Women are pissed at EMILY's List

I wrote late last night about an op ed in today's Washington Post, written by Ellen Malcolm, the head of EMILY's List (an organization that supports pro-choice Democratic women for elected office). The thrust of Malcolm's piece was that Hillary hasn't lost yet and is only being asked to leave the race because she's a woman, and, you know, we all hate women. Well, our female readers had something to say about this, I excerpted some of their comments below.

As an aside, as an organization that claims it cares about the right to choose (I mean, pro-choice Democratic women is EMILY's List's reason for existing), EMILY's List doesn't seem that interested in the fact that John McCain plans to overturn Roe v. Wade. No, EMILY's List is more interested in helping Hillary destroy our nominee, Barack Obama, so that McCain can win the election and ban all abortions, without exceptions. If you donate to EMILY's List, think twice. And rather than just take my word for it, Chris Bowers did a fascinating, and disturbing, analysis of EMILY's List's success rate (or should I say "failure rate") in the last election. It isn't pretty. Though maybe now we're understanding better why EMILY's List isn't winning more races. But I'm sure Ellen Malcolm will blame that on men too.

Here's a sampling of our women readers' comments:

shell writes:

This infuriates me. I am a female. I am 55 years old. I have worked my whole life. Yes. Outside the home, even when I had children. I am in Hillary's core group. But, you see, I have a brain. I didn't put up with 30+ years of discrimination (and yes, it was there) to finally have a female presidential candidate ruin it all.

Because, let me tell you what is happening now. All the CEOs/heads of businesses are now saying (although not publicly), "THIS is why we don't want females running things." And they are half right. I say HALF because I have seen just as many dumb things done by males, too. But to have Hillary and her supporters act like this -- it sets back the womens' movement 50 years.

I am livid. At Hillary. At her mouthpieces, especially the females. They have undercut the womens' movement. Damn them.

jessica54 writes:

As a feminist, this pisses me off.

If you're a feminist, you believe that men and women are equal and should be treated as such. Therefore, Ellen needs to take a minute, regroup and look at this OBJECTIVELY. Hillary can't win, period.

No one's holding Hillary back because she's a woman. In fact, as a white, wealthy person w/ the last name Clinton, she's the privileged one here, IMO.

I came into this presidential race excited as hell about a future female president. But Hillary has disappointed me. As much as I want a female president -- and, God, do I want one -- I'm not willing to lose an election over it.

lauren1959 writes:

As an older white feminist I simply don't get this. Are we supposed to blindly support any woman, regardless of her seeming lack of ethics? Integrity is an important quality to me. Additionally, Obama is as strong civil rights issues as Clinton is. Does he lose points simply because he's a man? Clinton needs to go away before she alienates us all...

Morgaine Swann writes:

I'm a radical feminist and I'm supporting Obama after weeks of arguing with other women about this. Hillary is a problem on many levels, but when an entitled white woman calls a guy from South Chicago elitist because he essentially stated a fact that is still being misquoted, then starts race-baiting like nobody since George Wallace, she has crossed any and every line there is. Having a vagina does not excuse her being a bigoted asshole.

I just wrote a post about this - there is no difference in racism, sexism, or any other kind of oppression - it's the same hate pouring down from the top of a single hierarchy. We need to focus on tearing down the hierarchy, not who got hit with more hate. I want the candidate with the least sense of entitlement and some vision of something different in the way we are governed, and that is not Mrs. Clinton.

carollt writes:

I am a 52-year old white woman living in Maine I voted for Obama. I don't like Hillary. She will say or do anything to get the nomination.

It make take a village, but it only takes one very rich, self-obsessed white woman to burn it all down.

Happy Housewife writes:

What about the dreams of women that will be squashed by a President McCain, and his replacements for Ruth Bader Gindsburg and John Paul Stevens? What about our daughters, and their right to control their bodies, and earn an equal wage? Or is it just the dreams of post-menopausal, well-connected women that matter?

vwcat writes:

As a woman I find these old school feminists to be an embarrassment and stupid. They don't want equality. They want special treatment. If Hillary was allowed to be treated the same as any male candidate without her minions screaming sexism over every little thing, maybe she would have more respect.
I cannot imagine Pelosi stooping to or accepting supporters to act the way Hillary's has. She would be horrified. She'd know it's whining and Pelosi has her pride in being seen as an equal by being treated equal - not getting special treatment like Hillary and her supporters expect.
These women are doing more damage to a woman's credibility as a leader when they expect Hillary to be treated with kid gloves rather than an equal.
I also get ticked when they play the 'traitor to my sex' thing. Equality means I can make my own decisions and chose who I want.

Aquarius2 writes:

From the linked article:

"So here we are in the fourth quarter of the nominating process and the game is too close to call. Once again, the opponents and the media are calling for Hillary to quit. The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right.

Why on earth should one candidate quit before the contest is finished?"

Um, what is it that people do not understand about how this process is done? If Ms. Malcolm arguments are to be believed then why aren't Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Gavel and anyone else that started the process still in the race? Was it perhaps they didn't have the numbers, maybe they ran out of money or couldn't raise the money, or maybe they lost 31 primaries and won only 5 or 6.

My answer to Ms. Malcolm is Hillary can be praised for trying but when reality, and the math is the reality, hits you in the face and you still persist, it is flawed judgment.

slappymagoo writes:

What this dunderhead from EMILY'S list (and oh must they be proud) fails to realize is that, when women are treated as equals, that means that we can still think they're less qualified for a job. We can still not like it when they say stupid things, or have representatives say stupid things on their behalf, especially if they don't then correct that stupidity. We can find them abrasive, unlikable, foolish. And if they stand in the way of progress, we can tell 'em to get the hell out of the way.

