AMERICAblog: Should Hillary get special treatment because she's a woman? Our women readers respond to EMILY's List (and it ain't pretty)
Dave of the Jungle
· 1 year ago
My contempt for Hillary is entirely gender neutral. I'm equally disappointed in Bill, too.
Dave of the Jungle
· 1 year ago
Slick Billary
OlderAndWiser
· 1 year ago
EL also endorsed Kay Hagan, a middle of the roader, who emphasized her "family values" and who refused to get specific about LGBT rights and refused to debate in NC. I voted for Jim Neal, the most progressive candidate, IMHO (omg, a white male!) : )
Also, does anyone really think Obama has no experience? Here's his and Clinton's 2007 Senate record, painstakingly researched over at Daily Kos:
The women's movement has been fairly irrelevant for a long time. Once they got away from economic issues (which are still there, aplenty), they got lost in their own internal politics, tendencies toward basing men, and over reliance on abortion as a litmus test (and I'm pro-choice!). This is just more evidence that a real women's movement needs grassroots. Ditto a viable Hillary candidacy.
tlsintx
· 1 year ago
can't wait for us to start putting substance over form. Obama will be a fantastic champion on issues important to women.
jimfromthefoothills
· 1 year ago
I have always liked Emily's list because as a fellow lesbian (I do like to lick p) I share their passions.
Remember though, Emily's list did not give Harriett Woods one friggin dime when she lost to Bond by 1000 votes. Their reason for not supporting her was her heterosexuality.
Hillary lost you morons. The game is over. I do not get the Lanny Davises of the world saying "she needs to keep fighting". Fighting for what? If Hillary lost the world series 4-0 she would demand that the format change to bet of 9 and she would cry cry cry.
Sage24
· 1 year ago
Just imagine how much grief, ridicule, pressure, and insults, Obama would have got, if Hillary was leading in delegates, and now Superdelegates. The Clinton machine would have acted outraged and whined about how desperate he would be, to cling like a leech, and win this nomination. Hillary acts like she has won more states, won the popular vote, and is ahead on all counts. Her supporters have got to stop believing the Clintons, when they keep saying, she is the most electable. With her baggage, he lack of funds, her mismanagement of her campaign, and her negatives, she seems far from electable. The republicans know this, and are desperately, trying to sabotage the democratic primary, with stupid comments, and Oxycontin Limbaugh's operation chaos.
f all these astroturf groups like EMILY's list and Women's Voices. Women Vote.
LynnDee
· 1 year ago
Quote: "Because, let me tell you what is happening now. All the CEOs/heads of businesses are now saying (although not publicly), 'THIS is why we don't want females running things.'"
This argument is silly. If male CEOs are saying this, it's not because they believe it. Rather, they're saying it for the same reason Hillary is invoking her various arguments: POLITICS. AGENDA. PERSONAL AMBITION.
So, I don't think we need to worry about Hillary setting back the women's movement 50 years. If nothing else, she is demonstrating that women have arrived politically at the national level and can succeed. Infuriating as her campaign has been, she is one of two left standing (even if her "standing" is now mostly illusory).
That said, her campaign has been incredibly infuriating. One wants to believe that she and Bill really believe (for example) in civil rights and are now being temporarily, if profoundly, cynical as she pursues the Presidency -- and one wants to believe that because, horrible as it might be, it at least suggests there is a core of principle there somewhere that, with a little (or a lot) of effort, she might reconnect with. But frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if even her one-time principles have been cynicism from the outset.
And that's really a hell of a thing for her to be doing to her legacy.
brilliantatbreakfast
· 1 year ago
Let me add to this: I am a 52-year-old white woman, and I too "ought" to be Hillary Clinton's demographic. I was an Edwards supporter. I could happily have supported Chris Dodd or Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson or even Joe Biden (D-MBNA). From the beginning of this campaign, there was no way I was going to support Hillary Clinton, not because she was a woman, but because of her sense of entitlement to the office.
All the palling around with the Bush family that Bill Clinton has done seems to have rubbed off on the Clintons. I spent eight years defending the Clintons against the right-wing hatemongers, only to finally understand just why the wingnuts hated them so much. I voted for Obama in the NJ primary, and I will happily vote for him for president. If Hillary wrests the nomination from him by force, well, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I won't vote for McCain, but I'll be damned if I'll reward this kind of behavior; this kind of race-baiting and bellicose warmongering rhetoric.
