NY NOW raises eyebrows with talk of ‘ultimate betrayal’

[ProSense]

NY NOW raises eyebrows with talk of ‘ultimate betrayal’

Posted January 29th

When I saw an email yesterday with a statement purporting to be from the New York State chapter of the National Organization of Women, I dismissed it as a poor attempt at humor. The statement, claiming to be in response to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama, was so over the top, and so hyperbolic in its claims, I assumed there was no way that any NOW affiliate would issue it to the media.

<…>

It’s hard to overstate how misguided this is. NOW’s national office sought to distance itself from the state chapter’s comments, and given the content, that’s not surprising.


I don’t see any need to reinvent the wheel here, so I’ll just quote some insightful posts from some great women writers.

Emily Bazelon:

n endorsement of any candidate but Hillary is a betrayal of the feminist cause? I suppose the more sophisticated version is that interest groups expect the politicians they support to support them blindly in their time of need. This is their time of need, the NY NOW chapter argues, ergo, Kennedy should be with them. But that assumes that the feminist time of need equates with electing Hillary. Would most women, or even most feminists, agree with that? I just can’t. And what does this narrow-cast way of evaluating a candidate really have to recommend it? I can’t think of anything on that score, either.

Ann Friedman:

This is completely unhinged, and frankly, mind-boggling…. All I can say is, NOW-NY does not speak for me. And it does not speak for all feminists.

Jill Filipovic:

Actually, The Ultimate Betrayal (TM) is more like when someone flies off the handle and makes outrageous claims in the name of feminism…. (I)s no one vetting this woman’s press releases? Do they not have a halfway competent PR person? Or does NOW of New York State actually stand behind this?

Hilzoy:

Leave aside the part about the “greatest betrayal” — surely someone, somewhere in the history of the fight for women’s rights must have done something worse than supporting a male candidate who is fully committed to feminism. As a feminist, I find it infuriating that NOW-NY, or any other organization, would presume to say that not supporting their favored candidate is a betrayal of feminism, at least in this case.

In some situations, I could see their point. If, for instance, Ted Kennedy had come down in favor of some candidate who had sworn to appoint only right-wing judges to the Supreme Court, or to oppose any federal funding for any abortion, or something, fine. Where the issues are clear and the candidates have massive differences on feminist issues, I don’t have a problem with feminist groups deciding that supporting a given candidate is not what feminists do. But that’s not the situation we’re in.

Clinton and Obama have gotten solid 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood (Obama also gets 100 from the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association for 2005-6, while Clinton gets 93; she was 100 through 2004, however.) Both Clinton and Obama were with NOW 100% of the time in 2006; in 2005, NOW gave Obama a 91 and Clinton a 96. I was somewhat surprised to find that Obama did slightly better than Clinton on the Children’s Defense Fund’s ratings: Clinton has a perfect score until 2006, when she got a 90; Obama has consistent 100s…. It’s nutty to suggest that no feminist in good standing can support a candidate with that kind of record.

New York NOW clearly made a mistake on this one. One has to assume its press releases will be looked at a little more closely in the future.

[predfan]

1. Sensible heads prevail

We've got to be able to run a spirited campaign, everybody get their knees skinned a bit, and then come back together after it's over, and that's not alsays easy, but it's doable, by God, considering the alternative.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. can you say "BACKLASH"? (eom)

[ProSense]

3. Exactly! n/t

[DURHAM D]

4. I thought the NOW NY chapter did not go far enough in their

slapdown of Ted.

[ProSense]

6. "Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President"

Did that go far enough?

[DURHAM D]

7. Well - actually I would have called it an

adolescent circle jerk.

Make you feel better?

[ProSense]

8. "Make you feel better?" Obviously, it made you feel better. n/t

[DURHAM D]

9. I was working toward your interest.

I am female. We nurture and care for others. It is really all about you honey.

[goodhue]

5. Funny how she attacked Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich

It is one thing to hate Barack Obama, but why go out of the way to slime Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. Weird stuff.

[MBS]

10. I'm with all those women writers

NOW-NY made a big mistake on this one. I'm really, really, really tired of single-issue politics.