And it's not because they're women.

Hillary's campaign has become loathsome, mean, divisive, irrational, and we the people have the right to reject her message, because her message sucks, and it has nothing to do with what she's packing in her pant suit.

This election is far too important to tear the party in twain by the supporters of each candidate bickering. And it's WAY too important for that bickering to be based on perceived biases and not the hard cold facts of how each candidate is faring and will fare. Republicans read tripe like Ellen's and high-five each other because we're at each others' throats and not after McCain. They read Ellen's "feminist" message and say "Heh, good girl."

coming undone writes:

Wow, there are so many things wrong with her article. We are not in the fourth quarter anymore, the game is over and Obama won. This is just complete non-sense; the math cannot be changed because a woman is running for president. Ellen Malcolm also compares Hillary to uneducated women who are single mothers and live paycheck to paycheck, well of course, they do not quit and who is out there telling single low-income mothers to quit.

Hillary has never known hard times; she has never had to pretend that she is not hungry just so her children can eat because there is not enough food to go around. Hillary has never had to cry silently at night so her children will not hear her, because she is endanger of being evicted or her electricity is about to be turned off. Hillary has never had to diagnose her children’s illness based on seriousness because there is no way she can afford to take them to the doctors.

Women like the ones that she’s describing do not quit because they cannot quit. There is a difference between have to and want to, Hillary WANTS to keep going and Hillary does not WANT to quit. Single mothers with little or no education that are at or below the poverty level cannot quit, they have to keep going. This also goes for most middle and lower class families they cannot quit they also have to keep going. This article is disrespectful to every woman out there that is struggling, they struggle and they continue to fight because of their children and families not for themselves.
The women that Ellen Malcolm describes put their needs and wants last.

cay writes:

Feminist for Obama here. I'd love to have a viable female candidate who didn't get to this point without the help of a husband. I want the first female POTUS to have a resume like Barack Obama's (from the ground up, not the top down). I grew up with Geraldine Ferraro as a possible VP, and look at her now... sinking to levels that Thatcher would champion, as well as both Clintons! This method negates what equality means. You do not play by the same rules; you transcend the rules. It says alot that Obama is actually doing what Clinton should be doing. He is genuinely more decent that she is. Compare their statements over the course of the primary. She says that he has a "white" problem, but he definitely doesn't bring up the fact that she has a "black" problem. He has the same percentage of whites supporting him that Gore and Kerry did, but does she have the same percentage of blacks? C'mon! I could go on, but it's Friday night. Obama '08

lynchie writes:

The modern day feminists forget those who went before them. It is as if the Rosa Parks, the Suffragettes did not exist. Feminism takes many forms but I remember my dear Mother who desperately wanted to go to University but with a sick Mother and 3 brothers and two sisters made the decision to work and help raise the family. It is something that ate at her until the day she died but she never expressed her disappointment until she became ill in her 80's.
This election isn't about feminism, it is about change and I did not sense a huge rallying of women for Hillary across party lines. On the other hand I did sense at a rally in Greensburg, Pa the same exhilaration I felt when i heard JFK speak. Emily's List smacks of elitism and one of the things that bothered me about this campaign was Hillary's attempt to be the common man even while exuding the superiority and entitlement most of us resent and distrust. To me she comes across as selfish. She isn't running for us, she is running for herself. Bill is running with her for Bill and his attempt to be back in the limelight. That same elitism worked in getting Chelsea a $900,000 a year job with a friend and advisors hedge fund, that is something the rest of us can't achieve but resent because it is all about being inside. Inside the beltway the politicians of both parties play the game, suck up for votes every few years and in between live like royalty and believe we the electorate hang on every word. We don't we expect more but seldom get it. No Hillary, we want more than what you want, we want change and maybe Senator Obama will in the end disappoint us, but don't confuse feminism with us being tired of the same old, same old because we have heard that tune for the past 16 years.

olderandwiser writes:

Speaking as a working class feminist, I'm very, very offended by this. Since when did blind ambition, whining, self-victiminization, and dumping on another group of very discriminated against people ever, ever help the cause of women?

We've already seen Rethug women turn on their own sex, and for EL's information, a lot of women, who, obviously, elite white women don't care about, are black or other minorities who have suffered far, far longer than their privileged asses.

I saw this attitude among some in the women's movement 40 years ago, esp. in regard to working class women of all colors and I didn't tolerate it then, and won't tolerate it now. Screw these elitists.

mirth writes:

Two minor disagreements with this post:

What Ellen Malcolm writes isn't "kind of" offensive, it is profoundly offensive, and "borderline" does not describe the absolute sexism.

But you have the "seriously f'd up" part just right.

mf_roe writes:

The really sad part is that Hillary Clinton has never suffered any serious discrimination because she is a woman. She in fact has been one of those women who have reaped the benefits of the women's rights movement over the past couple of decades. Honestly, a man with Hillary's abilities would be considered to have done extremely well if he achieved what Hillary has. And some are not so sure that Hillary is all that exceptional. She ain't the smartest woman in America, she ain't the most honest, the one quality that places her off the scale is her stubbornness, and after the reign of chimp the last thing I want is another stubborn arrogant ego in a position of power.