[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Um, yeah, I am as shocked to write that as you probably are to read it. I mean this is the same organization that carried water for Bill Clinton during the whole Lewinsky scandal, only drawing the line when it looked like Clinton’s attack dogs were about to tear into Juanita Broderick. And the issue they picked was this Newsweek cover:
“It’s sexist,” NOW president Terry O’Neill told TheDC. “Casting her in that expression and then adding ‘The Queen of Rage’ I think [it is]. Gloria Steinem has a very simple test: If this were done to a man or would it ever be done to a man – has it ever been done to a man? Surely this has never been done to a man.”…
“Who has ever called a man ‘The King of Rage?’ Basically what Newsweek magazine – and this is important, what Newsweek magazine, not a blog, Newsweek magazine – what they are saying of a woman who is a serious contender for President of the United States of America…They are basically casting her as a nut job,” O’Neill said. “The ‘Queen of Rage’ is something you apply to wrestlers or somebody who is crazy. They didn’t even do this to Howard Dean when he had his famous scream.”
And that is all well and good, but I can’t help but raise an eyebrow at this part:
NOW is diametrically opposed to Bachmann on practically every political issue. Bachmann is pro-life, NOW is pro-choice. Bachmann wants to make significant cuts to entitlements, while NOW it pushing to protect Social Security and Medicare. The list is practically infinite. Nevertheless, NOW is rallying to her side for all women in politics.
Okay, call me confused, but isn’t NOW supposed to be an organization devoted to feminism? So how is social security and Medicare a feminist issue? I mean claiming that feminists had to support abortion was pushing it, but seriously, how do you pretend those entitlements are about women’s rights? At best you could say that women disproportionately use those entitlements, but isn’t it sexist to encourage women to be disproportionately dependant on the Federal Government?
Anyway, regardless of that, you have to give them credit for sticking up for her, like this. But I will say that it is not just sexism but sexism + partisanship. I mean to go all Shakespeare’s Sister on this, imagine if there was a Harriet Dean, former governor of a New England state and a very liberal Democract, and she spontaneously screamed at a campaign rally on live televison. I think it is safe to say Newsweek wouldn’t have depicted her that way, either. It is only Republican women who are treated this way.
Which makes NOW’s stand even more impressive, if you think about it. As they say, read the whole thing.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]