Please Stop Representing Me II
Irradiated by LabRat
So it seems the National Organization of Women is upset about Martha Coakley’s loss even though she, um, explicitly ran on the promise of supporting the health care bill they want killed entirely. (For very good reason.)
“Women are clearly harmed” by these lawmakers, O’Neill said. “Shame on the male-dominated Democratic Party for supporting them. They hold themselves out as the party that is women-friendly; well they’re not acting like it.”
“And that has a lot to do with why Martha Coakley lost this election,” O’Neill alleged, explaining the Democrats’ loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat with an argument that few others have made.
Well, er… the Democratic party, while indeed male-dominated just as the Republican party is, also went out of their way to choose her to fill the “Kennedy seat”, and she won an election against a male Democratic challenger. And if she ran on the promise of changing the anti-abortion language in the health care bill, I never heard about it. (Which doesn’t mean she didn’t, admittedly, but the message I got was she intended to help the effort to pass the monster as-is.)
Martha Coakley lost the election because she richly deserved to. The Democratic party did a horrible job vetting her past and didn’t bother to take note of some of the amoral things she had done as a prosecutor until they became campaign issues, at first she didn’t bother to run at all on the assumption she had it in the bag, and then when she did start campaigning it was an incredible series of gaffes and missteps that only made Brown look better and better. The Washington Democrats are blaming her for the loss because most of the blame indeed belongs to her, though they’re also trying to stick their heads back in the sand regarding the part of that loss that belongs to them.
Lemme ‘splain something about sexism and feminism. Feminism is the premise that women are people, which means treating women like full and complete persons. Part of that exalted status is owning your fuckups as well as acknowledging and respecting successes; when children fail, we kiss their booboos and take responsibility for the damage, because they can’t be full members of society yet. When adults- citizens- fail, we fucking expect them to own it.
Excusing Martha Coakley’s failure as a politician due to perceived sexism is treating her as less than a full, adult person. Nobody ever tried to blame Walter Mondale’s epic crash and burn on his manliness.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:27 pm
“Nobody ever tried to blame Walter Mondale’s epic crash and burn on his manliness. ” Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh heh.
Here here !! She actually said she’d vote against the House version with the Stupak amendment, but said in the debate she would vote as is for the Senate version.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:52 pm
But…but LabRat,THEY know better than you do… they are the elitists who run NOW… you’re just a common female in fly over country, how DARE you have a different idea from those supreme leaders…
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:07 pm
I blame Walter Mondale’s failures on his lack of Manliness.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:16 am
If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
January 23rd, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Saying that feminism is “the premise that women are people, which means treating women like full and complete persons” is like saying that liberalism is about protecting liberty and human rights from government interference.
Once upon a time maybe, but that’s not what it means anymore. I understand the frustration that a word which once had positive and worthy implications has been desecrated, but LabRat, it’s gone.
Continuing to call yourself a feminist on this basis is like me calling myself a liberal based on my support for property rights and the RKBA. The general public has accepted the new “improved” definitions, and explaining that you’re a “real” feminist according to the original definition is a waste of communication that could otherwise be used to advocate for that original definition under a new name.
January 23rd, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Like what? Equalism? These days you can explain you’re a classical liberal by saying you’re a libertarian (up to an extent, there are still some value clashes there), but feminism in its classical sense has no new name- and a good many people still use this definition.
I don’t toss around the word a whole lot for exactly this reason, but it still has no better alternatives.
January 23rd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I don’t have a particularly good suggestion, but you need an alternative. In vast swaths of the country - for example, most rural areas - feminist is on the list of words that includes hippy, fascist, and communist, which are simply defined as “people who are scum.”
Furthermore, the set of people who still use the old definition, aside from being small to start with, is aging. Young women know the score, and any young woman who believes basically what you do will now go out of her way to say that she isn’t any sort of feminist at all. That’s how thoroughly that particular well has been poisoned. Not enough women under 30 use the old definition for me to go on a second date with any woman who refers to herself as a “feminist”.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Good thing I’m not going to date you then, isn’t it?
I don’t use the word often and I usually don’t use it as a self-descriptor, but until a better one comes along I’ll continue to use it when appropriate- such as when discussing the National Organization of Women and their ideas. “Libertarian”, “conservative”, and any host of other words are dirty ones in certain circles, and trying to remain neutral to all of them are simply not on my agenda.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Mondale manliness quotient? meh. You can have that point.
Dukakis? In the hat in the tank? LOL.