Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Selling Out

    Posted by Carl from Chicago on October 9th, 2010 (All posts by )

    This one cracks me up.

    On Friday, Brown’s campaign announced that he had received the endorsement of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women.

    Really? After Mr. Brown, the Democratic nominee for governor of California, called his female opponent, Meg Whitman, a woman who EARNED HER OWN FORTUNE, a whore?

    How, please explain, does allowing some old guy who has spent his entire life in politics calling a self-made woman a whore square with the principles of NOW? From Wikipedia, here was the original mission of NOW:

    in 1966 (the original was scribbled on a napkin by Friedan). The statement described the purpose of NOW as “The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.”

    Sounds like supporting a woman for governor would meet that mission. Today, of course, the mission is a bunch of gobbledygook that can mean anything, I guess, as long as it furthers the Democrats’ goals.

    A shame, because the original mission made a lot of sense and America has benefited immensely from giving greater rights to women in the work place and in the military, because obviously they represent 50% of our total brainpower and capabilities.

     

    17 Responses to “Selling Out”

    1. onparkstreet Says:

      Don’t get me started.

      NOW could have evolved into something intellectually exciting – or, at least the MS. Magazine part of the NOW world.

      In this hypothetical world, intellectually robust arguments would take place between women who were for or against a particular issue. Top notch female scientists would discuss their discoveries, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin would be regular contributors and talk seriously about, I don’t know, tax policy from their perspective or some such and women entrepreneurs’ brains would be picked for how they started and how they build up their business (and not the usual pablum these poor women are asked to spout, Oprah-like, in the pages of the standard dumb-them-down magazine.)

      On the other hand, the internet has taken care of this so that vigorous debate takes place via the internet.

      Don’t ge me started.

      Living in Boston previously (Brookline, really) I was acquainted with a group of women that called themselves feminists, were left of center politically, academics, and called me promptly at 5:00 some Fridays to see if I wanted to join them for happy hour somewhere. I’d say, “but I have to work.” Works like that for doctors, you know. This is catty, but here I go being catty: a few were completely obsessed with men and getting married. That’s fine, but just don’t lecture me about feminism or being right of center or about anything else. You do your own thing, I do mine.

      – Madhu

      (PS: To be fair, they didn’t really lecture me. I just felt like an oddball, but who is to blame for that but me? By virtue of my tastes, ideas, and habits, I suppose I do seem a bit of an oddball. Oh well.)

    2. onparkstreet Says:

      I really need to learn to proofread if I am going to complain about a lack of intellectual robustness….

      – Madhu

      (But, I never will! Oddballs and the quirky! Unite!)

    3. onparkstreet Says:

      By the way, I sort of think the popularity and robustness and intelligence of the so-called “Mommy blogs” is a perfect anecdote to the MS. Magazine world. The young women I interact with today – the young medical residents and students – seem perfectly comfortable wanting to be doctors, wives, mothers, feminine in their own unique ways. Sometimes they decide to stay at home with the kids, sometimes they don’t. They really are a nice bunch of young people.

      The young men are nice too. We have to be careful we don’t make them feel bad in attempts to make women feel good.

      I once had the shocking experience of having a few young men come up to me after lecture and say, “it’s nice to hear about men’s health” once in a while. I gave a lecture on tumors of the male genital tract as one of a lecture series where a bunch of doctors lecture medical students. I was really surprised by that sentiment. Can you imagine? A straightforward talk about tumors was welcomed because they felt that they always heard about “women’s health” as a specific topic and never men. It must be strange to be young these days.

      – Madhu

    4. Michael Kennedy Says:

      In that same meeting Jerry Brown made a crack about police chiefs, who were about to endorse him (They are all politicians), not being able to read. The arrogance and contempt for those not members of their self appointed elite is breathtaking sometimes. Jerry Brown has never held a job in any private business.

    5. Marty Says:

      Please, let’s all remember Mike Royko’s nickname for Brown: Governor Moonbeam.

      As for NOW, it and most other self-styled “feminist” organizations made their positions perfectly clear when they sided with Bill Clinton against Paula Jones, Juanita Broddrick (sp?), Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky. Or, never having any problem with Sen. Edward Kennedy.

      Since then, there is no reason to expect them to ever take the side of a woman who is to the right of a male opponent or victimizer or whatever.

      Why are you surprised?

    6. mark n. Says:

      At least Whitman isn’t the hoary politician and burned-out hippie Jerry Brown is.

    7. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Laughably, The Brown campaign is posting ads on conservative blogs about how he endorses the new clean energy law in California (and Whitman, sensibly, is opposed). There is an initiative on the ballot to repeal it. For one thing, the head of the commission that recommended it lied about having a PhD in statistics. Now it turns out, there is a 340% error in the calculations, not surprising I guess with a mail order PhD running things.

      Life in California these days. Spain has figured out those clean energy jobs are ephemeral but California will go down with the Gore flag flying.

    8. Carl from Chicago Says:

      My wife used to support the YWCA but then their mission creep led her to scale back help there.

      These entities used to support valid causes that could generate universal support and moral support, to boot, but now have been totally co-opted by political causes.

      It is sad to me.

    9. Montana Says:

      Griff Harsh, the husband of California gubernatorial candidate Nutmeg Whitman, acknowledged in a statement on Thursday that “it is possible” he received and wrote notes on a letter from the Social Security Administration back in 2003, regarding the former Housekeeper/Maid. The Whitman/ Harsh household then fired their housekeeper in June 2009 (after nine years of service), when Nutmeg handlers decided that she was an election liability.

      And now the Jill Armstrong, a former full-time nanny of the Harsh/ Whitman dungeon, came to the defense of the Housekeeper/Maid and told the San Francisco Chronicle that she believes Diaz’s claim because she “know[s] the family” and “what it was like.”

      Meg, Meg, Meg, where do I start, you have reportedly spent $140 million of your own money to get elected Governor but you couldn’t use some of it to get your housekeeper (after nine years of service) some legal help to get her papers, and worse you lied about it. Wow, what a WITCH, of course I meant it with a “B”.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39450925

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGRrNs8-s5w

      But your comments on holding employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers real takes the cake, I assume you exempt yourself and your husband, or will you be turning yourself in.

      Meg on holding employers accountable:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4fWLHiw8zA

      Meg you think you can buy the election, but what puzzles many is if you real cared and loved California then why not do your civic duty and vote, seems more rhetoric than anything else.

      In good times we might give you a try but not in our disaster mode that we find ourselves in after that so-called outsider Independent Republican, named Arnold Schwarzenegger (sold to us by radio personalities John and Ken), ruined our state, yah we will trust another one of you liars, think not. And another thing nine years this maid was in your house, in your house and you failed to learned this major thing about her, come on this sounds like a huge lie that no one can believe in.

      Ebay paid out $200,000 because Nutmeg assaulted an employee, so it’s not the first time she has mistreated an employee. Good luck winning Nutmeg, money will buy you admiration from the majority just from the Gay Old Party (GOP), but not from all of California.

      [Jonathan adds: This comment originated from the same IP address as this one.]

    10. mlyster Says:

      NOW might as well merge with the NEA and SEIU. Saves on heating and lighting expenses.
      NOW is no more interested in true intellectual and economic freedom for women than it is in teaching monkeys to sing. Their focus is to advance a wildly leftist, liberal agenda: whether via womanizing scum like Bill Clinton, or useless, manipulative hereditary government officials like Brownie.

      As Winston Churchill said in a famous verbal exchange with an MP: “Madam, we’ve already established WHAT you are: now,we’re merely haggling over price”. How touching that the more appropriately titled whore in the discussion (NOW) is siding with the one throwing the term at the least deserving participant in the exchange.

    11. Carl from Chicago Says:

      Jonathan – can’t believe that you are leaving that dopey comment up. I am not even commenting on the election, just noting how sad it is that NOW is supporting an old white man against a self made woman while that same old man is calling her a whore.

      But I guess I should just roll with it comments have a life of their own divorced from the intent of the post. I must be a fussbudget that way.

    12. elocution mistress Says:

      Repeat after me and make the vowels sound really round: “How NOW’s Brown’s cow.”

    13. mlyster Says:

      Montana,
      Get thee back under your bridge, troll.

      Brown’s a mope. Whitman built a company and earned a fortune. She actually understands how business works.
      I don’t care about her maid. The maid broke the law. Hence the term ILLEGAL alien.
      Allred is simply doing what she does best (and Brown called his OPPONENT a whore? “Paging Ms Allred; Ms Allred, to the whore courtesy phone”).

      That bright light just over the horizon? It’s not the dawn of a bright new socialist day. It’s the electoral meteor that’s going to send you liberal dinosaurs to the extinction you richly deserve.

    14. Dan from Madison Says:

      Carl – you can moderate comments in your own posts fyi.

      I also used to support the YWCA – now their vans and website say “eliminating racism, empowering women”. Mission creep much?

      My mom got a lot of help from the YWCA when she was young and actually lived there at a very affordable price before she met my dad. They also used to give to the YWCA, but obviously those donations dried up a long time ago.

    15. Tatyana Says:

      Carl, what I read of the story (here, by a link from a friendly site) say
      a) it was an associate of Brown who said the word, and next Brown’s remark is ambiguous – it could be in response to the aid or could be not.
      b) “selling out” was indeed the theme – but of Brown’s speech about Whitman’s cutting a deal with police union about reform (or rather, excluding them from the reform) of their pension. If she, indeed, cut that deal – I don'[t see the term as inappropriate. Certainly, she’s no Gov. Christi – again, if the info is true.

      Context changes everything.

    16. Ginny Says:

      My oldest daughter was quite attracted to feminist groups; we are not a pro-life family but the fact that she kept coming home saying so and so was “anti-woman” when they were really pro-life got to both of us. That this stand – one that certainly many quite liberated by any other standard women do not take – became the sole criteria says all we need to say about such organizations.

    17. ironchefoklahoma Says:

      Carl,
      I’m surprised that you’re surprised. NOW is simply following Conquest’s Second Law. Whatever aims they originally had have been replaced by action on behalf of the Democrat/Progressive party.

      …because the original mission made a lot of sense and America has benefited immensely from giving greater rights to women in the work place and in the military, because obviously…

      When someone uses “obviously” in their argument I always begin to squint. How do we measure this benefit? More importantly, how do we measure the net benefit? Given the costs (elimination of mens’ sports through thuggish enforcement of Title IX, armies of lawyers sniffing for gender inequalities in private and public enterprises, displacement of societal gender norms without providing a workable replacement) what’s the net?

      I’m inclined to agree that NOW spearheaded a movement that led to societal benefits…but the engineer in me asks, how much?