Women-Are You Willing to Wait Another 50 Years

To watch the video click here

In 1870 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted voting rights to African American males only. Women didn't get the right to make a difference until August 26, 1920 with the 19th Amendment. It took all women another fifty years for woman to achieve full citizenship under the constitution


Technorati Tags:
Youtube, women's issues, election 2008, Presidental election, republican, democrat, making the votes count, women voters, write in Clinton, Elizabeth Kubler Ross, Maya Lin, Wilm Mankiller, Mother Theresa, Pearl Bailey, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, Gloria Steinem, Ema Tnayuca, Yoshiko Vchida, Barbara Jordan, Margaret Chaze Smith, Betty Friedan, Hilary Clinton, Princess Diana, Susan B Anthony, Ella Barton, Shirley Temple Black, Pearl S Buck, Chien-Shiung Wu, Agnes George de Mille, Amelia Earhart, Coretta Scott King, Marian Wright Edelman, Billie Jean King, Judith E Heumann, Athea Gibson, Joan Banz Cooney, Sandra Day OConner, Sally K Ride, Oprah Winfrey, Florence Grifith Joyner, Patsy Takemoto Mink, Lleana Ros-Lehtinen, Nancy Pelosi, what women voters want, Celtic Woman,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Women's Issues: Uppity Women Unite Make All the Votes Count

Once again, political pundits and ranking members of the Democratic Party are telling Senator Clinton to drop out of the Presidential race. They keep pointing to the numbers, stating that she can reach the magic number to win the nomination, while ignoring the fact that neither can Obama. According the math, neither of them will have enough votes without the Super Delegates to achieve the magic number of 2024. Currently, Clinton has won, 253½ and Obama has won, 415½; there is only 162 separation in the pledged delegate count with 566 in eleven states yet to vote. Obama’s win in the remaining states is far from a sure thing. If the situations were reversed, these same so called leaders wouldn’t be telling Obama to concede; they would be too afraid of being called a racist. Yet they feel it is perfectly reasonable to ask a woman to step aside--for the good of the party. They are shocked that this uppity woman isn't backing down.

In the last week, Obama’s comments at a California fundraiser revealed his true character.

“Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

His response to criticisms has been has been typical to his past reactions. First denial, followed by a shallow explanation and sarcastic retorts attacking those who criticized him, all of which was followed by a half heart apology. In this case, it is easy to see why he discounts the rural and small town voter. Living most if not all his life in urban area, he has no concept of any other way of life. He is an urbanite who doesn’t have a clue to what it means to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty. He sees the people who live in small towns as uneducated hicks who can be talked down on or around. Small towns are not made up of local yokels who consist of high school dropouts, trailer parks and small minded bigots. This is so far from the truth, that the statement only reveals Obama’s ignorance and bigotry.

Not only are we made up of a cross section of cultures and religions, but also many of the well educated people have sought refuge from the dirt, crime and over crowding of the big cities in the smaller towns. The guns that we own are for hunting, not for trophies or for drive by shootings like the big cities boys, but to provide meat for the family. Hunting is not a sport for us. We don’t clip wings or fence in game. We go out in the woods where the odds are even for both sides. All of what is killed is used. We don’t just mount the head and call ourselves big time hunters.

Unlike the corporate farms, family own farms are going green not only for energy sources but also with agriculture and the raising of livestock. Many families still have their own gardens in the summer and preserve the harvests in the fall. We don’t use artificial fertilizers in our gardens; we spread our cow and horse manure on the fields instead of serving it up at fancy fundraisers.

News flash, the internet has opened many new employment and business opportunities. Many of the top ten corporations have started telecommuting programs. It is a more cost efficient and effective way of doing business. No longer to employees have to be located in the same area as the main office to be employed. It saves energy and increases productivity. We can have the good jobs and still live in our small towns.

In many ways we are more self sufficient than urban dwellers not only out of necessity but because that is who we are. When the snowfalls, we drive through feet; a couple of inches are enough to reek havoc the city. In most cases, we walk or bike instead of drive. Neighbors not only know each other’s names but also have created bonds of friendship. We don’t have elaborate parties with over priced designer dresses; we have barbeques in the back yard not because we don’t like sit down dinners, but because we better ways to spend five grand than on a single dress. Although we have our own issues, for the most part we are well-educated people who are doing the best to provide for our families.

Obama, the Democratic Party leaders and political pundit have made in more than clear that they aren’t in having all the votes count, only those that are in Obama favor. Michigan and Florida votes were excluded from the process, while they would prefer for the remaining state votes not to have a choice between candidates. By pressuring Clinton to step down before everyone has an opportunity to vote, they are usurping the voters’ rights. As it stands now the race is so close that every vote counts and should could count. By trying to remove Clinton from the race, you are telling millions of voters that there isn’t room in the process from them or their needs. Party leaders are so despite to win the White House that they are forgetting that the primary goal is to serve the pubic--in short to represent, all of the people, not just those who voted at the beginning of the primary. By usurping the voters’ choices, they are opening the door for Senator McCain and helping him through it.

Just so you know Obama, most of us don’t have a clue how to play the banjo, but I’m beginning to wonder about you. Congratulations on joining the Good Ole Boy’s club. I’m sure it’s making you Mother’s soul proud to see you become what she disliked most about society. Have a good look in the mirror. Just in the short time, you have been running for the Presidency, you have already become that which you intended to fight against.

Technorati Tags:
2008 Presidental election, Clinton, Obama, feminism, Feminized Values, guest blogger, politics, Democrats, real clear politics, cnn politics, American Politics, real politics, women in politics, hilary clinton campaign, hilary rodham clinton, hilary clinton for president, barack obama, obama girl, facts about barack obama, obama for president, Theresa Chaze, Katherine Adam, Charles Derber, democratic candidates for 2008 elections, republican elections 2008 whos running for president, 2008 us democratic party elections results, feminism, modern feminism, liberal feminism, definition of feminism, politics of feminism, the view politics feminism, Michigan Voters, Theresa Chaze, uppity women, gender bias, gender bigotry,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Guest Blogger: Primary Battles Prove Feminized Values to be Defining Element of 2008 Presidential Race

Primary Battles Prove Feminized Values to be Defining Element of 2008 Presidential Race

By Katherine Adam and Charles Derber

As Democrats come closer to choosing their candidate for the 2008 presidential election, gender has emerged again and again as the defining element of the primary race. Hillary has relied heavily on a base of older and working class women. Barack Obama has pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton with a feminized personal style and using feminized language about unity and community.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd picked up on this phenomenon, writing, "The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival." Boston Globe writer Ellen Goodman has a different take on the events: "Now we see a woman running as the fighter and a man modeling a 'woman's way' of leading. We see a younger generation in particular inspired by ideas nurtured by women, as long as they are delivered in a baritone. So, has the women's movement made life easier? For another man?"

Dowd and Goodman both touch upon a theme we discuss in our book, The New Feminized Majority: How Democrats Can Change America with Women's Values. The Obama-Clinton gender battle ultimately comes down to feminized values, which will also be the defining element in the 2008 election and beyond.

For many Democrats, it seems strange to talk about values-based politics. We usually equate values with religion. The media calls evangelical conservatives the only “values voters.” Yet, values are nothing more than socially constructed ideals of how the world should be. Many aspects of a person's identity beyond religion create his or her value system –age, race, and nationality. However, the most important values for Democrats to understand are values shaped by gender.

Women's history of oppression, combined with their fights for liberation, have created what we term feminized values. These include empathy, cooperation, and a preference for non-violent solutions to conflicts. Conversely, men's history of political and economic dominance socialize men into a system of masculinized values, including aggression and individualism.

Gender gap data from surveys consistently show this gendered difference. But it is important to understand that gendered values are not embedded in a person's DNA. Women are not inherently more peaceful and nurturing, men are not born as cutthroat, "every man for himself" individualists. (Just look at Condoleezza Rice and Dennis Kucinich.) People, in general, are socialized into values based on gender, but gender is open to variance and change. Men can adopt feminized values, and, as we will show, millions have.

