Image hosted by Photobucket.com To read the tribute to SFC Marcus Muralles, please click here Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Monday, January 10, 2005

Losing Their Place in the World... Finally


The Unabrewer thought I might be interested in this. He was right.

Feminists Face Tough Times After Election By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

NEW YORK - America's feminist leaders and their critics agree on at least one current political fact: These are daunting times for the women's movement as it braces for another term of an administration it desperately wanted to topple.

"The next four years are going to be tough, so we must be tougher," National Organization for Women (news - web sites) president Kim Gandy recently told supporters. "Our health, our rights, and our democracy are teetering on the brink."
Our health? The Bush administration wants to what- kill us? Our rights? Oooohhhh... you mean the right to suck your little "accident" into a sink. Our democracy? Dang, you girls drank a whole bunch of the KoolAid™, didn't you?
NOW, the Feminist Majority Foundation and numerous like-minded groups campaigned zealously against President Bush (news - web sites), contending that his economic agenda would inflict disproportionate harm on women and that his potential judicial appointments could jeopardize abortion rights.

To the feminists' dismay, Bush not only won — but he sharply reduced the Democrats' "gender gap" edge among women voters. Republicans also increased their majorities in Congress; new GOP senators include several staunch foes of abortion...
Hmmm... wonder if that's because women around the nation are finally waking up to the fact that NOW and other "like minded" groups do not represent the average American woman or her interests. About time!
..."The issue isn't whether they're mean-spirited or anti-women," Greenberger said. "What I do see is an administration with policies that are fundamentally out of touch with what women really need. ... They have other priorities that consistently outweigh and trump the everyday concerns that women have."
Let's see... what's my everyday concerns? Certainly not 99.9% of the things that NOW seems to think I'm worried about.
Referring collectively to conservative Republican leaders, Gandy said: "They like women just fine — as long as we know our place, which is preferably under a man's protection.

"Their primary allegiance is to corporations and the wealthy," she said. "Giving tax breaks to them means the economic burden falls more on women."
What decade are these women living in, anyway? Have they not looked out the window and looked at modern America lately?
Bush, of course, can make a strong case that he respects women — his new Cabinet will likely have four, including Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) as secretary of state, and women for years have been among his closest political and legal advisers.

Beyond Washington, meanwhile, women are making impressive professional gains — as big-city police chiefs and university presidents, for example. They now comprise roughly half the enrollment in U.S. medical schools. And though a wage gap persists, woman now earn 80 percent of what men do, compared to 62 percent in 1980.

"Feminist leaders have failed to keep up with the times," said Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, whose writings are often critical of groups like NOW...
OK... I've been saying that since... the early 80s. Yeah, I know. I was an early teen in the early 80s. So? I debated against the ERA in my freshman Social Studies class (this was right after time ran out on ratification). My argument- why pass more more laws? Just enforce the ones on the books! (The same argument can be made for a lot of issues, but I digress).
...Gandy, a NOW activist since 1973, is amused by suggestions that the women's movement is moribund.

"They've been writing headlines about the death of the feminism since the '70s," she said in an interview. "It's a lot of wishful thinking on their part."
Well, she is right, you know. I do wish feminism would just go away. 40 years ago... 30, even, feminism served its purpose. But their time is over. The women of the United States just don't need them anymore.
Among the movement's biggest worries are that Bush might appoint federal judges who favor outlawing abortion, that family-planning programs will lose crucial funding, and that the president's proposed changes to Social Security (news - web sites) would harm many widows and low-income women.
So... they threw in the whole Social Security issue just to make them appear to not be obsessed with abortion. Won't work, though... we know better.
"Social security privatization is a bad deal for women," said Lisa Maatz, public policy director for the American Association of University Women. "It's not just a retirement program, it's a family insurance program that protects a lot of women who earn less then men throughout their lifetime and are less likely to have a pension of their own."
Here. I'll type it slowly. Maybe you will understand. Social. Security. Is. Not. A. Retirement. Program. It. Was. Never. Meant. For. That. Johnson. Screwed. It. Up. And. Made. Everyone. Think. It. Was. Something.That. It. Was. Not. Designed. To. Be. Got it? Good. Let's continue.
Maatz and her colleagues at AAUW also feel the government should do more to help low-income women gain access to colleges and vocational schools, and to crack down on sexual harassment throughout the educational system.
Once again, we don't need MORE government. There are plenty of programs already to get low-income women into college and vocational schools. And there are a lot of low-income women who have grown up in a world where sure, Uncle Sam will give you scholarships and grants to go to school, but he'll also pay you to have kids and sit on your rump all day. Hmmm... work hard or hardly work? Tough call.

Don't start with how I'm stereotyping the poor. I know there are people (young men and women) who want nothing more than to work their way up from where they started and give their families a better life. But I also know that I grew up close to one of the worst examples of welfare gone bad. I've seen both sides. I just think that government has done enough, thankyouverymuch.

And, as for the whole "sexual harassment" thing... some women are too quick to be offended. But, if there is actual harassment going on, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with it within academia. Once again, government should just stay out.
Looking ahead, feminists say one of their most crucial tasks is drawing more women into politics. Though the number of women in Congress increased slightly in the Nov. 2 election, the number of female state legislators has been stagnant for six years at about 22 percent of the total.

"We're looking for candidates now for 2006, for 2008," said Llenda Jackson-Leslie of the National Women's Political Caucus, which tries to encourage progressive women to run for office.
I think she's going to be sorely disappointed. You may get "progressive" women to run and maybe even win in the Blue Counties (not even going to call them "Blue States"). But, in the Red States, there are women running, and winning, races. And they're not the kind of women these groups want in office. They're stong, conservative women.
Despite conservatives' success in the election, feminists found some encouragement — notably an increased turnout by low-income women in many areas, and the overwhelming re-election in populous California of Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), an outspoken women's rights advocate.
Yeah, well, that was a given in Left Leaning California, but, honestly, last week, she lost a lot of credibility with the rest of the Nation. They may love her in California, but they're the only ones.
"We have to hang tight," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "This is going to be a tough time for us, but in the long run we have many things going in our direction. One important thing we've got — people know they want more opportunities for their daughters."
Feminists do not represent the majority of women. They erroneously presume that they do. But they've never asked what we think. I don't think they really want to know.

If they asked, they'd find out that people want their children to have the opportunity to succeed, no matter their gender. Most have us have accepted equality among the sexes as a fact.

Too bad the Feminists are living in the wrong century.




<< Home
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?