[Vision2020] Tim's feminism
amy smoucha
asmoucha@hotmail.com
Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:25:52 -0600
Tim,
Throughout Clinton's presidency, the feminist and the feminist-minded spoke
out against him, quite a lot. We spoke out clearly and loudly as he
overhauled welfare to the detriment of families, we spoke out when he fired
Dr. Elders, we spoke out when he made gestures at overhauling affirmative
action in ways similar to Bush's plans (but Clinton backed off), and we
spoke out when he waffled on his election promises to the gay & lesbian
community, to name a few. Our anger at the Clinton administration's
*policies* influenced many of us not to vote for Gore (yep, I confess I
voted for Nader, and in a swing state too. I love the tee-shirt "Gore makes
me want to Ralph").
And Tim, women's groups and feminists even criticized Clinton over the
Flowers, Jones & Lewinsky scandals. Many women's organizations and
political writers had lots to say. If you don't know that, maybe you
weren't listening. Conservative commentators and talk show hosts invented
the "feminist hypocrisy," accusing women's groups of defending Clinton while
so much debate was going on in progressive magazins and zines, it would make
your head spin. Debate aside, nothing could have moved me to spend energy
in the Clinton-hating frenzy that ensued around the sex and the lies. I was
so disgusted with Kenneth Starr,the rabid republicans in Congress, and the
Rush Limbaughs that I wouldn't dream of joining their game. The
investigation and impeachment/censure proceedings were a huge waste of time
and resources.
Do a little research Tim, the feminist and feminist-minded had been speaking
out against Clinton for much more important things, and we had more pressing
concerns in relation to national politics. What did you want us to do, join
Concerned Women for America & the Eagle Forum? You are remembering that
time through an odd lens. Your broad statments about what feminists should
care about and what women's groups were doing during the Clinton presidency
are just uninformed. Just as we are now, with Bush, we were criticizing bad
policies, influiencing legislation and appropriations, and trying to use the
political system to make gains for women, families and communities. Sorry
to bust your bubble.
Amy
----Original Message Follows----
From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
To: asmoucha@hotmail.com
CC: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Amy's still not "getting it"
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Amy,
It wasn't about his sex life. It was about sexual harassment.
What is it about 1. a state's chief executive exposing himself to a
low-level underling over which he could indirectly have firing authority; 2.
having sex with women under him in the White House; 3. groping women who
work for him. etc. that you don't call sexual harassment.
And THEN for feminists and the feminist minded not to speak out against
him just because he happened to have a D by his name? It's mind-boggling.
If he hadn't been a political ally of the major feminist groups they
would have been first in line on the impeachment bandwagon for his perjury
and you know it.
At least the ARK Bar had the guts to disbar him for his crime.
And again, no one that I saw has defended W for his actions at all.
Best, TL
amy smoucha <asmoucha@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tim, though I'm sure this is a tired thread by now, I have to jump in.
Feminist-minded Democrats condemned Clinton, but not because of his sexual
behavior or his womanizing. Clinted deserved criticism from women because
he signed a welfare reform bill that punished women and children, forced
them to work for low wages (often less than minimum wage as in New York's
workfare programs), all without adequate funding for childcare, education
and healthcare. Feminists were also outraged because he signed DOMA.
Clinton and Gore did enough to piss off the women who voted for them, but we
care about more important issues than a president's sex life or whether he
calls someone Babe.
As for lying--it is despicable that he lied, but the national discussion of
his sex life was such an affront--another kind of cheating, and you know it.
Politicians throughout this nation's history have been womanizers, have
cheated with their interns. They drink, smoke and have a lot of sex. The
right-wing attack on Bill Clinton was a paparazzo-like attempt to make
national politics more like the Jerry Springer show. And they spent
millions of tax-payer dollars to create the spectacle.
If a leader should impeached for lying, we better start the process for Bush
right now--he's told serious lies that have killed thousands of people. He
lied about WMDs in Iraq, about Hussain trying to buy uranium from Africa,
about our economy improving and about jobs being created during his
administration, about the No Child Left Behind Act working.
The Guerilla Girls have a great new poster showing that Bush is one of the
worst threats to our national security
http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/womensterroralert.shtml . I hope
this time next year we are inaugurating another flawed Democrat to replace
this scary Republican. I want to send Bush and Cheney life-sized pink slips
on behalf of the thousands of workers who have lost jobs since they've been
in office. I'd also like to draft them and stick them in Baghdad. I can
dream, can't I?
Amy Smoucha
----Original Message Follows----
From: Tim Lohrmann
To: Aldoussoma@aol.com
CC: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Separate V2020 Lists?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Ted,
I don't get it. I think it's ridiculuous for supposedly feminist minded
Democrats to defend Clinton's actions--so because of that I'm supposed to
defend Bush?
Why?
Are your political views so simplistic that a person who doesn't
approve of a Democrat party president's actions must automatically be
enamored of any GOP'er president?
Or were you just upset that no one responded to your post?
By the way, your argument about "cause a scholar said so" is
ridiculous.
Just like courtroom "experts," you can find numerous scholars on almost
any side of any issue.
Best, TL
Aldoussoma@aol.com wrote:
Carl, Tim, et. al.
I posted to V2020 that Bush telling the nation lies to scare us into a war
was worse than Clinton's lies about his sex life, yet not a peep out of Tim
or just about anyone else that I recall on V2020.
Tim, I'd gladly accept replacing some of the "Wilson/CC" subject headed
posts with "Bush Lied" subject headed posts. But I think this focus on a
religious group that seeks to expand and gain influence over the community
is worth the attention it is getting.
Ted
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN.
http://wine.msn.com/