratic and Republican conventions and stated (in this column and in past ones) that she did support Obama. However, she writes quite a bit about the Republican reveal of Palin as McCain’s VP candidate and that she was impressed by her, particularly that she ” turned out to be a tough, scrappy fighter with a mischievous sense of humor” and that she “felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism.”
She’s not endorsing Palin (or McCain)and its not exactly support, but Camille had some pretty interesting and almost -dare-I-say- admirable things to say about her.
Here’s the link to the article for anyone who wants to read it, you may have to copy and paste, but its a pretty good read
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index1.html
a favorite quote from the article of mine-
“A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.”
Why the hell does a junior senator employ 16 more staffers than a senior one who supposedly doesn’t know how to use a computer? Are they de facto campaign staff?
For the first time in my adult life I’m really proud I don’t have a vagina.
Me-OUCH!
Yeah, a woman who’s able to make her way in a man’s world while still raising a family. What a gender traitor!
For Gods’ sake. I never said anything close to her being gender traitor, anyway it be sex, peopled don’t have gender technically there are the male and female sexes. I was simply saying that most of the time the feminists people are criticizing are not voting for her because they don’t agree with her. I never said women shouldn’t vote for her. If you got that I misspoke, that or you are just being contrary, by them I meant WOMEN/FEMINISTS/FEMINIST GROUPS WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH HER, you know such as NOW, the group this article is about!
Great article. I think it is interesting that now women want to stop and look into what jobs women are doing compared to men. I have a feeling if the situation was reversed they would have NO problem using this as a talking point on how much McCain sucks for women. Or if it were a major corporation with those types of numbers I bet they would be picketing in the streets rather than rationally trying to figure out the breakdown of job responsibilities.
If McCain has more women in a professional role than Obama … what does that tell us about Obama? And seriously, what is with how many people are on his staff!! That’s an insane number of staffers for any junior Senator.
As for NOW and other “feminists” groups, they have shown their true colors. Either you are with “them” on every issue or you aren’t really a woman. They will happily tear you apart for daring to run for office. And I’ve learned that according to them, I’m not a feminist! That really ruined my day.
Funny how a strong independent woman who has a career and is a mother is disregarded because of her abortion stance and belief in God.
And those who say she lacks the experience to be a VP….Obama has less and he might be President!!?
Not to cause to much drama but has anyone else noticed that the Republican party has more minority’s in power then Democratic party? Bush put Powell (black man), Rice (black woman!) and Gonzalez (male beaner ) into positions of power (maybe more this is just off the top of my head) but he gets very little credit for it (especially from groups like NOW or NAACP).
Disregarding the fuzzy math of it all, since that can be debated until the end of time, I am in agreement with the other women on here that feel NOW made the right decision.
As a female, Sarah Palin does nothing to endear herself to me. She has very little experience in the executive world, and what she does have is in a state that has less people than many American cities. But more than that, her values completely clash with mine. Whoever wins this presidency will be seating judges in the Supreme Court and I can’t in good conscience vote for a woman who is so anti-abortion that she doesn’t even want to make concessions for rape or incest. She does not believe in global warming or teaching any kind of sex education beyond abstinence. Nothing in her platform remotely says to me “I’m your woman” regardless of the fact that she -is- a woman.
As someone said earlier, if there was a black man running for president whose campaign ideals ran directly contrary to the NAACP’s stance on issues, I doubt they would blindly follow him to the White House. Assuming that women should vote “with their own” is just as much of a folly.
*Any and all grammar or spelling mistakes are my own and I take full responsibility and future flaming graciously.
So, by your thinking all white people should vote for McCain because he’s white? Any sort of political platform is now null because we vote on presidency based on one’s physical attributes… That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen. If the canidate in question has ideals more in line with that organization than of course they will support them. Palin is a joke. Plain and simple, she was put on the ticket just to pick up the Hilary supporters who only supported her based on her gender and not her ideals. Honestly, McCain is losing it. He could have picked a number of better canidates that are female; and now Republicans are finding themselves trying to defend her from the same arguments that were used against both Obama and Clinton…. but are doing a poor job of it.
“She gives the female form a bad name, and for that I condemn her.”
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
You condemn her! You so-called feminists are priceless!
She’s successful, independent and develops her own opinions (distinct from your Holy Grail opinions) and for that you condemn her.
Nope. Can’t be a true feminist if you’re not in lock-step with Comrade Danya! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
In case you still think that since McCain hires women in higher positions so therefore that makes him a better candidate for women’s rights, you may want to read a bit more on his voting records considering women’s issues and health issues.
http://www.womenforbarackobama.com/McCain.html#LOCATION2
Missy — I usually don’t green-light “link spam,” but this one was right on target. Thanks for the contribution. Can anyone out there dispute this stuff? Is it truthful? Enquiring minds want to know.