These so-called "feminists" who think that just because someone has a vagina instead of a penis, she's automatically going to be a better leader make me sick. They make me sick because they don't understand that "female uber alles" is no different from "male uber alles" or "white uber alles."
Sure, Hillary has every right to run as long as she wants to. She even has the right to try to bring down Obama in the "If I can't have it, he can't have it either" campaign she seems to be running. What she doesn't have the right to is any claim of being a feminist icon, and she doesn't have the right to call herself a Democrat -- and she doesn't have the right to suffer NO consequences for her actions. If she continues, I will throw money at any primary challenger she faces in the next Senate election. Jonathan Tasini, are you still there?
A pox on the Clinton house forevermore. And I never thought I'd say that.
slappymagoo
· 1 year ago
Hey, John, not to get terribly off-topic, because it's not about me and I'm thrilled my comments were noteworthy, but I'm "packing." As in not-a-woman. In fact, my name is John, as all good Americans are.
I'm guessing that because I wrote "when women are treated as equals, that means that we can still think they're less qualified for a job" you thought I meant "we" as in "we women." What I meant with "we" was "all of us DFH godless liberal commies." I just meant that treating everyone equally = you're liked or loathed based on who you are and what you stand for, and sometimes a particular man might be better qualified for a particular job than a particular woman at that particular time, and that could change years, months, or days from that particular time.
I wonder if, ironically, not being a woman and speaking about this issue means my opinion carries less weight? I'll leave that for a woman to decide. ba-dum bump.
On the plus side, maybe this could be the start of a movie-ready story where I disguise myself as a chick and sneak into women's forums to learn stuff that'll help me get laid, but along the way I really start to learn about women's issues, and women, and maybe, just maybe, a little something about myself. AND THEN I fall in love.
And then my wife finds out & I'm horribly screwed. Yikes. Better go back to that slasher-in-an-abandoned-coal-mine-kids-are-partying-in screenplay. It's much less dangerous.
Sorry about the confusion, however unintentional it may have been.
Does this make me the anti-Digby?
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
Angry, hostile these are words to describe the reaction to Hillary OR ANYONE who tries to undermine the voting process with pandering, lies and changing the rules, her sex has nothing to do with it. The fact that she is the first woman to achieve status as a presidential candidate is diminished by her behavior. There is a big difference between being tough and mean spirited, she chose the later. She could have been admired and achieved what no other woman had, the presidency.
Speaking as a woman I don't understand the mentality of many of my sex. Take the soccer moms, voted Bush in not once BUT twice. Now this, Ellen Malcolm and others like her decrying Hillarys's loss because she is woman, it just defies logical explanation.
vwcat
· 1 year ago
There is one thing I would like to point out. While Ellen M writes about Hillary and whines that everyone is being mean in asking her to drop out, and people are writing and arguing on Wapo, the one inescapable fact is that nothing from now on changes the dynamic of the primary. Hillary lost. Obama is the democratic nominee. The old school femiinists can write all they want about how Hillary is the glorious icon of feminism and that all women must vote for her. It still doesn't change the fact that just about all the democratic women have already voted. And Hillary lost. As one NY newspaper put it so wonderfully the other day with a picture of Obama: It's his party now.
Chris From Maine
· 1 year ago
shouldnt emily's list be more focused on the rights of women being eradicated by McCain's judges?
one more right wing judge and goodbye women's rights, hello barefoot and pregnant.
Hillary is being asked to drop out BECAUSE SHE LOST!
LunaStick
· 1 year ago
Well Chris, when those same women find themselves in a cold back alley seeking an illegal abortion, at least they will have their bitterness to keep them warm.
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
Feminist groups have been neoconned by the Clinton campaign. Hillary is no Democrat, feminist, nor civil rights leader. She's an opportunist and a warmonger. If that's feminism, then Bush is a feminist as much as Hillary is.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
As a woman I find these old school feminists to be an embarrassment and stupid. They don't want equality. They want special treatment.
---
Good point.
It'd be pretty odd to see a guy with no political experience running for the Senate of a state he didn't even live in just because his wife used to be president.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Well Chris, when those same women find themselves in a cold back alley seeking an illegal abortion, at least they will have their bitterness to keep them warm.
----
I think most of Hill's supporters are too old to worry about getting pregnant.
