Letters to the Editor
-
Prove It, Thrasher
You say AKAwhomever misleads by not quoting other things from Chisholm that bely the one quote she provided. You say there are quotes from Chisholm saying she resented the use of that quote out of context. Well, prove it. Where are those quotes? What prevented you from posting them? Considering all the hatred in your posts, you see, you have no credibility with me, so you have to prove it. I won't take your word for it.
-
Anon: I do not have a prove a negative..
Sorry but you need to bait me more...
-
Thanks Anonymous 1:08
While you were posting here to demand Thrasher support his allegations, I was posting in one of The War Room threads complaining that Thrasher claimed Hillary Clinton said Martin Luther King was a communist. Oddly enough, he didn't provide a quote there either.
Thrasher doesn't like me because I am a feminist. He likes to get on my case for that reason. Apparently he supports Obama because he sees Hillary as some sort of dangerous uber-feminists. Funny how actual feminists don't actually see her that way. Maybe the fact that she is a woman within sniffing distance of the presidency bothers Thrasher.
Thrasher -- anti-feminist Thrasher, do you claim that Obama is anti-feminist? If that is why you are supporting him, please do tell us. Personally, I think you would do the Obama campaign harm here, or you would if anyone took you seriously.
-
Shirley Chisholm
If Shirley Chisholm had not regarded gender as important, she would not have gone to teach at Mount Holyoke College, which is the oldest surviving women's college in the country.
I was wondering if someone would post that quote (so I wouldn't have to Google on it and post it myself).
We were honored by her presence and her acumen. Holyoke has a tradition of women in government, such as Frances Perkins, the first woman to be a cabinet member, and Elaine Chao (okay, okay), but she's in Bush's cabinet. And that reminds me: when alumna Ella Grasso ran for governor, people were nice enough to say that they didn't want a "governess." I always thought that neatly anticipated the current libertarian denunciations of the Nanny State.
What I'm reading here from the anonymi convinces me that I it's not yet time to go to the Great Dino Dying Place. There's a need for us yet.
-
Anon: white woman are being raped by thier own husbands .. so stop trying to blame black men ..
As a matter of fact according to FBI crime Index( you do the google) white woman are safer with me than thier own husbands!!
White male spouses commit more domestic spousal abuse
White males lead FBI Index as serial killers
White males operate porn industry on backs/asses of white woman
White males rape, assault, embezzel, create more havoc against thier spouses than any other aggregate group.
In summary if a white woman was on an elevator with me and her husband and the lights went out she would be safer with me a black stranger than her own white hubbie....
Wake up I am a white female's best friend....
-
Whining/victimhood versus seeking solutions
I'm a strong feminist who's grateful for Gloria Steinem's efforts in the past, and an admirer of Hillary Clinton, to boot. But. . .here's the problem with the recent Steinem rant, and those that have followed: It's whining rather than assisting. It's just very tiresome and counter-productive to play on guilt and a sense of victimhood rather than to seek out solutions.
The theory that there's public resistence to women candidates or non-white candidates is just NOT true. Sure, there are pockets of bigotry and prejudice (there's a regular correspondent here who obviously has a bit hate on for white Jewish women and would never vote for Linda Lingle, for example). But most people, including white male voters, DO want a chance to break away from the same-old-same-old. Voters are in fact craving the opportunity to support candidates who are not the establishment white male Rotarian/chamber of commerce type (not that there's anything wrong with being an establishment white male Rotarian/chamber of commerce type). If you look at recent election results, non-tradional candidates (including women) who do run for office have good records of winning and, in fact, often emerge as frontrunners.
The problem is that few non-traditional candidates run for office, due not to bigotry but to some structural impediments. Women generally don't launch political campaigns when they have young children at home, for example, meaning that their political careers, if they have them, start late. Non-rich, non-connected candidates don't generally have access to the funding necessary to mount political campaigns, a hugely significant factor.
(Side note: I myself was heavily recruited by the state Dems to run for an open seat in the legislature, but had to explain -- very vigorously -- that it would be absolutely impossible for me to run and/or serve while raising my young children and holding down a job. No way would I attempt it. Now we have a wonderful legislator from our district who is a former PTA president and whose offspring are adults.)
A couple of general strategies to improve chances for a more diverse group of political, economic and social leaders:
-- Better overall maternity and child-care policies, a la other industrialized nations. Not all states have public pre-K education available, but they should -- to improve children's readiness for school and overall education as well as to improve parents' (mothers' AND fathers') ability to advance in society. It's no big deal to wealthy people, but not everyone is wealthy. Overall, it's a win-win for society to invest in such programs.
-- Options for public funding for elections, a la the "Clean Elections" systems in place in Arizona and Maine. Candidates don't have to accept public funding and the strings attached, which include a cap on spending, but those who do are relieved of the pressure of going around everywhere begging for campaign contributions.
-
"Anon: I do not have a prove a negative.."
Hehe. Thrasher, no one is asking you to actually prove a negative. All we are asking you to do is provide a Chisholm quote that proves she disavowed her previous words or that, somehow, The New York times article, which anyone can read in full at nytimes.com link that I provided, did her an ideological disservice by including that quote. Your quarrel would then be with The New York Times, Thrasher, and not with me.