What it "really means"? They've got their interpretation, you've got yours.
I guess I should have explained, I'm referring to "human rights" as it is commonly understood in left circles. Same thing Julie mentioned. You're right perhaps, they're referring to human rights under another definition. Nevertheless, their usage of "human rights" next to "women's rights" in the context of what Hillary stood for and their decision is highly contradictory ("What Hillary has told us"--that's what they said; they appear to be using HC's definition which is problematic. This is why I question if they're really using her interpretation as they claim, because that's quite different from what HC spoke of say, at her UN 4th World Conference speech). That was my underlying point.
That's why I quoted the Steinem article, not to discuss the content per se (because yes, it is partisan, but that's the point), but to illustrate the disparity between these women's positions and that of someone who expressed much more clearly what the reasoning for voting for Clinton could be if you're a
female democrat for
the party's platform which is central for what Hillary was running for (especially considering these were primaries).
I said:
this completely erases the fact that Hillary did not run because she was a woman, but because she thought she was the best candidate.
PJ replied:
I don't see that at all. Hillary was (and is) well qualified, she wasn't picked off the street because she has boobs. Neither was Sarah Palin. But don't try to tell me that people weren't excited by the fact that Hillary was a well qualified candidate who also happened to be a woman. That should not be anyone's deciding factor, but it's a contributing one for lots of people.
Like I said, my argument was the fundamental inconsistency of these women's positions. They are for Hillary who embodies certain values as top order and those values are now being pushed aside (since you're reaching if you say that HC and Palin overlap in *anything* but sex) in favor of a punitive vote (a vote casted primarily to punish the party, given that otherwise these women would be dems).
Thus, this trivializes the _issues_ Hillary stood for, which should, ideally, be more important than her sex or even her political figure.
Why not see them as aggrieved voters who were dissed by their own party and are excercising their right to vote for whomever they like? Instead of telling them to sit down and shut up?
The Slate article actually did not say that they should shut up. Quite the opposite it called attention to an increased discussion of these grievances. But it does suggest that in voting punitively, those issues that originally _made_ these women "democrats" are pushed aside; that's what's mind-boggling to a lot of people. It's not just a vote *against* a party, it's a vote *for* a party that those women have not considered to be in their interests before in terms of _issues_. Those haven't changed all that much.
It seems that punishing the party for "Hillary's sake" is more significant than continuing her fight. The fact that they do it for Hillary's sake too, is particularly disturbing for how it reduces her
work into something secondary to her personal appeal.
I get the impression that these ladies had been dead-set against Obama for months, and were already talking about voting against him.
That's their decision to make obviously and beyond my point. However, there is an inconsistency in making this decision and stating to support Hillary as a candidate based on what she fought for. I certainly don't raise my eyebrows at Independents who chose McCain now that Hillary is gone. But Dems who still claim to be "Hillary supporters" and vote McCain? Their support is of a different order, which is why it's not common at least according to polls, etc (what happened with Ferraro where sex was not at the end central, IIRC).
As of Sept. 3, I believe, there was no significant increase in the percentage of democratic women voting for McCain based on Palin (based on Emily's List, if I'm not mistaken). These PUMAs do seem to be in the minority. Precedent also states women are largely issue-driven on the whole regardless of party. But that could mean nothing this election cycle, so we'll see.
For the moment, an article by the progressive mag In These Times by a Women's Studies prof was
linked from RealClearPolitics. It lays out some history (note: I don't agree 100% with the conclusion) on the compromises/sacrifices some women's groups have made throughout history, even if these are unsettling.
alcyone
