January 29th, 2008

Watch out for those women scorned, Ted

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.

29 Responses to “Watch out for those women scorned, Ted”

  1. Bugs Says:

    Why can’t the whiners at NOW just…you know, shut up and take it like men?

  2. Thomas Says:

    “How can the women of NOW be so tone-deaf as to what their statement sounds like?”

    Wow, I thought you were going to say something about their narcissism in thinking they speak for all women. Sorta like Rosie on her way out on the view saying she stuck it out so ‘women’s’ voices would be heard… you know, on an all female talk show…

    This election is really showing lefty identity politics going amuck for the dems. All the interest groups want the majority to vote for ‘their’ (race/class*/gender) candidate… too funny…

    * Most of them claiming this one / to speak for the poor… pfftt..

  3. nyomythus Says:

    These belch in you face, underarm scum flicking monstrosities, are insatiable as they are repulsive. We should send them all a bar of soap, but they my try to eat it and call it a vast male conspiracy.

  4. Fausta Says:

    Ted and the rest are probably wanting to NOT spend another 4-6 years defending the usual Clintonian goings-on.

    All the feminists care about is their own self-absorbed agenda.

  5. Al Fin Says:

    Feminists vs. Ethnic entitlists. Quite a confrontation of multiculturally self-absorbed special interests.

    On university campuses across the USA, this battle is being fought tooth and nail, wherever ethnic studies depts and gender/women’s studies depts are housed in proximity to each other.

    Anybody got a “fly on the wall” video camera to catch the action?

  6. Gringo Says:

    Just sit back and watch the feathers fly! An irresistible force of Identity Politics meets an immovable object of Identity Politics. Most entertaining!

    Considering the 45 years that Ted has been doing more for Massachusetts and the rest of US, it is amusing that it took N.O.W. until NOW to discover that Teddy Boy was not the sweet-smelling flower that he has presented himself to be. More like skunk cabbage or durian.

    As Fausta and others have pointed out, given the lack of condemnation of Muslim misogyny on the part of many professional feminists, it is further amusing to hear N.O.W. get in an uproar about Ted.

    It is horrible that Ted won’t support Hillary, but as regards honor killings and the like, that is simply how things are done over there ( and here, more and more.).

  7. Thomas Says:

    Hello Neo,

    I have a lot of sympathy for these women. I used to have a really hard time with militant feminists. They gave me untold troubles in high school and college because their of stridency and their totalitarian inclination to stomp all that disagrees with them.

    Now that I’m a bit older, I’m a bit more sympathetic. I haven’t met a militant feminist who wasn’t poisoned with self-loathing at the very core of them, and I’ve known plenty. Many of them have lopped off the very parts of themselves that make them women inside.

    What is there to be angry at? If their politics have replaced their humanity, that is a kind of bankruptcy no amount of legislation can remedy.

    What we see is not feminism per se. It is rage and a lust for power. It has nothing to do whatever with equal work for equal pay.

  8. Jon Baker Says:

    As A Texan watching Mexican flags pop up all over the place, and a Texan who is aware that Texas now has more wind generated electricity than California and hypocritical liberal Massuchussets- I will not be satisfied till there is a Mexican day labor camp in Ted Kennedy’s front yard and a windmill in his back yard.
    I increasingly feel this the 1850′s all over again. I swore to defend the US Constitution in the army. I will never swear allegiance to corrupt Mexico or to the North American Union.
    Kennedy and McCain are heading us in that direction.

  9. harry9000 Says:

    It still surprises me even though its not supposed to. We all should be used to this kind of thing since we’ve heard it so often yet it still very depressing. These are supposed to be adults. Thats the scary part. And its not just gender. When the OJ Simpson verdict was read the reaction was shown around many locations. Black people cheered. Black women cheered. Meanwhile, in the same room, white women looked on stunned. There was no “reaching across the divide”. going on there.

    Someone here said it very well. Liberals and “progressives” will stab each other in the back and throw each other under the bus in order to get what they feel they’re entitled to and all this talk about unity is an alliance of convenience to be shifted or broken if need be. And we’re they guys that are pointed out as the people “who are dividing the country”. We’re the ones to be blamed for the uncivil discourse. Meanwhile, a “progressive” will throw a brick through a plate glass window to protest that his voice isnt getting heard.

    The more rabid liberals dont understand the irony of declaring that they’re living in a fascist police state when the vote doesnt go their way only helps create the mob-justice mentality in which fascism springs.

    Now you dont hear that kind of talk much any more lately. Bush isnt running for reelection, so the press and the democrat politicians do not currently see the need to stoke the flames with wild rhetoric, but as you can see, there is so much dry kindling out there just willing to be used and all you have to do is push a button.

    This really isnt about issues. Its about philosophy and ideology. This is why the battle is going to be so tough to fight.

  10. Vanderleun Says:

    I do so hope that cooler heads will not prevail and we’ll be treated to a week or so of…… oooooo….. cat fight!

    At the same time, I don’t think it is at all surprising to see this sort of spit-flecked invective coming out of NOW. They’ve long since ceased to represent women or even feminists of the “old fashioned” sort. The membership and what passes for the leadership is pretty much currently composed of those who advance the progressive, the militant lesbian, and the militant transgendered agendas.

    No surprise they couldn’t control themselves. In their own sealed ideological bubble everybody always gets their way. I’d like to whip out the old male saw of “You look so cute when you’re angry,” but the fact is that these women joined the ranks of the formerly-cute decades ago.

    Give them time and they’ll devolve off the planet.

  11. greeneyeshade Says:

    FYI, this is NOW’s New York chapter; I believe the one in Illinois has endorsed Obama, or at least not come out for Clinton.

  12. Occam's Beard Says:

    Sounds like Ted neglected to call them the next morning.

    It is self-parody, and immensely enjoyable. It’s also amazing that they don’t realize how their bleating sounds to any sane observer.

    Meanwhile, in the primary campaign, two practitioners of identity politics trying to outvictim and outpander each other. It’s kind of the victimhood/oppression version of Ali v. Frazier.

    Gotta lay in a bigger supply of popcorn…

  13. Perfected democrat Says:

    from the sublime to the ridiculous… chappaquiddick ted does them a huge favor by not embarrassing hil and the gals with an endorsement, opting instead for the manchurian candidate, and they completely miss the point, worse than a dumb blonde joke… one of the foremost tragedies which has engulfed this nation is the regression of virtually the entire democratic party into a bunch of oblivious, self-absorbed blowhards and fools…. while the world has never been more dangerous…

  14. Ike Says:

    Sadly, it really doesn’t matter which one emerges. They’ll all hold hands in the end, and blame all of the nastiness and vitriol on a conspiracy of evil white men, out to hold down women and minorities.

  15. camojack Says:

    I love it. :-)

  16. njcommuter Says:

    The Left always complains that the Right is incapable of Nuance. But look at NOW’s support of Ted. So long as he said exactly the right things, he was a True Hero, no matter what he actually did. When he once strays from the true path, he is an Apostate, fit only for the full fury of their hatred.

    Where is the nuance? Where is even the facade of comity? What NOW represents is an obsessed mob, with mob rule, mob justice, and mob ethics.

  17. Tom Grey - Liberty Dad Says:

    Let’s be clear on what the Democratic Party is.
    The party of Empowerment.
    So that everybody is empowered to …
    claim they are a victim!
    Of Christian/capitalistic/rich/white/men.

    1) Women are empowered to be victims of men.
    2) Non-whites, especially blacks, are victims of whites.
    3) Non-rich are victims of the rich, especially the
    (3b) rich capitalists {especially if they’re Joooos, but this can only be whispered}, and
    4) Non-Christians are victims of the Spanish Inquisition! (which nobody expected); especially secular humanists and gays (victims of 4b heterosexuals) are victims.

    Please compare this list with the “bad guys” as explicitly or implied in most Hollywood movies and MSM news stories.

    Let’s also remember the truth about violence — violence for Justice is OK. And all the victims want is … Justice.

    Victimhood must be claimed in order invoke injustice and justify the use of gov’t force. And the use of force is easier to accept after the guilty are also demonized.

    Oh yeah, non-smokers are the victims of smokers who themselves are the victims of rich white men who own capitalist Big Tobacco companies.

  18. Talkinkamel Says:

    When it comes to Victim Politics, the first (really) black president trumps the first woman every time.

  19. Roundhead Says:

    *Ted Kennedy … a windmill in his back yard.*

    Never: he and his nephew, the “environmentalist” Robert Junior Kennedy, have been fighting like hell to prevent a wind farm off their Cape Cod estate.

    The sight of Dummy-crats fighting it out – I just love it!

  20. Ozyripus Says:

    “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 . . . .”

    Does, or did that include “affirmative action” ???

  21. N. O'Brain Says:

    Well, there’s something you don’t see every day: synchronized PMS.

    [Shamelessly stolen from the Emperor Misha]

  22. ad Says:

    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.

    I’m inclined to argue the reverse: they are furious precisely because they expected his support. No enemy can cause as much pain as a treacherous ally.

    In the meantime, the tone of their press release gives some idea of what they think sounds reasonable. After all, it surely sounded reasonble to them.

  23. Occam's Beard Says:

    On re-reading the NOW press release, I am struck by how many times they use the “W” word, going out of their way in fact to work it in.

    It reminds me of football commentators who work in the word “football” at every turn. (“They’re a good football team, having a lot of good football players, but they need to work on throwing the football if they want to win football games in this football league.”)

    Am I the only one struck by this?

  24. Ike Says:

    @Occam’s Beard

    Be careful… they might accuse you of deliberately alienating womyn with your male-dominated sports analogies.

    (Curious about the name… my site is Occam’s RazR…)

  25. Occam's Beard Says:

    I’d hate to be blocked by some of the womyn I’ve seen.

    (The name comes is an allusion to the failure of many to use Occam’s Razor.)

  26. House of Eratosthenes Says:

    [...] Kathryn Jean Lopez, via Neo-Neocon, an item that begs to be parodied, but cannot be…since parody demands an assessment of the [...]

  27. Webloggin - Blog Archive » The Greatest Betrayal of All Says:

    [...] Kathryn Jean Lopez, via Neo-Neocon, an item that begs to be parodied, but cannot be…since parody demands an assessment of the level [...]

  28. OBloodyhell Says:

    > the man-hating, fire-breathing, Leftist polemicism of the perpetually outraged.

    Here’s a good one for you — everyone knows the word “misogyny” — “woman hating”.

    What’s the equivalent word for “man-hating”?

    No fair looking at the dictionary (at least until you give up and realize you probably have no such word in your experience).

    Heck, most dictionaries don’t have it — If you do a search on the word “misogyny” at dictionary.com, it has six entries. The sexually-inverted word has only *three*.

    Now ask yourself about what the absence of a specific word means to the thinking process as a whole…

  29. OBloodyhell Says:

    > It’s also amazing that they don’t realize how their bleating sounds to any sane observer.

    1) I think this is because it’s growing remarkably rarer to encounter that last…. Many feminsts resemble Pauline Kael in her remark about Nixon, noting “no one she knew had voted for him.”

    Few feminsts nowadays know any sane observers.

    2) You seem to have missed the Modern Feminist Mantra: “If you disagree with us, you must be a misogynist.”.

    A misogynist is a lowlife, neanderthal cockroach, and has no opinions or ideas of merit, in any way, shape, or form. This clearly would include any “sane observer”.

    Perhaps this clears things up a bit.


Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge