Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) campaign and the media would have us believe that herds of disaffected women voters will be stampeding to the Republicans this year because a woman candidate won’t be on the presidential ballot in November. McCain’s campaign has been making a clear play for women voters in recent weeks, hosting conference calls with Republican women and touting that… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (31)Page 1 of 1 pagesApparently, if a male is pro-life, he is sexist. wow. strong word to be throwing around. journalistic integrity at its best.
Posted by calilove81 on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:06 PM All the givens…but, the personal? My mind is made up now…for good. Thanks for taking me past the point of no return!
Posted by notsuretilnow on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:15 PM Oh baloney! The Democrats are going to be in control of congress. Stop your fear mongering! He’s not going to come steal our ovaries. Obama sucks! He is a fake candidate. I will not vote for him. McCain is a liberal republican. This average JO will be voting for him. If anyone is sexist it is OBAMA!
Posted by cuppa jo on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:21 PM After the way Obama, his surrogates, and the press treated Hillary during the primaries I can’t understand why any women would vote for Obama. The treatment of Hillary was bad enough, but the way labeling of Geraldine Ferraro as a racist was unforgivable. And if Obama didn’t disgrace himself enough he revealed his true attitude toward women with his “Sweetie” comments. How can an American man only in his 40s possible refer to professional women, or any women for that matter as “Sweetie”. That’s a reference you might use toward a 7 year old girl, not an adult journalist. The only people that would refer to women that way that are under the age of 65 were probably educated in an Islamic Madrassa. If Obama wonders why he can’t shake that rumor he ought to look at his attitude toward women. Obama proved during the primaries that race in a near taboo subject and can neatly be turned turned against your opponents. What he also proved is that sexual discrimination is alive and well and he is fully engaged in using it. Why vote for someone like him in 2008. A vote for McCain in 2008 is a vote for Hillary in 2012. She won’t get beat again!..........Hillary 2012!!!
Posted by valwayne on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:08 PM What a lot of nonsense! Senator McCain looks past your (and some others’) political attempts at social engineering and thinks for himself on all these issues. Just because he doesn’t agree with some so-called feminist agenda is no reason to try to label him a sexist. No true sexist would have married Cindy McCain, the most real, strong, and independent political wife of our time. I’ve waited eight years to cast a vote for John McCain for the office of President of the United States, and, God willing, he will be elected in November.
Posted by Junie on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:36 PM John McCain will be the 44th President of the United States. His record is one of sacrifice and accomplishment and even though I’m a liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton, I know what I’m getting with John McCain (unlike Obama who has come out of nowhere and voted “present” more than anything else while in the Illinois’ Senate). Obama is a lighweight who has done and earned nothing for his country. He has a wife who tells Americans that “the souls in this nation are broken” and that she has never really been proud of her country. What is it about these two people who have done nothing for their country to feel entitled to this highest office? Barack works two years as a community organizer and is a graduate of Harvard and that gives him the right and wisdom and experience to lead our wonderous…if imperfect…country? Barack Obama is a JFK wannabe in the same way that Harry Connick Jr. is a Frank Sinatra impersonator. Theses people are ersatz, not real or deserving. McCain’s the real deal.
Posted by maureenrehg on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:40 PM I actually think the opposite. More disenchanted Hillary supporters are voting for McCain than the polls or media realize. I have never voted for a Republican president. This Nov will be my first. And I’m an American woman of hispanic roots on both parents side. And I’m a lesbian to boot!. My partner and I (and some of my lesbian friends) are voting for McCain so are all of my siblings. One of my siblings is a Repub but the rest are all Dems.
Roe vs Wade is not a good enough threat since several Repubs have been president yet it still stands. Also, birth control is not an issue for me. I’m pro-choice yet find it highly hypocritical of Dems to support killing unborn babies while they save whatever animals and are opposed to drilling for oil, clean coal, etc. I’m all for energy alternatives but let’s work on current energy sources in the US now.
I say drill her, drill now and McCain is my man this year. 2012 for Hillary.
Posted by msblog on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:43 PM I really love how McCain is supposed to be this “evil woman-hater” and Obama is held up to be this great supporter of women. I think my two teenage daughters would beg to differ, and would love to have that discussion with Ms. Kate Sheppard.
They both come from birth moms who considered aborting them, which Obama would not only fully support but use my tax dollars to do. McCain would have supported their opportunity to live. Gee, they are women and I guarantee, Obama is no friend to them.
I wonder if Kate considers Obama a friend to the female babies that he would let die after a failed abortion attempt. I guess Obama is only a friend to women if they are deemed “desirable” to live. At least McCain believes all women deserve that opportunity.
Posted by scubamomtracy on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:14 PM Oh baloney. Character is the issue here, and Obama does not have any. Nada. Nope. None. And neither does his non-patriotic wife.
Barack has also run the most overtly sexist campaign in history. Calling Hillary, Annie Oakley, calling her a liar who would do anything to win, calling a female reporter sweetie, and brushing Hillary’s PA win off his suit, are not acts that would attract women voters, and I marched for women’s rights in the 70’s! I still have a letter from Gloria Steinman framed in my office! I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life, but I will vote for McCain because he has integrity, and because I’m not a single issue voter. I believe McCain where I don’t trust the flip flopping Barack.
And so what if the person who started PUMA has now donated to McCain?!! He first donated to Hillary Clinton, just as I did. I donated $400 to Clinton and so far $50 to McCain, and I now support PUMA. My money will not go to the sexist, anti-semite, and racist in reverse, Barack Obama who listened to the racist Rev. Wright for 20 years. No way, Jose. I’ll vote for Harold Ford, Jr., Colin Powell, Condi Rice or other people of color, but I will not vote for a person who sat at the racist Trinity Church for 20 years.
My family knew Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. My step-father helped plan the March on Washington, and marched at Selma. He had his faced bloodied with a rock thrown at him. We can not overlook the sexism and racism of Obama just because we’d like to see change in America. Obama is not what people marched for.
Posted by bettym47 on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:00 PM Kate you misguided OBAMABOT…..the only SEXIST running for president is your OBAMA.
His characterizations of Mrs. Clinton throughout the primaries were totally sexist…....and Yes—he did give her the finger!
Kate you are misguided ideologue ..........stuff it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM PROUD OF YOU MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS LETS BEAT THAT FAKE OBAMA
Posted by cramos on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:04 PM Maybe McCain is pro-life because he cherishes all life including female life. Remember in China, Africa and India, many baby girls are killed because their parents want boys. Just another way to look at it.
Posted by bettym47 on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:06 PM No one has suffered more than the Palestinians? This is a quote from Obama.
Tell that to the millions who died in World War II and WWI. Tell that to those who suffered in Cambodia in the killing fields. Tell that to those who died at Dafur. Tell that to those who are suffering in Burma, North Korea, China, the former Soviet Union and Tibet. Tell that to those who died in Africa during all those civil wars. Tell those who suffered in South Africa yearning for freedom.
No one has suffered more than the Palestinians?!! Tell that to the people who died by the hands of Obama’s Muslim cousin in Kenya.
Obama is racist and rather naive. If America votes for him, we will be sorry.
Posted by bettym47 on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:13 PM The great irony: this author worked for a publication called “Bitch”. I don’t know what it is, but it sounds like it has a subscription rate of about 37 people. I’ve never been to this website before, but i had to register just to point that out.
And when did it become “cool” to make Mc-something into a term. Mc-Lame, Mc-Sexist. It Mc-makes no sense.
Regardless about a women’s right to choose, you don’t have to be a doctor to realize that partial-birth abortion is pretty disgusting.
If McCain had said, “You’re likable enough, Hilary,” like Obama said, you would’ve called him Satan.
Posted by goldwater44 on Jul 22, 2008 at 10:50 PM The writer has confirmed what we all know, Feminism = Abortion.
Posted by charm on Jul 22, 2008 at 11:32 PM As a college professor—in the humanities no less—after reading this I clearly understand why so few students are feminists these days. This article is so shrill, so paranoid, so just “whack” I honestly thought it was parody and you were joking. I was smiling waiting for the punch line. Have you actually spoken honestly with many living young women these days? They want careers and kids. They do not want to buy children from other countries once they discover they are infertile and single at 40. Real breathing young women do not believe life with cats is equivalent to life with children and family, and they certainly do not believe women are by definition victims of old white courageous men. Please keep writing you may single handedly propel Independent Feminism to the position once held by the likes of Katha Pollit and Margaret Sanger and the other soft eugenicists, racists and sexists.
Posted by jdcarmine on Jul 23, 2008 at 2:07 AM McCain is pro-life. Male or female. Pro-life. 50,000,000 Americans aborted, 26,000,000 males, 24,000,000 females. Where is the sexism in that? Kate the classic liberal proclaiming abortion 100% a “mother’s” issue, 0% a father’s issue is the sexist.
Posted by notasexist on Jul 23, 2008 at 5:40 AM “As for that whiny troll, Katha Pollitt, an unscrupulous and unreliable critic and a cultural philistine, she’s a good example of the phony prep-school/trust-fund leftism suffusing the incestuously interwined Ivy League cliques who run the corrupt East Coast literary and magazine establishment.” Camille Paglia, 1998, Salon
This could just as easily apply to Kate Sheppard, without the Ivy League component of course.
Posted by jdcarmine on Jul 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM Reading several of the previous posts, I would guess that the McCain campaign’s media response team is out in full force. Please do not dismiss pro-choice women as those who choose pets over children; we simply want the choice of whether and when to have children to be ours. We will not leave the choice to “pro-life” pharmacists who will not dispense physician’s prescriptions for birth control pills, or insurance companies who will not cover them, or politicians who are not even aware that the issue exists.
I am a pro-choice, middle-aged, married, professional woman with both children and pets, and I vote.
Posted by marylu on Jul 28, 2008 at 10:44 PM Kate Sheppard discusses the recent and pervasive rumor that feminists are so disappointed that Hilary is not the candidate, that they will somehow decide that voting for McCain will be an appropriate protest. She goes on to cite many sources that say this rumor is not true, but she does not mention the real reason that this rumor is gaining so much traction.
Make no mistake, the Republicans plan to steal this presidential election, just as they stole the 2000 and 2004 elections. They cannot afford to lose the election; too much is a stake for them. One of the ways that the Republicans will “manufacture consent” for the theft, is by disseminating many different kinds of rumors about likely Obama voters who will defect to McCain because of some sort of protest. If they can get enough of those rumors out there, the American public will once again accept the lie that the Democratic candidate did not win the election, despite the exit-polls. Here’s one example of how the Republicans are getting this rumor out there: Sheppard tells us that the PUMA PAC (“Party Unity My Ass.”) purporting to be a group “so angry about the Democratic primary that they won’t vote for Obama,” was started by a McCain donor, according to the Federal Election Commission. This is typical of what we’ll be seeing, in the Republican attempt to buy complacence about the coming theft of this election.
But the success of this attempted theft is at risk because more and more American citizens are aware of the previous thefts, and are making plans to prevent the theft in 2008. It is imperative that concerned citizens and activists see the importance of Election Disaster Preparedness, 2008. We must all be out there to register as many new voters as possible; walk precincts and work hard on election day to get out the vote; sign up to be a poll worker, and make sure that everyone who shows up to vote actually gets a ballot that counts. The purpose is to flood the polls with so many ballots that it will be very difficult for the Republicans to pull the wool over our eyes in the way that they’ve done in the past. Every one of us must commit to taking one of these actions. Be prepared for this coming disaster, and maybe prevent it!
Posted by Alyssonwonderland on Aug 3, 2008 at 6:59 PM One of the most dangerous myths in our anti-intellectual culture is the notion that we need only to use our instincts, not our conscious minds, to know what is right; that beliefs are more important than facts; and that feelings matter more than thoughts.
For example, a vanishingly small number of women, whose number our anti-intellectual media take care to exaggerate, are so angry at Senator Obama’s cavalier treatment of Senator Clinton during the long primary that they declare themselves willing to vote for McCain, a man with whom they have next to nothing ideologically in common. But few commentators in the media mention how jaw-droppingly irrational this is, since our media have more respect for feelings, even for childish tantrums, than for ideas. Moreover, our media assume that women cannot behave any better, ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of women both can and do.
For a long time, the embryo-rights movement has sustained itself by promoting the completely unfounded belief that a fertilized egg cell is and ought to be treated as a human being. Since beliefs trump facts, we seldom hear that the embryo, though a wondrous creature, has a less developed central nervous system than most of the animals that we casually slaughter by the millions for meat: cattle, pigs, and chickens. We hear all about embryos’ fingerprints and nothing about their gills. We hear about the number of abortions done since Roe v. Wade, but nothing about how common abortion was before this landmark decision, nor about how dangerous it was before it was legal and safe, nor how many women’s lives it claimed. Again, the assumption is that facts don’t matter; only feelings do. But surely we should know by now that in an age of advertising, feelings can be manufactured, indeed even mass produced. And we ought to know that our best defense against propaganda of all kinds is CRITICAL THINKING.
To my mind, the most cynical form of sexism is the assumption that most women are like the tiny fringe group of “feminists for McCain,” because women, unlike men, are not rational, but creatures who “think with their hearts” and may proudly vote their beliefs, preferably without doing any research or engaging their rational minds, since this task, with both the power and the responsibility it entails, belongs exclusively to men. Every feminist should be aware how well this ideology serves male supremacy, and how poorly it serves women. Recall that one of the earliest, brightest stars of modern western feminism was arguably Mary Wollstonecraft, whose feminist program promoted EDUCATION above all else.
Posted by JakobFabian01 on Aug 4, 2008 at 1:28 PM http://americanobserver1.blogspot.com/2008/06/divided-we-will-fall.html
Posted by americanobserver on Aug 4, 2008 at 2:55 PM Well, as a 17-year old, I am kind of scared of all of these comments and the lack of knowledge expressed within them.
This article may not be the best piece of journalism, yes. But first of all, read the whole thing before jumping to conclusions. The title is McSexist not because he doesn’t support abortion or anything like that, but because of the degrading and extreme sexist remarks he has made. He called his wife a cunt. And if you fail to realize why this word should not be used lightly, then do some research.
Also, I don’t think you can be pro-choice and at the same time, find it hypocritical, but whatever maybe that’s just me. I’m not going to argue over this issue though, because people like to base their beliefs on morals. I can say though, from my own experience, that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion abortion. It means comprehensive sexual education, birth control and contraceptive methods and reproductive rights (as in, not letting politics interfere with the rights of women to make personal deecisions).
And so I consider myself a feminist, even with the horrible connotation that comes with the name. Just as many other groups go, there is a wide spectrum of feminists. I find it pretty ridiculous that all feminists are put into one category. But until people actually decide to learn more about the current feminist movement, I guess that’s how it will stand.
Posted by carmennx on Aug 7, 2008 at 4:20 PM Apparently, if a male is pro-life, he is sexist
The anti-choice position seeks to control what woman do with their bodies - against their interests, and against the interests of their children. It’s a position that kills people. It is always sexist, whether held by a man or a woman.
Posted by llewelly on Aug 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM Until McCain, or any other man for that matter, grows a vagina, a set of ovaries and starts giving birth, he has no right over a woman’s decision to do whatever she needs to her body. I am Pro-Choice, yet, I do not believe that even under the most extreme circumstances (for example, if I was raped and became pregnant from that incident) would I ever have the mental and emotional capacities to terminate my pregnancy. HOWEVER, it doesn’t mean that another woman should be forced to keep her child in the event of an accidental pregnancy or rape. I do not believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control (as in one of my students said to me: “well, if I get pregnant [from having sex as a minor], I’ll just have an abortion,” as if to say… “no harm, no foul, its just an excuse to be irresponsible and mess around.”) THIS is not something I support.
All of this is besides the point. Basically, all I am saying is while the article was extreme, it was completely accurate and that McCain and any other man should not be the ones to pick and choose what women are allowed to do with their bodies; the fact is, it is an individual decision. Even if Hillary was elected, I’d believe that its not her decision to make for an entire country.
As for all of the anti-Obama comments, calling him basically an asshole who hated on Hillary while she was running, ITS POLITICS. OF COURSE HE’S GOING TO TRY AND WEAKEN HER ARGUMENTS AND HER CONFIDENCE THROUGH SUCH TACTICS. JUST BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN DOESN’T MEAN HE SHOULD HAVE TREATED HER ANY DIFFERENTLY. Politics have been full of mudslinging and name calling and arguments since the beginning of time; he’s being a politician.
And also this: doesn’t that make every single person who has inaccurately called Obama a terrorist, a Muslim, an N-word, criticized the fact that he’s “not black enough” or “not light enough”... doesn’t that make all of you racist assholes? HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER THAN BEING SEXIST? oh, that’s right… its worse. because it covers both men and women of various races and creeds and hurts far more people.
just a thought.
Posted by arttandsoul on Aug 14, 2008 at 12:38 PM After reading all the delusional comments from you people voting for McCain, I have come to the conclusion that I don’t care about this nation anymore. Like my state, that continues to vote Republican governors in and then everyone complains when taxes go up (really) and utility commissions get their rates increases and schools suffer—they get what they deserve.
If you vote for the same old, same old, same old pro-business government that’s eroding the middle class, considering minorities and women as 2nd class citizens, breeding continuous fear and continuing to reward the rich while punishing the poor, then go right ahead. You get the crappy oppressive government you deserve.
Posted by neilyou on Aug 18, 2008 at 1:00 AM Oh neilyou! The joys of victimhood, so satisfying to be helpless among the wolves, so worthy of compassion of one’s fellows in despair, morning in America is so much nicer when your life is so so so hard so so so beyond your responsibility or effort. Enjoy your green tea neilyou et al.
Posted by jdcarmine on Aug 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM So I suppose the recession is just “all in my head”?
Thanks to people like whattheheck and others who still swallow the bullshit the bush administration is selling now in the form of McSame, we won’t move forward.
For those of you who vote McCain, I can think of nothing better than to have the spoiled fruits of your selection come back to burn you. And you can enjoy your $4+ a gallon of gas.
I remember when some lunatic once said back in 2000, “If Gore gets elected, don’t be surprised if gas is $2 a gallon!” Ha ha ha. So jdcarmine, thanks for nothing, asshole.
Posted by neilyou on Aug 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM
The anti-choice position seeks to control what woman do with their bodies - against their interests, and against the interests of their children. It’s a position that kills people. It is always sexist, whether held by a man or a woman.Until McCain, or any other man for that matter, grows a vagina, a set of ovaries and starts giving birth, he has no right over a woman’s decision to do whatever she needs to her body.
For starters, let’s get all our labels in order please. Literally speaking the argument is about abortion, not choice. I am pro choice. I believe you should have the choice to do anything (and I do mean literally anything) so long as your choice doesn’t negatively impact another person or infringe upon thier rights in any way.
The next label to deal with is Fetus. If you are a troublemaking brat of 14 what are you called? Teen, Delinquent, Juvenile, and possibly Immature come to mind. Those are labels used to describe a human being of about 14 with certain character traits. The label used to describe a 44 year old white male who is unreasonable from an 18 year olds perspective is “aw Daaaaaaad”. :-)
IN all seriousness, fetus is the medical term used to describe a human being at a certain stage of development. It is true that zygotes, embryos, and fetal humans cannot exist separate from the mother. It is equally true that a newborn cannot long exist without care. Each stage of human development from conception, thru fetal, thru newborn and toddler, up to teen requires support and care in diminishing amounts from someone if not the parents specifically.
I am likely to be labeld again with regards to feminists. Abortion is also a parental problem.
It seems the ultimate in hypocrisy to state that the father has no say in the womans choice to abort, and yet he will be compelled to pay child support even if he didn’t want the kid.
Think about that sentence please. If a woman chooses to have unprotected sex and gets pregnant, the father has no legal right to demand she either keep or abort the child. How can that be fair?
Then, lets assume she keeps the child. The father who didn’t want the kid and who had no legal right to demand that she abort the kid, will still be told by the court to be responsible and pay child support. Again, how can that be fair?
The only logical conclusion that is also fair to all concerned is to deny the “right” to abort as an issue of choice as it infringes on another’s (the childs) rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If, by exercising the right to choose to have unprotected sex you bring a child into the world, then both parties are equally liable in the eyes of the law to care for the child.
With all rights come responsibilities. By choosing to risk pregnancy by willingly participating in unprotected sex, you are assuming the responsibility of caring for the child created at conception.
Posted by Phillip on Sep 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM Some “war”. If you’re actually trying to persuade anybody, you might be a tiny bit more circumspect with that word when you’re talking about a hero who knows, as you never will, what war is.
And some “sexist”. So he didn’t sign on to every little jot and tittle of the far left social agenda. Good. And like most rational and decent people of both sexes, he’s pro-life. That hardly makes him a sexist.
Pretty small beer, sweetie.
P.S. A little fact-checking wouldn’t hurt you. Trader Jon’s, a world-famous institution, was not a strip club or anything of the sort. And any “exotic dancing” that took place in the small-town deep south of that era — even a Navy town — was pretty tame.
Posted by cyberella2002 on Sep 7, 2008 at 9:04 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Kate Sheppard
- McSexist
McCain's War on Women - A Textbook Case
AP students learn ABCs of right-wing talking points - Big Trucking Deal
A diverse coalition wins a battle to regulate air pollution at California ports
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1977 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
