As feminists do you feel comfortable in the Democratic party?

[Wetzelbill]

I ask this because I notice in some of the threads, many of you have commented on the lack of empathy for feminists on DU. It seems to be a genuine concern for many of you and I detected some pain and anguish over this problem as well. As if you all consider it extremely hurtful. And, of course, this is a supposed to be a progressive site, as well.

I was also interested to see your reactions to Justice O'Connor's retirement. I sense a genuine fear that many of you are frightened that Democrats may sell out your right to choose. None of you seem to have much faith in Democrats to do the right thing. I was surprised at this. Very much so. Do you think maybe Dems might make a deal that puts in jeopardy Roe v. Wade, possibly for some other trade off that doesn't pertain to your interests at all? Many of you seem quite fearful.

Obviously, much has to be done with regards to women's rights in this country, indeed, the world, but do you feel that your most basic rights aren't being protected by the people who you all rely on to do so? Of course, the Republican party is much harsher on women, but do you feel that there is still a deep gap on gender issues even within your own party? That women's rights are still way down the list on democratic priorities? I get a real sense that right now many of you have a real apprehension about the direction our party may go in the upcoming weeks and months.

[cally]

1. Yes!

After 2004, many of the so called Dem pundits and bloggers suggested that we lost the election because of cultural issues. The argument went that Dems pro-choice and supporting the civil rights of glbts lost us the election. For example, Kos has suggested this. The implication of this argument is that the party should change it's position to win. I haven't seen or heard many backtrack when most don't think that's why we lost. Also, I haven't seen them consider that they will lose many women's votes.

[Wetzelbill]

7. yes, I noticed in another thread you were particularly worried

We lost the election for many reasons. To blame it on cultural issues is to take an easy way out. It's like a sports team blaming a blow out loss on one play. It's not relevant, in the big picture.

Plus, if you were a Republican voter, and you had a choice to vote between a guy who was kinda like a Republican and a full blown nutbag like yourself, who do you think you would vote for.

You can't beat Republicans by trying to out Republican them. It won't work. And, in the end, you sell out your base and hurt the people you should be fighting for.

I say Dems should target that vast group in our country who don't vote. If we become populist and true to what we are supposed to stand for then we can begin to tap into that group.

[all.of.me]

25. "target that vast group in our country who don't vote"

and i think that means election reform first. if voting is not fair, then the rest is irrelevant.

[Wetzelbill]

29. you're definitely right

[Heddi]

2. I thik they take us for granted, like they take the gays, blacks, and

other 'base' voter groups for granted.

I think that they feel that as long as they talk-the-talk about being pro-choice (even if they embrace policies that are decidedly anti-choice) that the women will still stay because what's our next option? voting Republican.

Same for the blacks, the jews, the gays, the this, the that....we're a base and that's it. They can play lip service about how horrible the Republicans are in X area but then turn around and say that even if supported by Republicans, X policy really isn't that bad if you really look at it.

Look at how many Dems just roll over and show their bellies when Republicans demand something. I really feel that, especially after the 2004 election, we have 2 parties running that we can choose from: Republicans, and Republicans.

Look at DU after 2004 elections:

ABORTION was a dividing issue that cost us the election
GAY RIGHTS was a dividing issue that cost us the election
AFFIRIMATIVE ACTION was a dividing issue that cost us the election
BEING AGAINST THE WAR was a dividing issue that cost us the election
WELFARE REFORM was a dividing issue that cost us the election.

see---women, gays, minorities, the poor--we're just DIVISIVE :eyes: More like, we're convenient for the votes to build up the base, but once things go wrong, we're the FIRST to be named as scapegoats.

I've asked this numerous times, but why is it that the ONLY things that cost us elections are civil rights issues? Why can't we look at the REAL issues that are brought on by rich, white, males, and say THEY are the reason we lost? Why are Rich, White, Males NEVER to blame for lost votes or dwindling voters? I swear--it must be so nice to be completley infallable with regards to public policy.