Women's increasing progressivism won't lead to a battle of the sexes showdown. In fact, millions of men are following the feminized progressive example, holding opinions on issues that match those held by a majority of women. This points to the reason Obama or Clinton needs to pay close attention to gendered values: for the first time, feminized values—which are progressive, community-minded, and often closely aligned with Democratic Party policy—are now held by a majority of Americans.

While gender gaps still exist, a large enough minority of men support feminized principles to make them majoritarian. We find these values reflected in issue after issue, in poll after poll. From ending the Iraq War to funding stem cell research, from raising the minimum wage to adopting government-sponsored universal healthcare, the feminized position is the majoritarian position—which means it is the winning position.

While Clinton seemed to be the more "masculinized" candidate in the Democratic race, the differences between Clinton and Obama will seem microscopic once we enter the general election. The race between McCain and the Democratic candidate shows a HUGE chasm between feminized and masculinized morality.

McCain's hypermilitarized foreign policy objectives and traditionalist social policies reflect his masculinized values. At events, he is often flanked by symbols of American masculinity, such as cops and soldiers. These visuals are an attempt to convey a subliminal promise of masculine protectionism: vote for me and men like these will keep your wives and children safe. The other unspoken part of this message is clear: Democrats are too weak and womanly to lead.

Unfortunately for McCain, a majority of Americans have turned away from this dated definition of "strength". With hundreds of thousands dying in Iraq, GIs returning home paralyzed or in body bags, and pictures circulating of hooded Iraqi prisoners with electrodes attached to their bodies, Americans are looking for a new kind of foreign policy. And with multiple corporate mergers, rising poverty rates, and economic inequality unparalleled since the Gilded Age, Americans can't afford anything but new domestic policies.

Obama or Clinton can provide an alternative to the morality offered by McCain. All they need to do is recognize the new feminized majority, and embrace it.

To order “The New Feminized Majority” visit Paradigm Publishing at http://www.paradigmpublishers.com/books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=180321 or Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/New-Feminized-Majority-Katherine-Adam/dp/1594515689/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204436315&sr=8-1
Building beyond Lakoff’s election-year best-seller, Don’t Think of an Elephant, this new book shows how the values of American voters are dramatically shifting. With the arrival of the 2008 election year, a rising feminized majority’—made up of both women and men—is emerging as the pivotal force in American politics. Emerging trends show these values are broadly progressive and address not just the needs of women but the general interests of society. They are held by women substantially more than by men but have become the values held by a majority of all voters, including millions of men.

Like earlier eras in American history, such as the New Deal, the rise of the feminized majority today presents an opportunity for the Democrats to become the governing party for decades to come. Looking beyond the 2008 election, Adam and Derber describe a new political strategy that targets the feminized base and opens up a window for major social justice movements to make progressive change.

Like Lakoff’s, this striking new book—perfectly timed for election year 2008—offers a new vocabulary for every citizen who wants to understand (and reimagine) American politics. It will intrigue and provoke readers, stirring new conversation among progressives and new insights for every citizen interested in politics, morality, religion, values, and social justice.

Reveals the “Three Hillaries” and why two of her three political dimensions consist of masculinized values.
Shows why Obama and Edwards are more “feminized” than Hillary Clinton
Builds beyond Lakoff’s Elephant in showing how gender is increasingly pivotal in political values, and by revealing the deep historical roots of gendered values in America
Looks at the relation between religion, values, and politics in a new way
A book perfectly timed for the first election in which a woman, Hillary Clinton, stands a strong chance of becoming president
Written by a widely experienced political campaigner and a noted social critic
Shows how political discussions have been gender-blind and how gender awareness opens new windows to social justice in America


Gender, Values, and the Democrats

As the only group targeted by a political party using a value-based strategy, evangelicals are seen as the only people who match their actions and politics to their values. Values, however, are a universal human phenomenon. In their simplest form, values are socially constructed views about how the world should be. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote about the subjectivity of values and how we shape our values to fit our ideas of what makes a perfect society.

But whatsoever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire, that it is which he for his part calleth “good”; and the object of his contempt “vile” and “inconsiderable.” For these words of good, evil, and contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them. There being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of Good or Evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves.7

Looking past Hobbes’s notorious pessimism about the human condition, this idea highlights that everyone acts on values and that values are socially constructed. Therefore, values vary from person to person, and a person has the ability to change his or her values.

Although Hobbes refers to an individual’s values, his message translates to larger community values. Americans, for example, hold American values. Every political candidate, on the right or the left, knows that most Americans respond favorably to the idea that a person should be rewarded for hard work. This is a capitalist, American value. Members of other societies might feel that a person should be rewarded for his or her skin color or family bloodline. Every person is socialized into the values of his or her community or nation, and these values then intersect with other values the person has, such as those based his or her religion, race, and socioeconomic class.

Perhaps the most important set of socialized values, however, is based on a person’s gender. We term these values feminized values and masculinized values. In this book, we will outline how men’s and women’s different value systems create divergent views about what America should be. We argue that Americans carry gendered attitudes into the voting booth and, like the evangelicals, vote based on how these values translate to specific political issues.

Just as some groups’ values fall to the more conservative end of the political spectrum, other groups’ values fall to the left. Evangelicals usually support right-wing candidates, because their moral values are highly conservative. We will introduce a group of voters whose values reflect progressive ideals: feminized values voters. If evangelicals represent the key to Republican electoral victory, then feminized values voters represent the chance for Democrats to usher in a new progressive era.

Feminized values are the values into which women are socialized; a majority of women hold these values, as do a smaller percentage of men, for reasons we will describe shortly. The potential for a more progressive era arises because the women and men who hold feminized values make up today a majority of the country and of voters.

We term feminized values voters the feminized majority. These women and men will not only change election outcomes, but also will transform American values and the American Dream. The feminized majority supports a strong welfare state, views social issues through a lens of egalitarianism, and feels that government should do more in general to help its most vulnerable citizens. Feminized majority voters support stem cell research, comprehensive sex education, and environmental protection. They reject violent imperialism. They worry about their long-term economic security and fear that neither party will provide them with adequate health care. In a much deeper and richer way than American masculinized voters, the feminized majority yearns for a progressive, populist America.

We call these voters the feminized majority because the values they carry truly are becoming majoritarian. We will describe the political and economic changes that have led to this point. It is important to remember that President Bush changed the 2004 election by mobilizing evangelicals, who represent only 23 percent of voters. Now, Democrats have the opportunity to change America in dramatic ways with the support of a much larger part of the electorate. While the general perception is that the United States is a conservative country, we shall show that feminized values are held by an increasingly robust majority of voters in the country who are prepared to support a progressive politics of social justice.

The Democrats can lead the feminized majority if they are willing to abandon their triangulation strategy and create a values-based platform. This approach seems unorthodox, because we usually conflate values and morals with religion and conservatism. However, values are nothing more than socially constructed ideals that provide a moral compass for each person, regardless of where he or she falls on the political spectrum. Once Democrats recognize the power of values in elections, they can begin appealing to values voters.

A noted social critic, Charles Derber is a Professor of Sociology at Boston College. Katherine Adam is the Outreach Director for the Philadelphia GROW Project of the Drexel University School of Public Health. She has been active in Democratic Party politics at the federal, state, and local levels, including interning for Senator John Kerry. Derber and Adam collaborated on the newly released nonfiction title, “The New Feminized Majority: How Democrats Can Change America with Women’s Values” which can be purchased at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble.com, and from the publisher’s website.


Technorati Tags:
2008 Presidental election, Clinton, Obama, feminism, Feminized Values, guest blogger, politics, Democrats, real clear politics, cnn politics, American Politics, real politics, women in politics, hilary clinton campaign, hilary rodham clinton, hilary clinton for president, barack obama, obama girl, facts about barack obama, obama for president, Theresa Chaze, Katherine Adam, Charles Derber, democratic candidates for 2008 elections, republican elections 2008 whos running for president, 2008 us democratic party elections results, feminism, modern feminism, liberal feminism, definition of feminism, politics of feminism, the view politics feminism
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |