Y’all can’t handle the truth -or- NOW doesn’t represent ME now!

[a satire in one act; dedicated to mi hermana]

Sen. Ted Kennedy, a man (and maybe he does some other stuff too, IDK), endorsed the black guy over Feminist Vanguard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.   And the New York National Organization for Women called it “the ultimate betrayal,” and I totally don’t blame them.

“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). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation – to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”

I mean, fuck!  Who probably carried Mister Kennedy to term instead of exercising her choice to get rid of him?  A WOMAN.   Look at all the crazy ways he’s never allied with women before, and all of us totally said NOTHING!  And now a woman’s running for President, he gets the ultimate chance to redeem himself — and he just recreates the Good Ol’ Boys Procession for the 44th seat in the White House?  Fucking abominable.

Any feminist who’s every feminist would totally feel the same way.  I can’t see any reason why feminists aren’t all storming the gates to the Senate floor right now, screaming Senator Kennedy down right now.  That nomination was totally Clinton’s.

But it’s come to my attention that a certain corner of the blogosphere full of self-proclaimed “feminists” are actually upset with NOW’s statement.  Some criticism has been lodged at the level of venom expressed by NOW and the fact that this organization claims to represent Feminism.  These other “feminists” keep raising all these objections to the press release, some of them even moving to call the writer “unhinged.”  I have no idea how these “feminists” can choose to identify under Feminism when they use such a sexist statement to refer to their own.  Obviously, New York NOW never claimed to speak for all women or all feminists; they were clearly speaking for a niche.  And Sen. Ted Kennedy’s choice not to endorse Sen. Clinton affects every woman and every feminist.  So I don’t know what these “feminists” are even trying to say.  In fact, I won’t even go over to try to understand.

They’re probably being some whiny keyboard hacking haters, anyway.  I mean, seriously; isn’t it obvious that this press release is only for a small number of feminists who are pretty damned pissed at Sen. Kennedy?  Is EVERY feminist a member of NOW?  Who said every feminist was?  Why the hell is there even a problem?  These other “feminists” really need to stop being haters and put a lid on it.  Who are they to get outraged on behalf of anybody?  I bet most of these women aren’t even real feminists; they just take on the name when they want some attention.  Probably only deal with  feminism on the internet and some other sites.  Not on any full-time basis.

I mean, seriously, don’t these “feminists” read Steinem and Jong?  Sometimes, sacrifices have to be made in the message and the dream when someone is vying for power with genitalia that resembles yours.  Every true feminist, every true woman, knows that.  Sen. Ted Kennedy had a chance to ally with a true Vaginal Femagogue and so he deserves every condemnation true feminists can level for not doing what he was supposed to do.  I can’t believe there’s even a question about this.  If there’s any problem with the message that NOW sending out on behalf of Feminism, I’m sure we can handle that shit later.  Right now, we don’t have time to let injustices like these slide by.  And this is a Total Feminist Injustice.  Why is speaking out such a problem now for NOW?  ‘Cause they’re saying something that their most bilious and demanding critics don’t like?  Pshaw.  Now is not the time to try to cater to everyone.  It doesn’t matter if NOW claims to speak for everyone or not; we have an election to win.

Besides, they’ve fixed it.  Any complaints griped over should be in the past; they can get back to speaking for all feminists, right?  Do they have your permission?  Grow a pair already, ladies.

And I hope no one wanders in here trying to tell me what to say.  I know what needs to be said.  I’ve said everything that needs to be said: that NOW represents all feminists all of the time except when they’re representing some feminists some of the time because NOW represents all women some of the time and some women all of the time.  The rest just doesn’t matter.

So why are y’all shocked, exactly?  One day you can make your own national organization for women and do whatever the hell you want, and everything will be fine for you, okay?  But right now?  Shut up; grown folks with good Feminist reputations are talking for ya.

About problem chylde
"In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:6

21 Responses to Y’all can’t handle the truth -or- NOW doesn’t represent ME now!

  1. Christina says:

    Exactly, Sylvia. We both have vaginas, right? That means we both think precisely the same way.

    I know it’s harder for you to maintain the solidarity, what with being Af-Am and therefore having to think the same way as all other Af-Ams as well as thinking precisely the same as all women at the same time, but, you know, no one ever said it’d be easy to be a member of (at least) two different monolithic voting blocks.

    I would gather that such a tug-of-war might make you begin to think that you have a mind of your own and ought to use it.

    Resist the temptation! Resist! For that way lies The Ultimate Betrayal!!eleven!!one!1!

  2. isolator86 says:

    I’m kind of curious – do you think Clinton would be the best candidate for the presidency? (even if it’s a lesser evil thing).

    To be honest, I really don’t know my opinion about Hillary Clinton quite yet. I don’t know what her stand is on issues: like any policies she wishes to try and push, stance on the war in Iraq, what to do about health care, etc. I so know that her little crying ordeal looked like a bunch of bull and a ploy to get more attention (along with reinforcing a negative stereotype).

    I certainly don’t have an issue with a woman being elected as president – I think it might do the country (and feminists) some good (or at least I hope it would). Personally though, I wouldn’t want to vote for Clinton if she would just (or would likely) lead the country down the wrong path.

  3. eyeingtenure says:

    Clearly, you’re racist for not endorsing Obama.

    Consider the quality of that logic.

    http://awaitingtenure.wordpress.com/

  4. Pingback: OFF: Ted Kennedy’s Sexist Agenda « On the Tenure Track

  5. Donna says:

    I wish Hugo would read this AND get it, somehow I think that is asking too much.

  6. Daisy says:

    I just dissed Hillary roundly, for more details go here:

    Declaring for Obama

    … I gotta ask why NOW thinks she is such a great candidate? They roasted Elizabeth Dole for being just some man’s WIFE, didn’t they? Oh wait, Liddy Dole didn’t kiss their ass and play the game, did she? SHE LOST HER VAGINA, AS A REPUBLICAN!

    It’s such unmitigated bullshit. What it means is: here is the agenda, and to be AN OFFICIAL WOMAN, you have to adhere to it. It’s like any socialist party or religious denomination, demanding you agree with points 1-10, or else NO you don’t get to belong, and you are OUT. Heretic, schismatic, splitter, renegade, yada yada… who died and left them pope? :P

    I wouldn’t mind this so much, if it was just a matter of deciding who the liberal feminists are, but instead, they make it a litmus test of who is actually A WOMAN… they are the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, aren’t they? So, if you disagree, you ain’t a woman, or you are in contraindication to womanhood, something like that.

    And this is different from traditional patriarchy HOW?

  7. ilyka says:

    And I hope no one wanders in here trying to tell me what to say. I know what needs to be said. I’ve said everything that needs to be said: that NOW represents all feminists all of the time except when they’re representing some feminists some of the time because NOW represents all women some of the time and some women all of the time. The rest just doesn’t matter.

    Yes MA’AM! :)

  8. Lisa Harney says:

    Well, Sylvia, I’d follow you into the teeth of Hell, or rather a voting booth, on this one.

    While I think “ABH” types are really overreacting, I much prefer Obama over Hillary.

  9. Oh, man, I WISH this had happened before NOW called me for money the other week! (I didn’t give them any, but that was for a totally different reason…)

  10. joankelly6000 says:

    You = brilliant and hilarious.
    I = in love.

  11. nothing philosophical or even interesting to say, ms. sylvia. nope. all I have to say is:
    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaahhaah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  12. Ettina says:

    I don’t get it. How do you support one or the other without getting called discriminatory? Barack Obama is a black man and Hillary Clinton is a white woman, so both are oppressed in different ways. Since sexism affects men more than racism affects white people (especially sexism towards men in combination with racism – eg the ‘dangerous black man’ stereotype) if you went by wanting to be nondiscriminatory, you might be better off picking Barack Obama because he’s affected by both racism and sexism.
    You could also look at which one acts better regarding the area in which they are priviledged. If I understand the news, Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be racist, whereas I don’t think Barack Obama has revealed his opinion of women’s rights.
    Personally, I think you should look at their policies, not their race or gender. That’s what really matters, after all. What kind of government they will make.

  13. Deoridhe says:

    Even science supports you, Sylvia. Everyone knows when you add all the colors together, you get white, so obviously Class Woman has to be white – that includes all the colors!!!

  14. Lisa Harney says:

    When I mixed all my play-doh colors together, I got brown… ;)

  15. Deoridhe says:

    Light is the only TRUE science.

    (The same thing happens with paint. ;) )

  16. This is absolutely brilliant, and thank you for it. An anti-war woman tried telling me I was a traitor to my gender for having an Obama button on my messenger bag (no car here!), and I asked her if that meant we should both vote for Condoleeza Rice or Ann Coulter should they run for president. Shut her up, or else she couldn’t compete with my iPod, one or the other.

    Eyeingtenure, I’m surprised more people don’t use that “logic” to turn on them.

    NOW stopped representing me long ago.

  17. Sylvia says:

    I am so proud to see the large number of Vagina-Americans commenting in this thread. ;)

    (Thank all of you.)

  18. isolator86 says:

    Can I be an honorary Vagina-American? *looks hopeful* I look pretty in make-up and drag…I swear!

  19. cripchick says:

    i’m going to have to quote the hell out of this.

  20. cripchick says:

    so i thought this was kind of funny— i save quotes from bloggers to use as away messages and yours was so convincing that a friend IMed me and said i shouldn’t be talking down to women that way. HA! :)

  21. Scott Gallant says:

    I’ll vote for the first woman presidential candidate that doesn’t think that possessing a vagina is her most important credential. Is this the great feminist master plan: to whine and cry your way to world domination? Pathetic…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 303 other followers

%d bloggers like this: