Ok, so I’m new here, one of the many refugees from the pie wars. But this is not going to be about pie wars, I promise! Of course since the great pie wars of ’05, gender and the socialization surrounding biological sex seems to have become the topic du jour, and no less so in this story I just came across.
From the Feminist Majority foundation: http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9093
Just to summarize, a Kansas State Senator is running for secretary of state who has gone on public record as being against the 19th Amendment . . . A woman’s right to vote. My favorite is the direct quote from the senator in question,
“Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women (today) we wouldn’t have to vote.”
It amazed me that today, in 2005, someone feels that women should have their voices taken away in the political process that makes (or at least used to make) this country great. And this person is a woman! Who is running for political office!! She does not feel she should be allowed to vote for herself!! Ok, so I extrapolated the last point, but the basic message is there.
I supposed there is something rather strangely idealistic in the notion that men should be able to handle this important duty themselves and should be trusted to do what is in society’s best interest. But if history has shown anything, this is not the case. Women have their own minds, thoughts, and should never, ever have their political voices silenced. So although we in this community think that some basic points are agreed on by all or most in our soceity (such as the 19th amendment), this shows that nothing can be take for granted.
On one hand, I feel that we in this community have to work even harder to have our message heard. On the other, I wonder if it is even possible to get progressive ideas accepted in our society if this is where some people are coming from. Any thoughts?
The Senator’s husband must really be a loser, according to her – if he were properly ‘taking care of her’ she wouldn’t have to run for office, he would do it for her.
I know – her stump speech should include an impassioned pleas encouraging all women NOT to vote for her.
Aaaaaaaagh!She’s running for the office which oversees voting.
Thank you!
Yeah I know–Kansan women better be careful or they won’t be allowed to vote if she gets into office–which she won’t . . . right????
your own self-interest. That’s crazy. Someone in the Phyllis Schlafly mindset like that ought to love women’s suffrage: in a “good” household, it just doubles a man’s vote, right?
Argh.
Obviously this is far from a mainstream point of view, even among Republicans. But it is shocking to hear someone say that openly, just as Justice Brown’s…erg…waitaminute…gakk…sorry, had to go wash off my brain. Where were we? Oh yes, this is on the level of Brown’s comments about liberalism leading inevitably to slavery. Or Trent Lott’s idea that “we wouldn’t have had so many problems all these years” if we’d beaten the civil rights movement.
Is progress possible when some among have such backward views? It depends on how deep and wide such views are held, but I do feel like we’re overdue for a repeat of ERA-type teach-ins and “consciousness raising.” Kansas can’t afford a Secretary of State who thinks 51% of her voters should stay home, barefoot and pregnant, reading the Good Book and warming hubby’s slippers.
I posted my first diary too, how’s that for coincidence? Actually, I think it has more to do with how warm and welcoming everyone is here.
I was a bit shocked to read your diary. I mean, I think these fringe nuts have always existed. Our press does a better job of finding the ludicrous and publishing it everywhere, so I’m not so worried that one nutjob indicates a massive movement.
Still, the fact this woman is running for a govt office is… well, chilling.
I think you’ve hit upon a GOP theme: Things in GOP-world would be nicer.
They sure sell it as nicer. Except I reject they would be nicer at all. I think its more insulting than anything.
But GOP things never ever do work nicer. And the GOP insiders know this the best, because they are the ones who live against “that way” every day of their lives. Yet, as the ultimate hypocrites, they keep selling that idea.
What if cutting taxes resulted in increased investment and more prosperity! (er, except it hasn’t, and won’t).
What if we protected the ‘sanctity of marriage’? (er, except some of the loudest proponents have left their wives for their mistresses, some more than once).
What if there were no limits to free campaign speech! Then all ideas could be heard (er, and the corporate-sponsored and fat-cat ones could drown out any small voices of common sense).
What if women could ‘choose’ to stay home and raise their kids! (er, well, many more would, if the economy let a single wage earner care well for an entire family. But many women have no interest in playing the homemaker, and do very well in the workplace. Like Condi, Karen, Margaret, Janice and all the other folks on your staff. Why call women-as-homemakers an ideal situation?)
What if men took care of women?
What if men just voted for women, to save them the trouble?
How about: What if the government just treated all people equally, and left it up to each of us how we ran our own damned lives?
I really wish the Dems would pound on that to counter the Republican “small govt” lies.
I agree with everything you said . . . from how warm and welcoming everyone here is all the way to your ending idea–that what we do want is to be left to lead our own lives. To choose what God we worship (or if), who we want to marry, if we want to have children, etc.
The only thing I would add is that all people should be given a fair chance to do so–and maybe a good government could help us out with that from time to time??? Or is that idea too socialist? :-p
Oooh, the S-word!
No, I think that’s the other part of what we should do, too.
If we want to improve employment (and who doesn’t?) the Dems should drive home that 70+% of the jobs are created by small businesses.
But starting a small business is a daunting task.
Investment capitol is all well and good, but most of that goes to ….? Probably not small businesses. Medium and Large and Megacorp, sure. But small businesses aren’t on the stock market. The vast majority don’t get Venture Capital. Claiming that tax cuts would improve small businesses was a bit of a stretch.
Now, I’m sure small business owners used their tax cuts to do so, but we could have accomplished that with targeted cuts, not the “cut for everyone” we did.
And small business owners are taking huge risks with no or self-funded health insurance. And if they want to hire good educated workers, they need:
If the nation provided a safety net, more small businesses would start, more people would be employed, and our GDP would grow.
Now, GDP isn’t my priority, its the other things. But why can’t we counter the inane “tax cuts for the economy” with “Safety Net Improves the Economy More — and its cheaper than tax cuts” ?
I think we’ve got the right ideas, like the safety net and individual freedoms. They’ve tarnished them with labels like “socialist”, but if we could clean them up (by presenting them as part of an education and health benefit to improve capitalism), I know they’d sell.
And we’d all be better off.
“Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women (today) we wouldn’t have to vote….”
Ah yes, Kay O’Conner of Olathe.
When Hilary Clinton did her book signing in Kansas City I figured the media would be out in force, so I prepared to be interviewed, putting careful thought into what I would say (My spouse and I tend to show up early to such events. I’m 6’4″ and I was wearing a bright colored shirt. Sure enough, we ended up being among the first 10 people in line in a crowd of well over 1500).
That morning the Kansas City Star had run a front page article on the Hilary Clinton book signing event. True to form, they got an “opposing” viewpoint (as if it’s equivalent – morons). That happened to be Kay O’Conner. She was quoted along the lines that Hilary Clinton’s supporters tended to be “socialistic”.
The media showed up in force. A reporter and camera person from the Kansas City CBS affiliate started interviewing people in line. The reporter spotted me, stuck a microphone in my face, and asked, “Why are you here?” Without missing a beat I replied, “To piss off Kay O’Conner.” The reporter almost fell over laughing. The camera was still running. I then looked at her and said, “You probably can’t use that, can you?” She replied, “We might.” They ran the interview on the evening news, though they did cut my initial response.
I’m sure there are people from Kansas reading this, or know someone from Kansas, that could share. She’s off her rocker, how defeatist can you get? I hope your local papers start getting bombarded with LTE shining the spotlight on her radical, and frankly, idiotic views.
Peace! And be sure to let us know what happens.