Which is probably another reason why they just pay lip service to reproductive rights.
nsr
· 1 year ago
Dave_of_the_Jungle 3 hours ago Hillary Picture of the Week
Yikes. I am so glad she's not going to be the nominee. She was in OR saying that 600,000 of us don't have health care. Yeah, seems like I recall voting for someone 16 years ago because they promised to fix that...
Tracy Russo at The Field was trying to make this lame "misogynist" argument, and a bunch of women shot her down over there, too.
kiki
· 1 year ago
"Hillary hasn't lost yet and is only being asked to leave the race because she's a woman"
PLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSE, give me a break! How stupid is that?!
stoic
· 1 year ago
When people speak of "elitist liberals", Ellen Malcolm is the kind of person they mean.
steve303
· 1 year ago
I consider myself a fairly strong feminist: this means that I believe, in my heart, that a woman could be just as good or just as bad a president as a man. Would a woman bring a different perspective to the job than a man? Definitely, however, this perspective may no translate into policy: has Pelosi run the House differently then Daschle did because of her sex? It doesn't seem so at the moment.
One of the original tenants of feminism was that the genitalia of a person should have no bearing upon employment, position, or pay. Certainly, feminism has grown and changed to include a number of other perspectives and including a host of cultural concerns; however, the core principle remains.
When this process started, I like pretty much everyone else, assumed that Clinton would be crowned the nominee with little choice. I did not support her, as I disagreed with many of her votes and her history with the DLC; I'm sure she's a perfectly nice person, but that's simply not good enough. Initially, I was not enamored with Obama: his votes weren't that different from Clinton's, and he seemed too accommodating to the opposition. After reading Obama's works, and listening to him, I changed my mind. I felt, and still feel, that this is someone who can bring balance back to government, someone who will roll back the unitary executive and the unaccountable presidency.
At this moment, my gut instincts have been shown to be correct: Clinton is acting like the unitary executive she wishes to be. She is the new Decider, and she will decide to ignore her party and it's constituents; She will decide when there is too much racism inserted into the campaign; and she will decide when the nomination is over.
The actions of a presidential candidate matter just as much as words. By her actions, Clinton has shown that she is happy to divide the country up based on race and sex in order to archive her goals. This seems sad for a country which has come far enough where a majority of people seem to be saying that those things no longer matter.
JennieB
· 1 year ago
I'm a 48-year old white woman who finds Hillary's behavior, and that of her surrogates, appalling. Hillary is running as though she can't win without being masculine and acting like a man. That's why she voted for the Iraq war. She had to appear tough, like the guys instead of using good, sound judgement like most women do every day. I find it incredibly insulting that two of her surrogates have now referred to her "male genitalia." Some asshole who was introducing her before her speech said she had "testicular fortitude." James Carville implied she had 3 "cajones" -- and if she gave one to Obama, then they'd both have 2. Well, that is just hilarious. I can't stop laughing.
Hillary has compared herself to Rocky, talked about duck huntin, thrown back a Boilermaker with the boys, and whined about how hard it is to be a woman because the boys are so mean. The next time we see her, she'll be wearing a wife-beater and scratching her balls.
Talk about setting the woman's movement back a few decades. Woman are strong, intelligent and tough. We don't need to act like men to compete against them. And, we most certainly are not served well by whining about how hard we have it because we're girls, race-baiting or lying. Her behavior is not only appalling, it's embarrassing!
Delia
· 1 year ago
One more fifty-something feminist who is fed up with Hillary and now, with EMILY'S LIST. And I'll tell you another thing. I used to teach college and have talked to young women, and these attitudes reflect precisely why so many of them are turned off to traditional feminism. They see it as doctrinaire, elitist, and not relating to their lives. And if we're going to be told we have to vote for Hillary or get thrown out of the club, it's hard to argue.
It's one thing to call the press on some of their sexist attitudes concerning, say Hillary's wardrobe (or Nancy Pelosi's). But that doesn't overcome the fundamental dishonesty of her campaign strategy. At the beginning she almost could have had me. But the lies, destructiveness and pandering have just multiplied throughout the campaign. To me feminism means using my critical judgment, and that faculty tells me that the Clintons are now part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I guess I'm a fairly strong feminist, but I was never for Hillary in the first place. She's been a cold, calculating opportunist ever since they gave the kiss-off to Arkansas for New York (because, IMO, she knew she could win there).
I guess I'm kind of a moron, but what about Public Service? You know, as in serving the public. All that "We the People" stuff?
vocqueen
· 1 year ago
Hilary (and the writer from Emily's List) seem to think that "equal" actually means never being criticized for ones actions, regardless of what those actions are. That any comment made about the WAY she is running her campaign is sexist. And that is straight-up BS. If Hilary were a man, I would be just as critical about HIS actions as I am about hers. It's not about her being a woman for me; it's about HOW she is going about this. She seems to be in it only for herself, and the hell with the rest of us. We've lived with that kind of attitude for the past 7 years. Enough is enough.
eve
· 1 year ago
I am a 55 year old woman who has been a feminist for all of my adult life. I remember entering a profession that was so male dominated I didn't meet another woman in my profession for two years. I also fondly remember my male mentors. I remember marrying in the 1970's under state laws that said a married woman owned nothing. Her husband owned everything.
I have also never liked organizations that exclude anyone which is the main reason I have never contributed to Emily's List. They only support women candidates. I have been invited to several of their events and I would like to see more pro-choice candidates. However I have never liked being excluded based on gender and I don't intend to do so myself. (And I'm not talking here about socializing. I love time with just my women friends.) What's wrong with also supporting male candidates who are pro-choice?
I am a life-long Democrat who loudly supported and defended the Clintons. When we started with 8 candidates I was so torn. Such great candidates! I thought Hillary compared very well to the others. And how many times would I have a chance to vote for a woman for president?
However, over the course of the campaign I have been so sad to lose my respect for both Bill and Hillary. This is a big loss for me. I feel betrayed and I wonder if they have changed or was I just foolish to support them so fervently? I now believe they have a low opinion of we voters and a very overrated opinion of themselves. I'm exasperated and angry and disappointed. But I still hope they will decide to lose graciously and redeem themselves somewhat. I still want to like them.
I'm too long-winded here already, so I won't list all the reasons I think Obama is a fantastic candidate. I am not happy to be labeled a sexist by Emily's List for choosing my candidate and I'm very glad I have never given them any money.
My suggestion to those of us who want more pro-choice candidates is to look at the candidates on Emily's List and see if there aren't some candidates there we might be unaware of and want to support. Then send a donation directly to the candidate.
eve
· 1 year ago
Just to add to my comment. I live in Texas and I have plenty of white friends who have had it with Hillary or who knew they preferred Obama from the beginning. I also have some black friends who still prefer Hillary. Are they racist because they prefer Hillary over Obama?
mirth
· 1 year ago
The goal of the feminist movement is to remove gender preference. Emily Malcolm suggests that women aren't capable of choosing our country's leaders based on merit, that we haven't yet learned to excercise fought-for rights. Her missive is insulting as well as infuriating. It demeans women.
mirth
· 1 year ago
*laugh*
My "The goal of the feminist movement is to remove gender preference" downthread needs clarification cuz I definitely have a gender preference. I meant gender preference in regards to our liberties.
wait a minute...
That doesn't work either cuz I definitely like to take liberties with my preferred gender.
I mean liberties in our public lives.
uh oh...
I kinda like taking liberties in public, too.
Oh well, you get my drift.
;-)
mirth
· 1 year ago
"This petition originally started out as NY Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama, but the response has been so overwhelming, that we have made it national. We welcome feminists from all over the country to sign on."
All Comments
Also, does anyone really think Obama has no experience? Here's his and Clinton's 2007 Senate record, painstakingly researched over at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/...
Obama will be a fantastic champion on issues important to women.
Remember though, Emily's list did not give Harriett Woods one friggin dime when she lost to Bond by 1000 votes. Their reason for not supporting her was her heterosexuality.
Hillary lost you morons. The game is over. I do not get the Lanny Davises of the world saying "she needs to keep fighting". Fighting for what? If Hillary lost the world series 4-0 she would demand that the format change to bet of 9 and she would cry cry cry.
The Clinton machine would have acted outraged and whined about how
desperate he would be, to cling like a leech, and win this nomination.
Hillary acts like she has won more states, won the popular vote, and is ahead on all counts.
Her supporters have got to stop believing the Clintons, when they keep saying, she is the most electable. With her baggage, he lack of funds, her mismanagement of her campaign, and her negatives, she seems far from electable. The republicans know this, and are desperately, trying to sabotage the democratic primary, with stupid comments, and Oxycontin Limbaugh's operation chaos.
This argument is silly. If male CEOs are saying this, it's not because they believe it. Rather, they're saying it for the same reason Hillary is invoking her various arguments: POLITICS. AGENDA. PERSONAL AMBITION.
So, I don't think we need to worry about Hillary setting back the women's movement 50 years. If nothing else, she is demonstrating that women have arrived politically at the national level and can succeed. Infuriating as her campaign has been, she is one of two left standing (even if her "standing" is now mostly illusory).
That said, her campaign has been incredibly infuriating. One wants to believe that she and Bill really believe (for example) in civil rights and are now being temporarily, if profoundly, cynical as she pursues the Presidency -- and one wants to believe that because, horrible as it might be, it at least suggests there is a core of principle there somewhere that, with a little (or a lot) of effort, she might reconnect with. But frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if even her one-time principles have been cynicism from the outset.
And that's really a hell of a thing for her to be doing to her legacy.
All the palling around with the Bush family that Bill Clinton has done seems to have rubbed off on the Clintons. I spent eight years defending the Clintons against the right-wing hatemongers, only to finally understand just why the wingnuts hated them so much. I voted for Obama in the NJ primary, and I will happily vote for him for president. If Hillary wrests the nomination from him by force, well, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I won't vote for McCain, but I'll be damned if I'll reward this kind of behavior; this kind of race-baiting and bellicose warmongering rhetoric.
These so-called "feminists" who think that just because someone has a vagina instead of a penis, she's automatically going to be a better leader make me sick. They make me sick because they don't understand that "female uber alles" is no different from "male uber alles" or "white uber alles."
Sure, Hillary has every right to run as long as she wants to. She even has the right to try to bring down Obama in the "If I can't have it, he can't have it either" campaign she seems to be running. What she doesn't have the right to is any claim of being a feminist icon, and she doesn't have the right to call herself a Democrat -- and she doesn't have the right to suffer NO consequences for her actions. If she continues, I will throw money at any primary challenger she faces in the next Senate election. Jonathan Tasini, are you still there?
A pox on the Clinton house forevermore. And I never thought I'd say that.
I'm guessing that because I wrote "when women are treated as equals, that means that we can still think they're less qualified for a job" you thought I meant "we" as in "we women." What I meant with "we" was "all of us DFH godless liberal commies." I just meant that treating everyone equally = you're liked or loathed based on who you are and what you stand for, and sometimes a particular man might be better qualified for a particular job than a particular woman at that particular time, and that could change years, months, or days from that particular time.
I wonder if, ironically, not being a woman and speaking about this issue means my opinion carries less weight? I'll leave that for a woman to decide. ba-dum bump.
On the plus side, maybe this could be the start of a movie-ready story where I disguise myself as a chick and sneak into women's forums to learn stuff that'll help me get laid, but along the way I really start to learn about women's issues, and women, and maybe, just maybe, a little something about myself. AND THEN I fall in love.
And then my wife finds out & I'm horribly screwed. Yikes. Better go back to that slasher-in-an-abandoned-coal-mine-kids-are-partying-in screenplay. It's much less dangerous.
Sorry about the confusion, however unintentional it may have been.
Does this make me the anti-Digby?
Speaking as a woman I don't understand the mentality of many of my sex. Take the soccer moms, voted Bush in not once BUT twice. Now this, Ellen Malcolm and others like her decrying Hillarys's loss because she is woman, it just defies logical explanation.
Hillary lost.
Obama is the democratic nominee.
The old school femiinists can write all they want about how Hillary is the glorious icon of feminism and that all women must vote for her. It still doesn't change the fact that just about all the democratic women have already voted. And Hillary lost.
As one NY newspaper put it so wonderfully the other day with a picture of Obama:
It's his party now.
one more right wing judge and goodbye women's rights, hello barefoot and pregnant.
Hillary is being asked to drop out BECAUSE SHE LOST!
---
Good point.
It'd be pretty odd to see a guy with no political experience running for the Senate of a state he didn't even live in just because his wife used to be president.
----
I think most of Hill's supporters are too old to worry about getting pregnant.
Which is probably another reason why they just pay lip service to reproductive rights.
Hillary Picture of the Week
Yikes. I am so glad she's not going to be the nominee.
She was in OR saying that 600,000 of us don't have health care. Yeah, seems like I recall voting for someone 16 years ago because they promised to fix that...
Tracy Russo at The Field was trying to make this lame "misogynist" argument, and a bunch of women shot her down over there, too.
PLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSE, give me a break! How stupid is that?!
One of the original tenants of feminism was that the genitalia of a person should have no bearing upon employment, position, or pay. Certainly, feminism has grown and changed to include a number of other perspectives and including a host of cultural concerns; however, the core principle remains.
When this process started, I like pretty much everyone else, assumed that Clinton would be crowned the nominee with little choice. I did not support her, as I disagreed with many of her votes and her history with the DLC; I'm sure she's a perfectly nice person, but that's simply not good enough. Initially, I was not enamored with Obama: his votes weren't that different from Clinton's, and he seemed too accommodating to the opposition. After reading Obama's works, and listening to him, I changed my mind. I felt, and still feel, that this is someone who can bring balance back to government, someone who will roll back the unitary executive and the unaccountable presidency.
At this moment, my gut instincts have been shown to be correct: Clinton is acting like the unitary executive she wishes to be. She is the new Decider, and she will decide to ignore her party and it's constituents; She will decide when there is too much racism inserted into the campaign; and she will decide when the nomination is over.
The actions of a presidential candidate matter just as much as words. By her actions, Clinton has shown that she is happy to divide the country up based on race and sex in order to archive her goals. This seems sad for a country which has come far enough where a majority of people seem to be saying that those things no longer matter.
Hillary has compared herself to Rocky, talked about duck huntin, thrown back a Boilermaker with the boys, and whined about how hard it is to be a woman because the boys are so mean. The next time we see her, she'll be wearing a wife-beater and scratching her balls.
Talk about setting the woman's movement back a few decades. Woman are strong, intelligent and tough. We don't need to act like men to compete against them. And, we most certainly are not served well by whining about how hard we have it because we're girls, race-baiting or lying. Her behavior is not only appalling, it's embarrassing!
It's one thing to call the press on some of their sexist attitudes concerning, say Hillary's wardrobe (or Nancy Pelosi's). But that doesn't overcome the fundamental dishonesty of her campaign strategy. At the beginning she almost could have had me. But the lies, destructiveness and pandering have just multiplied throughout the campaign. To me feminism means using my critical judgment, and that faculty tells me that the Clintons are now part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Hillary Clinton
President
United States
I guess I'm kind of a moron, but what about Public Service? You know, as in serving the public. All that "We the People" stuff?
I have also never liked organizations that exclude anyone which is the main reason I have never contributed to Emily's List. They only support women candidates. I have been invited to several of their events and I would like to see more pro-choice candidates. However I have never liked being excluded based on gender and I don't intend to do so myself. (And I'm not talking here about socializing. I love time with just my women friends.) What's wrong with also supporting male candidates who are pro-choice?
I am a life-long Democrat who loudly supported and defended the Clintons. When we started with 8 candidates I was so torn. Such great candidates! I thought Hillary compared very well to the others. And how many times would I have a chance to vote for a woman for president?
However, over the course of the campaign I have been so sad to lose my respect for both Bill and Hillary. This is a big loss for me. I feel betrayed and I wonder if they have changed or was I just foolish to support them so fervently? I now believe they have a low opinion of we voters and a very overrated opinion of themselves. I'm exasperated and angry and disappointed. But I still hope they will decide to lose graciously and redeem themselves somewhat. I still want to like them.
I'm too long-winded here already, so I won't list all the reasons I think Obama is a fantastic candidate. I am not happy to be labeled a sexist by Emily's List for choosing my candidate and I'm very glad I have never given them any money.
My suggestion to those of us who want more pro-choice candidates is to look at the candidates on Emily's List and see if there aren't some candidates there we might be unaware of and want to support. Then send a donation directly to the candidate.
My "The goal of the feminist movement is to remove gender preference" downthread needs clarification cuz I definitely have a gender preference. I meant gender preference in regards to our liberties.
wait a minute...
That doesn't work either cuz I definitely like to take liberties with my preferred gender.
I mean liberties in our public lives.
uh oh...
I kinda like taking liberties in public, too.
Oh well, you get my drift.
;-)
The Petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsf...
The (thus far 2,037) Signers:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsf...