I’ve worked many years for women’s rights. I should be pleased that another woman has been chosen as a Vice-Presidential candidate (remember Geraldine Ferraro on Walter Mondale’s democratic ticket in 1984), but I’m appalled at the cynically exploitative nature of her selection. I suppose Senator McCain thinks choosing a woman enhances the image he’s promoting of a maverick. If he were a true maverick, he’d become a Democrat.
I won’t be voting for the McCain/Palin ticket just because she is a woman and I won’t be voting against it because she is anti-choice and I am pro-choice. I’ll be voting against it because they support and are supported by a party that doesn’t support women’s issues. McCain and Palin won’t change that. They both agree with Republicans’ extreme social conservatism. There have always been women opposed to equality. In the fight for women’s right to vote, many women were opposed, some citing the Christian Bible. Palin seems to fit into that tradition.
Republicans tried to stop the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and adequate funding for it. VAWA supports programs and shelters such as the national and local YWCAs provide. Republicans have acted against women’s health issues in the U.S. and made rules depriving women in other countries access to information about abortion if we provide any funding, scaring recipient countries into fear of providing information about birth control. Republicans have opposed sex education in schools: apparently believing ignorance is a deterrent to promiscuity.
They also squashed recent efforts to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment in Congress. Washington State has an equal rights guarantee for women in its constitution, but the U.S. constitution does not.
I left the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan turned it into the patriarchal body it is now. The current party wants to control women not help them become equal.
Women have made a lot of progress since 1920 when they got the vote, but haven’t achieved full equality. Women still only earn 77 cents to a man’s dollar. Apologists say, incorrectly, this is because so many women work part time. All women are under-represented in Congress, but Republican women are especially so. Of the 100 Senators only 13 are women and of these only 3 are Republicans. Of 435 Representatives only 61 are women and of these 43 are Democrats and only 18 are Republicans.
I hope the upcoming election will tip things in favor of women and not continue the current trek backwards.\
–Betty Hull
Anthony L.Sprout • Sep 26, 2008 at 2:32 am
Correction: Republicans NEVER opposed VAWA or funding VAWA. VAWA slipped out of committee onto the floor and out the door faster than any bill in history. In fact, no opposing testimony whatsoever was permitted. This is just more feminist mis-direction – Don’t look at that woman behind the curtain!
Tom • Sep 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm
VAWA is a huge Failure – any woman who thinks it is not an unconstitutional abysis that was merely used as a PC an popular venue to promote Biden’s career is an extreme feminist who has last her objectivity.
VAWA is not only hurting men (both vicitms and otherwise) but also hurting women – tru vicitms of DV who can no longer be taken seriously because the system is 1.) Biased, and 2.) clogged with flase victims abusing the system.
A domestic Violence bill is a good thing – but it needs to be constitutional, appropriate funds correctly and protect both genders and recognize that Women are abuser too. And serious abusers at that.
L. Steven Beene II • Sep 25, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Ms. Hull,
As you may have noticed from a few replies, many men are becoming increasingly aware of the BS coming from man-hating feminists.
No, I am NOT lumping you in with them, as I do not know if you have just been fed propaganda or if you are simply pushing false data to maintain female privledge and sympathy from men for contrived false dilema grievences.
I work with mens’ and fathers’ groups. I am not some ‘wronged father’ – I am a son who was denied contact from his father by my mother, who was more concerned with her vindicitive anger than my pain at not knowing my father. It went so far as to tell me I was unwanted by him (untrue), that he had no interest in me (untrue), that he never tried to contact me or send me B-day cards/gifts (untrue) and this went to the point that when my father heard of my interest in flying he offered to get me into a flight school (military) so I could realize my dream, my mother never told me out of spite towards him (and him getting credit) despite it denying me an opportunity and a dream.
Men in this country are increasingly not willing to marry. It’s a known fact.
If you ask women why you’ll hear “Peter Pan Syndrome”, “Unwillingness/Inability to commit” etc etc.
But, these women talk show hosts, news anchors, and ‘enlightened academics’ always seem to not ask me – or if they do they pick the most neandrethal oriented loser’s answer to ‘typically represent’ men.
It’s because men who marry are playing Russian roulette and agreeing to indentured servatude should the woman turn vindictive.
They’ve seen it happen to their own fathers, brothers, and friends.
If it were women who were denied access to their children, false accused and stripped of their home, and then, further, denied access to shelters due to abuse – the hue and cry would be loud and in the news. But, since it’s ‘only men’ – most women, who have the upper hand, don’t seem to care.
It’s wrong. Period.
And with all the other female privlege entitlements out there, as listed above (a short list) many men are getting sick to death of being belittled, marginalized, ignored, persecuted, and made into wage-slaves for women who then play the victim to the hilt.
And for false accusations in such cases, there is not punishment, therefore, no deterrent (see: Duke Lacrosse).
Give it some thought.
Steven
Pat • Sep 25, 2008 at 10:09 am
Betty, Betty, Betty- So much nonsense, so little space. Let’s focus on “Women still only earn 77 cents to a man’s dollar.” Sorry, Betty, this doesn’t pass a simple sniff test. If it were true, why would any rational employer hire a man? Do you have a citation for this?
For readers desiring a more accurate picture- search “AAUW gender wage gap” and it should bring you to a recent study by the American Association of University Women- an organization of female Chauvinists- who basically re-hashed work done by Dr. Warren Farrell years ago (see, e.g., The Myth of Male Power (1993) and Why Men Earn More (2005)). The AAUW acknowledged that women earn less than men mostly because women work less and take easier jobs, but, even accounting for those factors, women earn “less”. How much less? I don’t want to ruin the surprise for you, but note that when women earn 5% less than men, the AAUW asserts the only explanation is outrageous gender discrimination, but when women earn 5% MORE than men (such as with engineering graduates), the AAUW calls is “parity”. The AAUW also wanted to include the zero wages of non-working women in their study (it’s right there in the second column of the Executive Summary). I couldn’t make up stuff this weird if I had to. And these claim to be “university womenâ€? How embarrassing. By the way, the alleged gender wage gap disappears when lesbians only are compared to men. I guess one way to earn as much as a man is to become a lesbian. Who would have guessed? I wonder why that is (not really).
The Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOA of 1972 already make sex-based wage discrimination illegal. Get over it already. Get yourself a copy of Why Men Earn More- Dr. Farrell clearly explains how women can earn just as much as men! Hooray!! Problem solved.
Last summer, twice as many women graduated from college as men. Not roughly equal numbers, or a few more, but twice. Go to your financial aid office and ask for a list of “outside agency” scholarships, then tally up how many are for women only and how many are for men only. If your school is typical, between 1/3 -2/3 of this financial aid is reserved for women, and not a single one will be reserved for men. What was that you were saying about equality again?
L. Steven Beene II • Sep 25, 2008 at 9:41 am
With respect to Ms Hull, she’s got quite a few “facts” wrong.
Women do not earn $.77 of what a man earns. Damn, how many times does this myth need to be slain?
If you take the MEDIAN income of all women and all men .. yes, women get less. This does not take into account uninterrupted years due to children, the fact men (on average) work more hours, are willing to travel more, often do not ask for “flex time”, are generally more willing to negotiate for higher salaries, and that part time workers are added to the median with full time workers.
The “more men are in Congress” red herring is known as the “front man fallacy” in logic. Despite more men being in Congress, the real question is WHO do those men in Congress give more attention to, more programs for, and defference to: WOMEN.
There is no Office of Men’s Health.
VAWA does not make it a CIVIL RIGHTS violation to discriminate in the use of DV shelters, even though men pay more into VAWA than women do.
There are over 270 “Commissions on the Status of Women” in the U.S. and **1** for men.
No one has applied Title IX to Womyn’s Studies programs or Women’s centers on college campuses like were applied to mens’ sports programs.
Almost 60% of freshmen college are women, and no feminists, including the ones with boy children (they just love to hide behind “it’s for the children”) are calling for more money and programs to help boys (who become men).
And the list goes on. Those “male politicians” are helping WOMEN, so the “men control Congress” argument is invalid on it’s face.
The list goes on. Ms. Hull needs to look at what is being done to men in this country (you know, like her son, brother, father etc) and at least pretend to care.
caved1ver • Sep 25, 2008 at 9:26 am
Progressives hold a special hatred for individual members of their core voting constituency groups whom they deem as being “traitors to the cause†of victim-group politics and their associated victim-group entitlements in perpetuity, e.g., Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas. In the case of Governor Palin, “Entitlement Barbies†like Ms. Hull, who dominate contemporary politics, academia and the main-stream media, view her as a threat to their established “downtrodden†agenda. Women’s groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW), present an ever-expanding monolithic image of female victimhood in order to secure more and more female-specific privileges. Thanks to chivalrous “secular progressive†male politicians & judges, women have the majority of education, civil, reproductive, marital, divorce, child-custody, and child-support rights in America. Through the Roe v. Wade decision, they have the unilateral right (1.4 million times annually) to opt out of parenthood. Moreover, the American woman can, with impunity, engage in maternity fraud (lying about her fertility or use of birth control) and paternity fraud (lying about her child’s real father, i.e.,10% of all married mothers). Having invented “No Fault†divorce, American women bring over 70% of divorce actions & are awarded custody of their children 90% of the time, have children out of wedlock at least 37% of the time, and are invariably “entitled†to child custody, child support, and alimony. Thanks to Affirmative Action, Title IX, etc., women comprise more than 50% of all college graduates. The list of female rights and privileges goes on and on and on. Yet, to female chauvinists (e.g., Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, Ms. Clinton, et al), women are, somehow, at a disadvantage to men.
Unfortunately for female-chauvinists, Govern Palin is a refutation of the oppressive “Patriarchy†myth. Sarah Palin is guilty of rising from “hockey mom†to the more than capable governor of a male-dominated Alaska (10:1 male-to-female ratio) with a $12B annual budget without affirmative action, or whining ad nauseam about a “glass ceilingâ€. In other words, Govern Palin proved publicly that women can succeed without being victims. That was her sin: she violated the conventional feminist playbook, has essentially challenged NOW’s fascist power, and is now experiencing the consequences of merely stepping onto the national political stage without having to exploit her husband’s name & charisma, nor wearing the raiment of victimhood. Woe betides the individual that engenders the full wraith of the “Entitlement Barbies†and their male enablers.
caved1ver • Sep 25, 2008 at 9:18 am
From what reality to does Ms. Hull hail? Feel men are the due rulers of the culture? Who are the true rulers of American society? Chivalrous Male politicians were elected and enact social welfare programs ($1.4T per year) that benefit women at the expense of the majority male taxpayer base. Despite all the not so apparent benefits FEMINISM (i.e., Gender Marxism) has brought to contemporary American society, American MEN continue to do all the heavy lifting (i.e., work 90% of overtime, suffer 95% of all work related deaths, etc.), pay the majority of income taxes (Top 50% of wager earners (Majority: MEN!!) pay 96% of all income taxes that support a welfare state that benefits women) & do 98% (women comprise 30% of the military, but only 2% of casualties ) of the dying in a war against a group of ruthless MEN that would love to put American women in Burkas. In addition, society is in process of electing female politicians who are in the process of accelerating the male to female transfer of income/ & opportunity (i.e., Divorce Industrial Complex (e.g., child support, alimony, paternity fraud, etc), sexist progressive income tax system, VAWA, affirmative action, quotas in perpetuity, etc.). Men, of course, will continue to be peons in support of the multi-trillion $ feminist “Entitlement Industrial Complex.†What a deal. Sounds like a “Shadow Matriarchy†to me.