The site you link to for this info of Obama’s pay inequity states that, “there has been some debate about the validity of the claims because [the guy making them] did not include consideration of whether the men and women were doing equal work.” That quote is under your own link. Why would you write up a bit about Obama’s unfair pay and cite a source that calls that claim shaky? And not acknowledge that it’s shaky? I smell a Republican.
I’d think it would be difficult to discern over the odor of pitch from the torches.
For the record, that criticism wasn’t there when I wrote the Deceiver piece. It was added subsequently. And while I agree with it on its face, it actually does paint Obama into a corner just a bit.
One of these two statements appears to be true. Either (a) Deroy Murdock’s analysis is correct, and Obama is paying women less than men who do the same work; or (b) the disparity is due to the fact that Obama generally only puts women in positions where they’re likely to have less responsibility than men, and therefore earn less money.
I don’t see a “door number three.” Do you?
Door Number 3:
Of the applicants that applied for positions with Mr. Obama, the more qualified choices happened to have a “Y” chromosome.
Are you suggesting the Obama hire women merely for the sake of “looking good”? Hardly the best business practice, especially if your business is to keep a unified front with little to no “scandal” firings in the face of a presidential race.
Unless someone can prove to me that Obama hired a sub-par male in place of a well-qualified female, I see no reason to be up in arms.
Sure – there’s one more man in a top slot in Obama’s campaign than there are women. The “average” of .83 cents to the dollar women supposedly make in his campaign wouldn’t be that hard to come by if there are only 20 staffers in question.
Just sayin’ – if you make a bold statement like this about a major presidential candidate in a tight election, you COULD put as much effort into it as you do into researching Ted Danson.
Re: Women’s organizations not supporting McCain/Palin.
Being a woman and being supportive of women’s causes are NOT the same thing. I am a woman but would never ever vote for Palin because we have polar opposite views on EVERYTHING. Just as she and Hillary Clinton have opposite views and yet are both women. Who knew? Not all people with vaginas think the same! Revolutionary!
So an organization aimed at fighting sexism picks a candidate based on their record and achievements fighting sexism and not strictly based on their sex…which is…you know…sexism?
Yeah…your logic is so flawed, it’s amusing.
You know why I like this site? Because it lampoons PETA. I don’t like fur or factory farm meat, but I HATE PETA’s sexist ads. Who’dve thunk I’d end up reading a site run by Republicans?? PETA makes for strange bedfellows.
Not all people with vaginas think the same way, but most of you seem to have the same talent for missing the point on this issue.
It’s called the National Organization of Women, right? Not National Organization of Reproductive Rights. Not National Organization of Liberal Women. Not National Organization of Female Democrats.
They purport to represent women as a whole, but the truth is that they only support women who share THEIR specific political agenda. No one is saying they can’t do that – but it does make them Deceiver worthy when they prove time after time that it has much less to do with women than it does with politics. If I started a National Organization of Men, wouldn’t you expect that it would include all kinds of men, as well as their diverse political views? Otherwise I’d call it National Organization of Conservative Men.
You’re complaining that Deceiver thinks that ‘everyone with a vagina votes the same’, but can’t that be said to be even more true for NOW? They walk around claiming to speak for all women, while a large portion of women don’t support their agenda. They, like you, assume that anyone with a vagina MUST be pro-choice or else they somehow forfeit their ovaries at the door. Now who’s really being close-minded here? I suppose that the roughly 50% of Americans that identify themselves as pro-life (including a large portion of women like my wife), don’t count as women? That seems to be NOW’s position.
If they really supported female empowerment, they would applaud any woman who has managed to rise to this kind of prominence on the national stage – even if in the next sentence they wanted to voice their disagreement with her politics. Instead, they claim she’s some kind of ‘token female’ who actually hates women. It’s funny really, because I remember the feminists I debated in college always griping that men kept women down by turning them against each other, and keeping them in competition rather than cooperation. Turns out, women are just as proficient at putting those walls up as men are – so I guess we’ve achieved equality after all.
That sentence is almost twice as long as necessary.
“…I HATE PETA’s sexist ads. Whod’ve thunk I’d end up reading a site run by Republicans??”
Ms. Ruth, as shocking (and fun!) a revelation it is, liberals are the most sexist people on the planet. It’s completely inflexible in its demand that ALL women agree with 100% of it’s dogma, or “you’re a sell out”.
Want proof? Look at any of the hundreds of Hollywood celebrity women who have based ther entire careers on being sexually desirable to men, but as long as they tow the party line there’s zero criticism.
But when an actually successful, strong woman comes along who has NOT used sex to better herself, she’s mercelessly ostracized.
Whod’ve thunk I’d end up being called a Republican??
Names can be deceiving. For instance, the IWF (International Women’s Forum) actually opposes a woman’s right to choose and is referenced by men’s rights organizations for it’s opposition to domestic violence laws.
By contrast, NOWs endorsement of Democrat doesn’t seem too surprising.
(Snoop-Diggity, I agree with you that a lot of liberals are pretty sexist. Christopher Hitchens is a great example.)
I find it interesting that the -men- are lampooning NOW for it’s decision. Yes, their acroynom may need to be amended since it seems they have leftist leanings, but to declare..
“They purport to represent women as a whole, but the truth is that they only support women who share THEIR specific political agenda. No one is saying they can’t do that – but it does make them Deceiver worthy when they prove time after time that it has much less to do with women than it does with politics.” – Scott F.
…shows a blatant disregard of basic research. If you check NOW’s website and take a look at what they stand for, their reasons for backing Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin become obvious. On their homepage it talks about what is important to them AS AN ORGANIZATION and that Sarah Palin, despite being a woman, does not share their ideals. Nowhere on their page does it purport to be anything other -than- a political machine bent on making, what they perceive, to be the changes this country needs. They are in no way different from any other special interest group out there throwing their clout at their respective candidate.
No one (at least myself) is saying that being pro-life is the same as being anti-woman. It just goes against this particular organizations beliefs.
*Any and all spelling and grammatical errors are my own and I take all future flaming graciously. ^_^
Oversneer – you mean you are a leftist commie thug? (–gasp!–)
Kaliska – have YOU ever read their website? I quote:
“NOW is the largest, most comprehensive feminist advocacy group in the United States. Our purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society — sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination.”
I especially like this part:
“Government, our judicial system, big business, mainstream media and other institutions treat many groups in our society like second-class citizens. Pitting us against each other is an essential mechanism for maintaining the status quo. Together, we can create the change we’ve been dreaming of—our unity is our strength.”
So lets unify by alienating half the female population of the country! Yeah! Now let’s dissect a few of those catchy little phrases they use, shall we? “Our purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society.” To bring WOMEN into full participation in society. Not DEMOCRATIC women into society. If they’re the unabashed political advocacy group you say they are, they might actually let people know what political alignment they’re talking about. After all, why hide it?
They don’t want ‘women’ in power, they want women who believe in what they believe to be in power. You’re right, that makes them no different than any other PAC, except that your average PAC doesn’t try to claim to speak for an entire sex, which is EXACTLY what you’re claiming the problem is with that whole ‘assuming anyone with a vagina will vote the same way’ thing, isn’t it?
“I find it interesting that the -men- are lampooning NOW for it’s decision. Yes, their acroynom may need to be amended since it seems they have leftist leanings..”
I’m pretty sure my opening statement was the above quote. I’m not disputing that they have leftist leanings, I’m merely allowing that backing Obama doesn’t make them any more anti-woman than a woman that backs McCain. The original arguement seemed to be whether or not it was wrong for a women’s group to back a man in for president. In the case of NOW, with their ideals which are liberal, Obama is more in line with them than McCain.
Saying that woman should vote for McCain because he has a female VP is as asisnine as saying African Americans should vote for Obama because he’s black.
Actually, come to think of it, the original arguement was over whether or not Obama was consciously putting more men than women into positions of power within his campaign, thus creating a disparity among pay. But I disgress.
*All spelling and grammatical errors are my own and I take all future flaming graciously. ^_^
National
Organization for
Women
Who
Hew to
Antiquated
Traditions
Living feminist icon rejecting Palin? Try Gloria Steinem:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,1290251.story
Young feminist Jessica Valenti has nothing good to say about Palin either.
They’re right: Palin is a step back to the Stone Age as far as women’s rights are concerned. Or energy. Or the environment. Or anything that matters, really.
I’ve been told (by a liberal female friend) that she ‘just doesn’t know what to think of a woman (meaning Palin) who doesn’t support women’s issues.’ The clear implication being that any woman who disagrees with HER point of view is not a real woman, or is at least a traitor. So I have to agree that the National Organization for Women is really a national organization for women who only support THEIR party line. Personally, as a woman, every issue of importance to me is a ‘woman’s issue’, since I AM A WOMAN. Clearly, it is the National Organization for Female, Liberal Democrats. Fair enough, they have a right to their agenda. But don’t accuse me of not supporting women’s issues because I disagree with their defination of said issues.
Exactly. Palin doesn’t support women holding political office. She thinks producing more energy (pffft!) is somehow going to help with the energy crisis. And Alaska? It’s just one big landfill.
So listen up, people. Time for more late-term abortions. Strap a solar panel to your ass and move back into a cave.
I’ll admit that when I heard that Sarah Palin was chosen as a VP running mate, my first thought was for her children. How can she take the time away from her family to do something as time consuming and intensive as campaigning and possibly becoming a VP? It takes a strong person, man or woman to mantain a healthy balance of his/her personal and proffessional life. And the more I’ve heard about Sarah Palin, the more I believe she is that type of person. For the longest time, women (feminists?) have been measuring their success in the proffessional world by how like the men they can be. Many begin to believe that it’s impossible to be successful as a mother AND as a CEO. Many powerful men rise to their positions because they have a supportive wife and family. Sarah Palin has many challenges facing her as a wife and a mother, yet with the help of her husband, they were able to meet those challenges as parents. So far she has been able to handle raising her children and run a state as a governor. The majority of Alaskans believe she did a great job (http://ballotbox.governing.com/2008/09/does-sarah-pali.html). Even though her oldest daughter is pregnant out of wedlock, I would still call Sarah Palin a good mother. The bio (AUG 29 NEWSWEEK) written about her and shown she makes time for her children and they know how important they are to her. I think it’s fantastic that a woman like her is stepping up to the political spotlight. She’s not sacrificing her femininity or motherhood to step into a role traditionally thought to be male. She’s not perfect by any means (and she probably has skeletons in the closet like everyone else), but she represents what I have always admired in the rugged American individualism and the American dream. Self-reliance and the ability to rise above what you are as long as you are willing to work hard for it. At the same time, she is generous with her time (PTA, Mayor, Governor). She has shown she is able to make decisions despite pressure and opposition and come out gracefully. As a professional woman myself, I would be proud to have Sarah Palin represent me and America. Plus, if the McCain/Palin ticket wins the presidential race, she will be the highest paid woman working with/for McCain.
“…when I heard that Sarah Palin was chosen as a VP running mate, my first thought was for her children. How can she take the time away from her family to do something as time consuming and intensive as campaigning and possibly becoming a VP?”
Why do you think that was, SC? Why was THAT the question you first asked yourself when you heard Palin was runnibg for VP?
I don’t care whether your a man or a woman, SC, but do you actually hear yourself?
Is that the first question you asked yourself when you first heard Barak Obama was running for President with minor children? Or Bill Clinton, or Joe Biden, or JFK (if you’re old enough) for God’s sake?
Let me lay this out for you, and you tell me if I’m wrong. You’re a feminist-leaning indepoendent, tending to vote democratic, although you consider yourself open to a republican ticket. You like that a woman’s on one of the tickets, but you know, she’s got that whole ‘pro-life’ thing and that makes you a little nervous, so we’ve got to find a reason to NOT vote for her.
But the only reason you can find is the most sexist one of all. OK, now you tell me how wrong I am.
PJ, any comments?
Snoop,
Sexist or not, that was my first visceral reaction, and yes, it was because she was a woman. And I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one with such reactions. And you highlighted my point more clearly than I did, I had no similar reaction to any of the male candidates. The founding fathers never promised everyone will be happy, the promise was that everyone will have the chance to pursue happiness. The point is, everyone is so concerned about equality, we’re completely ignoring the differences. Women try so hard to succeed in a “man’s world” by being like a man. We force ourselves and others to look at every person with the same light when there’s no need to. When you have the opportunity to judge each candidate individually, do so. Yes! She is a woman! Yes! She is a mother! and oh…she’s running for VP. Everything is a factor, including and especially the issues. There’s no need to jam a square peg into a round hole when there’s a square hole available. We don’t HAVE to judge her based on her male counterparts. As the person that she is, can she do the job? My personal opinion is yes. And no, it has nothing to do with the fact she’s a woman, that’s just bonus.
Fine. Then are you’ll be redeeming youself by voting for her, right? You won’t go all douche-baggy on us and vote for a razor-thin resume’ just because he’s a guy?
Snoop, I was going to write myself in because I think I’m the best man for the job in the history of presidential elections but I’m voting for the VPILF.
Cheney’s on the ticket right?
I’m so happy to have found this. I think it shows, once again, what a lying sack of s*&! good old Barry is. Sadly, too many have to have s#$% smeered on their face before they get it. There senses are off.
Oh, and I’m a pro-choice, biracial baby, born of a teen mother, given away (because of my black), had abortions and now am a single mom of three, and yes, I’m voting McCain/Palin…I think she’s fantastic and although I may not agree with all of her issues, I think she’s a role model for all women, we CAN do anything. (look, if Bush didn’t reverse RvW, it’s not going to happen….and right’s for gays, HELLO…they’re getting married in some states UNDER Bush’s presidency. Wake the F&*% up) Now if only I could get the same digits in my bank account as my other fellow voting Repub’s.
Bros before Hos! Nuff said.
i just found your site today, and i feel good about people posting comments again…i like that this is actually a good debate back and forth, and not just name calling bravo