The computer screen practically sizzles with the scorching rage of the women of NOW, reacting to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama, the unkindest cut of all:
“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA…
And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton…
How can the women of NOW be so tone-deaf as to what their statement sounds like? There’s no need to satirize this one; it creates its own satire. The tone fits the worst cliches of the ramaging woman gone hormonally ballistic, the avenging Fury breathing fire at the Man Who Done Her Wrong.
Why so much rage? My guess is that Ted Kennedy has been a thorn in the side of hard-core feminists for quite some time now. Note that, although the full statement mentions NOW’s forgiveness of ever-so-many Ted Kennedy transgressions, it omits another large one, Kennedy’s role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. The women of NOW have steadfastly winked at Ted’s history of infidelities to the female cause because they felt his heart was in the right liberal place, so the “betrayal” of his backing of Obama must come as something of a final straw. Thus, the unleashing of much long-pent-up anger.
NOW gives feminism a bad name, and has been doing so for a long long time. The old-fashioned type of feminism that I have always supported—equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity, equal respect for professional women and the hard work mothers do—has morphed into the type of feminism that is regularly disliked and satirized: the man-hating, fire-breathing, Leftist polemicism of the perpetually outraged.
Also interesting is that fact that NOW isn’t buying the excuse that Kennedy—or any other “progressive” (love that word!) white male—supports the general idea of a woman candidate, just not this particular woman candidate against this particular (African-American) male candidate. No, identity politics dictates that a woman must be supported merely because she is a woman, not because she is this woman—well, as long as she’s a liberal Democrat, that is.
For NOW, female identity clearly trumps other identities that have long been championed by liberals, such as racial identity. And they think all other liberals should agree, or they retain their feminine prerogative to get spitting mad.