And look at DU after the 2004 election:

We need to DROP the Abortion Issue---it's too DIVISIVE. Besides, if we embrace a more pro-life stance, maybe, just maybe, a few moderates or centrists would come our way. Right? A few

You know, the Gay Marriage issue really lost it for us. That should NOT have been the pressing issue of the 2004 elections. I mean, can't you fags..I mean "people" wait until we get a Dem in the whitehouse AND congress AND senate AND supreme court before you start wanting things like 'special rights'? Maybe, just maybe, if we lighten up on the gay rights bit, we'll get some moderates or centrists to vote for us. Maybe. No proof, but we can hope

etc
etc
etc

Always willing to sell MY fucking uterus up the river in the empty hopes that some moderates or centrists will vote for us. Even though there's not one SHRED of evidence that any sizeable amount of moderates or centrists or republicans would suddenly vote Dem if it weren't for abortion or gays.....but hey....I can wish every night on a star that I win a million dollars tomorrow. It hasn't worked yet, but I still got alot of 'tomorrows' left in my life, ya know :eyes:

Sadly, the Dems are the only place I can vote. I could vote 3rd party, but honestly I can't. And the Dems know it and that's why they have us by the collective short-hairs. That's why they are just as much to blame for not allowing 3rd party candidates in the debates---they don't want their precious base to have another option.

I can tell you---the day that Dems become anything but Pro-Choice is the day I stop voting for Dems.

I'd much rather be in a party that stands for the RIGHT things, even if it means losing again and again, than be in a party that is a lap-dog for Republicans and stands for NOTHING, even if it means that's the only way they can win.

Fuck that.

[Wetzelbill]

8. So do Dems sell our soul just to win elections?

We already have sold our soul in many ways and look how far that has gotten us.

Do we give up our women? Our gay and lesbian friends? All minorities? Do we screw all the poor and middle-incomed? Might as well, join the Limbaugh wing of the Republican party then.

Losing the will to fight for what is right won't win any elections. It'll make the Democratic party cease to exist.

We've taken that step towards being anti-choice already. Look at the number of Dem senators who voted to ban late-term abortions even without regard for the mother's health? The then minority leader, Tom Daschle voted for it. He did so, because he was up for election and didn't want to lose. He played politics and lost anyway. I'd personally rather go down in flames sticking to my guns, wouldn't you? Better to do what is right, not what is expedient. Now our new minority leader, Harry Reid is an anti-choice Democrat. I don't mind Harry Reid, but what's with the willingness to sell out our women? I just don't get it.

[Robeson]

12. I agree with your entire post. Its hard for me to add anything to it, ...

...since you've said about everything I think on the topic, especially with the point that women, blacks, jews, gays, etc. are just blocks of votes that they hope to solidfy before an election. It reminds me of Nixon's old philosophy about the religious right. He said that in order for the Repugs to win, they had to move to the middle, while blinking to the right. I feel thats what our party does to the left, and to its various elements.

[all.of.me]

24. it seems to be about winning, not taking care of the people

how do we combat that?

[Finder]

3. Not as long as the Liebermans and Millers are loud...

I myself am not into partisan politics(I believe all politics are local), although I have been supporting primarily democrats the last few years and imagine I will be for years to come.

[Wetzelbill]

9. you mentioned on another thread that you ran for office, I think

Are you willing to do so again? I think that progressive candidates need to start running for school board, city council, state lege, mayorships. Dog catcher. :) You name it, no matter how small an office it may seem, progressive Dems need to infiltrate everything on a ground up local level. I would like to see a women's revolution in this regard. I'm sorry to say, us men just can't cut it, haha. You women need to take over the world piece by piece and step by step.

No, seriously, I think more women should run for office period, starting on a local level is an especially good beginning. I think you should give it a go, though.

[Finder]

13. I did, but as a Repub...

I also held an appointment since. A female who is a pro-choice, atheist, pro gun control candidate is not popular with repubs or dems.lol

I focus more on the "Women in business" bloc and the schools these days.

I feel my job is to keep the religious right out of the repub party up here and have no qualms supporting a dem for that purpose. Last year we had active campaigns for the gov and pres--Republicans for Lynch(he won)and Republicans for Kerry(he took NH).

[Wetzelbill]

14. as a republican?

:grr:

jk. :)


Well, if you're taking on the Religious Right, good for you. That's about as important a cause that exists right now.

Wow, I would say you wouldn't be popular the a lot of dems or repubs, but at least you have the female, pro-choice, atheist, pro-gun control vote on your side. (both of them) :D

[Finder]

15. In New England...

repubs are socially liberal for the most part. Think Olympia Snow.lol

The last few years have been tough with the so-called libertarians supporting neocons and religious whackjobs running as repubs.

[Wetzelbill]

17. the Republican party has a scary element that gets a lot of support

like that. I bet its been tough. Sounds like it.

[Solly Mack]

4. Not always. And never around those who think my rights should be

put on hold to further some agenda.

I don't view civil rights as an agenda and don't think much of those who do.

[Wetzelbill]

10. it's a matter of principle not agenda

In my book, anyway. So then do you think there should be more grassroots activism then? To keep politicians honest - politicians honest? that's an oxymoron- on civil rights. Or would you rather see an influx of candidates who hold civil right's as a fundamental principle?

[Solly Mack]

11. Agendas rarely have principles..to my thinking

which is why "politically expedient" is (all too often) agenda based ( such as winning at any cost- no matter who they sell out)

I honestly don't understand how anyone could claim to support the ideas of America and not hold civil rights as a fundamental guiding principle.

I get so sick of hearing "wait until we win - then we can take a stand" Which they NEVER do. Then they lose and the bs starts all over again. "Let's get in office first - then we can address your interests" - Like civil rights is just my interests...or it's some special interests (another one of the ignorant talking points by some)

[Eloriel]

5. Absolutely. We are nothing to them -- barely votes.

You can see that right here at DU. While there's been a slight improvement lately in prohibiting certain language used against us (bitch, shore, etc.), there's a LOT of misogyny here. And it's just part of the background noise, if you know what I mean, until it gets more pointed and prominent in the discussions as it often does.

There are people here -- mostly men, of course -- who are quite willing to let go of Roe v. Wade, who cannot comprehend the utter desperation that would make a woman (of any age) put her very life at GReAT risk to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in an illegal abortion. They just don't get it.

Not very many men here comprehend our suffering. Most of them don't even want to.

But you're no stranger to all that. Surely you've encountered the very same attitudes, the same insensitivity and uncomprehending ignorance re issues of racism. Haven't you?

[Wetzelbill]

6. I am an Indian who looks white.....

So, I've gotten a bit of racism from both sides. On my reservation, I'm light skinned and was bussed to school in the "white" town, plus my grandfather was a prominent tribal leader who left the reservation to work as an Indian Liaison in Washington. There are a select group of Indians who are racist towards myself, and people who are like me. Not even because I'm light-skinned, mainly because I'm someone who doesn't live up in the sticks and stay there. If you leave home to become better, or you live in a non-reservation town with lots of white friends, then somehow that makes you an apple. (red on the outside, white on the inside)

On the other side, in HS I was a terrible student, mainly because I had nobody who would reach me. The teachers that did reach me were very good at it. Many Indians are considered to be dumb or ignorant. Lots of kids fall through the cracks, in my small community. I was bored with school frankly because it's easy for me. My test scores were out of sight. I had the highest ASVAB score in recent memory when I was a junior, yet I had the worst GPA in my class. I had an incident in which the guidance counselor's secretary wouldn't allow me to enroll in an English class because she thought it was too hard for me. I had all the prereqs and everything. She made me go get special permission from the teacher, and he was incensed about it. It isn't a secretary's job to tell a student what they can or cannot take. But, she's a known racist - I suspect very anti-feminist too - who did her best to make me feel dumb. Take this into context. She tried to stop me from taking an English class because she thought it was too tough. Ok, fast forward about ten years. I'm a published author with a book out, a political columnist and have written essays for magazines and had a short screenplay made into a short film. Where did she get the nerve to think I couldn't handle a HS English class? Some things are so absurd you learn to laugh at them later.

Most men, even pro-choice ones, don't even understand the argument on abortion. Republicans have framed the issue and demogogued it to such a degree that nobody even knows why they are pro-choice in the first place. Most male Dems are pro-choice, pretty much just to be pro-choice. I rarely hear a good argument put forth on why they are. John Kerry said he personally was against abortion, but couldn't legislate what for him was an article of faith. That's fine, but what about the morality of the issue? I often hear men say that they believe a woman has the right to decide her own health care. Yes they do, but why? It never is articulated very well. (I'll get to why I am for a woman's right to choose in a bit)

Republicans, on the other hand demogogue the issue. They bring about emotional arguments about conception, and murder and supporting a culture of life. Abortion is bad....yadda, yadda, yadda. Well, duh, abortion isn't a good thing. Nobody is arguing that it is, you know? The debate becomes a fight about what everybody agrees on, abortion is not a good thing. Nobody wants women to have more abortions. Nobody thinks they should happen a massive scale. But, that is what the debate has become about, because Republican's want to focus on something they can use politically rather than the safety of a woman.

The real issue here, and this is why I am pro-choice, and I'm not comfortable with any of the terms used to label a person, which is another debate altogether, but the real issue is that abortions will occur no matter what. As long as humans exist, as long as people have sex, as long as men treat women as objects, then unwanted pregnancies, therefore abortions will exist. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not magically stop abortion. The true issue is that because women seek abortions, for a variety of reasons,it is our obligation to make the procedure safe. As a society it is our obligation to make it not only safe, but legal and rare, as well. Over one million women a year die worldwide because of non-medical abortions. That to me was the showstopper. I am pro-choice because I could never in good conscience allow women to suffer the barbarity of back alley abortions.

I have a friend who is a Fox news junkie, a military guy, from the same reservation I am, but he is of the much more conservative mind set, not dumb, but not much of a free thinker at all. He was spewing out all this vitriol at me about abortion, and he has done it a few times, usually he's had a few beers in him so I just let him rant on. But he's accused me of advocating murder a couple times. He's actually said to me:"People say that abortion is part of women's rights, but I don't see how that is at all." That is what I'm dealing with. But, he accused me of advocating murder this last time and I blew up. So I got harsh, I said the stat about women dying of non-medical abortions etc. And, I know his cousin recently had an abortion, and he was bitching about that. So, I said, I don't advocate death, but it sound like you do. Would you rather have had some guy use a bicycle spoke or a coat hanger on your cousin? Would you have wanted her to suffer that? I just laced into him. I got a bit ugly because these people need to get hammered on. They really do, I mean it's ridiculous the lack of respect and empathy a pregnant women gets. Many times not even a woman, we are often talking about a child who is pregnant with a child. Poor things don't know what to do, you know?

The other aspect of the true issue is how do you reduce abortions? Bush, who is the most pro-life president ever with the most pro-life Congress ever, has somehow managed to significantly increase the amount of abortions in this country. When Dems like Carter and Clinton are in office abortions go down, but when Reagan and the Bushes hold office they shoot up. The issue is socioeconomic. When times are good women don't have abortions. When they don't have a job, the prospects are bleak, they made a mistake, well then they feel like they have no choice.

I say we improve our economy. Get good jobs that pay well. Work towards evening up the gender pay gap. I think we should subsidize - or at least make more affordable - child care and health care for pregnant women and young mothers. Especially the single ones. Make sure they feel that they can have a baby and finish school too. That they can have a baby and finish college. Or enter the workforce. That their husband's or boyfriend's are able to do the same. I believe promoting abstinence is important, as is condom use. I also believe education on other means such as adoption is in order too. But this isn't a simple issue meant for simple solutions. It is about a woman's safety and a whole change in how we approach their socioeconomical role in society.

[atommom]

16. Very good pro-choice argument! I think it needs to be articulated

this way more often. I get the uneasy feeling that a big part of the pro-life agenda is to put women back in their places.

[Wetzelbill]

18. In a way yes.......

Pennslyvania Senator Rick Santorum just wrote a book, and in it he talks about how women shouldn't go to college or get careers, because it takes them away from the family. Now, I'm all for a strong family unit, I'm all for parents spending time with their children. But, Santorum is essentially saying it is a woman's job to be barefoot and pregnant, clean house, cook for the family, raise the kids and wait on her breadwinner husband. Ok, Rick you nut bag.

I just can't fathom that thinking. How many families barely survive off of two incomes? So every woman is just supposed to scrap her families financial well-being so she can be a stay at home mom? Now if a woman is a stay at home mom, fine, what she does is invaluable. But, not all families can do that, and not every women wants to do that. Some have careers and other goals too. It's common sense really, yet there is a group of people out there who can't stand the thought of a woman in the workforce. So I would agree, that part of the pro-life agenda is to put women in their place.

Not only that but to reverse feminism too. Obviously the word "liberal" has been hijacked to have a negative connotation, but don't forget that the term "feminist" has been, as well. Feminist has come to take on a negative meaning. You all know the drill. "Femi-Nazi", "Man-haters" "lesbos" stuff like that. You hear the word "feminism" and it conjures up an image of annoying women in many people's minds. A woman who speaks her mind is considered difficult.

Look at Theresa Heinz Kerry for example. The woman is a great and generous philanthropist, yet she was portrayed as an uppity, free thinking monster who couldn't shut up. Yet, Laura Bush is a great woman, because she stands two steps behind her idiot husband and raised her family while he was off pumping dry oil wells and boozing it up all the time. Being a strong, feminist woman has its baggage because there are certain aspects of the image that are tough to get over. Not the least, of which is that strong, intelligent women are considered threatening. Go figure.

[lukasahero]

19. I wonder how many who think/feel the way Santorum does

understand what it's like to be a woman who has no desire whatsoever to have children, stay at home and cater to her husband to hear from them that this is what they think "women" should do? Every day I wake up and have to face the fact that a good portion of the world thinks I should do something that I would just as soon kill myself before doing or be something that is just not a part of who I am and what I want for my life. That they think I'm not as smart, not as capable, not as tough or strong or whatever, that my basic human worth to them is based on how "pure" I am, how many children I bear, how much I fit their ideal. Apparently what I want, what I think and what I feel about myself and MY life aren't as important as what they think, want and feel about MY life.

I think that's something that people who try to approach the subject "objectively" just simply can't understand. And I'm certain it is equally applicable to homosexual and racial discussions as well. I don't know what it is about your post that made me feel the need to say this (especially since I suspect you can relate to it from a different perspective). There's an awful lot of BS being thrown around about women on DU today and I guess it just really hit home that there are people out there (Santorum and his ilk, as well as some of our own good ole DUers) who "think" they know what's best for me but just simply cannot understand how it feels to have someone else define your life for you regardless of how poorly that definition may fit. Some days are worse than others. :(

[Wetzelbill]

20. not long ago I would have said not many think like that

Nowadays, well, I'm not so sure about that. I would think it's prevalent in a lot of men. It's there under the surface, waiting to bubble up at any given moment.

I try to be objective, but there is no way I can understand. Not fully. I could relate to it in certain ways, but I doubt I could duplicate those feelings in the same way.

So what is the BS being thrown around? Best to ignore the screwballs and just be yourself. You know who you are, what you want and what's best for you. Do that and be happy. Others can be damned. Gosh you just sound sad. Cheer up! :hug:

[lukasahero]

21. Thanks - a lot

Re: the BS, oh, it's just the usual stuff "money grubbing women" seems to be the meme today... That I can get over but it does make it all the more troubling at times to realize that even many of the "good guys" don't "get it".

But mostly it was reading Santorum's words that just really bummed me out - again (I'd seen them before). A few years ago, it would never have even occured to me that people in this day and age would feel like he does, but here is an elected official with that mindset, not just some freeper.

You asked in another thread why some of us feel almost physically desperate about the changes we see coming in this country - well, this would be as good a place to start as any. This guy got ELECTED. Enough people didn't think what he said was so totally, frighteningly wrong that they actually voted him into office. (Not that I know when he was elected vs. when he released his book.) He is in a position to make the rules - about me, about my life - and people think that's just fine and dandy.

Yeah, I'm sad. I'm scared. Lots of time I'm just angry and befuddled. But it's justified.

And :hug: back at ya'. Thanks for asking.

[Wetzelbill]

22. I have a profane image to uphold

If it ever gets out how sweet I really am, well there is going to be trouble. :)

I understand, here in Arizona, I see hate against Mexicans in the papers all the time. It's bad. The Legislature is completely nuts. In many ways I was always just a naive farm hick from Montana, I thought everybody wanted people to have rights. I thought everybody wanted to do the right thing. Now, I just get sickened at how messed up things are. The bigotry, the hatred, lack of compassion.

Santorum just recently wrote the book, and he's been in the senate for 11 years now. He's in bad shape for his next election though. He'll probably get beat.(by an anti-choice democrat, yikes!) You can take solace that we do have a female Secretary of State and our next President may be a woman. Got a long way to go, but you all have came a long way too.

[Eloriel]

23. I can absolutely fathom that thinking, and I'll tell you how it happened

1976, my first husband and I were living in Germany (he an officer in the Army). I'd just become a feminist, and I now saw household stuff as "life maintenance tasks" that were NOT simply "my duty," but should fall to everyone of both sexes pretty much equally. I worked and obviously so did he. HE wanted to hire a maid one day a week; being neither a classist nor a spendthrift, I wanted us both to simply hop to and get the job done in our teensy little apartment.

But thinking about having a maid was seductive -- horrifyingly so. How EASY to think so much better of yourself when you have someone taking care of those "life maintenance tasks," someone whose JOB it is to clean and maybe cook, and wash the kitchen floor and clean up the vomit, and wash your dirty underwear. Oh, baby, it's a beautiful thing, having someone whom you can order around, creeate and leave the filth for instead of having to deal with it yourself, someone who will pick up your wet, dirty towels off the bathroom floor and replace them with clean dry ones on the racks (that's my one indulgence in hotel rooms on those rare occasions when I travel anymore, and it's just as seductive).

Now, add to that the notion that half the fucking human race is there for YOUR pleasure, YOUR benefit, to raise YOUR family, while you go 'round having fun -- making decision, policy and money -- in the outside world.

I'm not at all surprised there are men who don't want to give that up, probably a lot of them. It is supremely useful to have half the human race who are your inferiors, by birth.

[Wetzelbill]

26. From that view I can fathom it as well

For a guy like Rick Santorum, it is convenient to have half of the human race as your inferior, by birth. I imagine it's pretty tough for him to listen to Barbara Boxer every day. A smart woman who not only speaks her mind, but doesn't mind cracking some skulls either. Or even Olympia Snowe, a Republican woman, who often thwarts her own party by voting moderate on many issues. I bet that eats him alive, because he'd rather have them making dinner for him.

It's the common sense aspect of it all that I don't get. For example, a lower middle-clase or low-income family, pretty much has to have two wage earners in the family to even survive. If those women were to abide by Rick's rules of family values, those families might end up in the street. At the very least, they won't be able to give their kids all that they want or need, a family vacation would be nothing but a pipe dream. And for what? To define a woman's place in the world as less than a man's? It's ridiculous.

Personally, virtually every woman I have ever been interested in has been either smarter than me or my equal. They'd all probably make more money that I ever would too. Good for them. I wouldn't care. I'd rather have a woman at my side, than to be my slave. I hope I find somebody ambitious, rather than someone who has no goals at all. The notion that a woman has a set place in a family or society is sexist and stone dumb. I get the feeling half of Congress and the Senate would like to go back to the caveman days. Well, maybe not that bad, but, you get the point. :)

[Finder]

27. I cracked the code on this aspect...

Your comment:

"It's the common sense aspect of it all that I don't get. For example, a lower middle-clase or low-income family, pretty much has to have two wage earners in the family to even survive. If those women were to abide by Rick's rules of family values, those families might end up in the street. At the very least, they won't be able to give their kids all that they want or need, a family vacation would be nothing but a pipe dream. And for what? To define a woman's place in the world as less than a man's? It's ridiculous."

Organizations like Focus on the family and many churches(primarily in southern states)have programs to keep families who agree to live this way(and vote that way)solvent. It is quite brilliant actually and unfortunately effective.(for our side) If you are loyal to the conservative movement, you are rewarded. It is a way to make these families dependent on their politics. If you want to know more, PM me.

[Wetzelbill]

28. You have to be kidding me! Wow!

That blew me away. Buying women off, so they can keep them in their place. What will they think of next?

Brilliant is right. That's what makes these groups so dangerous. They are smart, calculating, great at outreach, have money and are flat-out good at what they do. I'm floored.