Saturday, January 27, 2007

Will Mothers and our Children Benefit from a Female Presidency

I just wanted to talk a bit about women making historic inroads into our political system this year and point out that it still remains to be seen yet whether this will translate into an overall positive trend for mothers and their children. Nancy Pelosi making history as the first female Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton with a strong possibility to be our first female President does not automatically translate into a good for us.

Sadly as we have seen in the past many women climb up into prestigious and powerful positions painting themselves as victims of the patriarchy, then as soon as they get in a position to do something positive for other women, they suddenly turn gender neutral on us.

Of course they are never gender neutral when it comes time to grab their share of the ‘goodies’ that go along with being identified as a so-called victim of the patriarchy. They will all take their share of the spots in higher education and the corporate/legal/political hierarchy of this country which are reserved for women. Yet when it comes time for them to give back to their sisters’, the millions of women whose backs they climbed onto in order to launch their own careers, suddenly they have second thoughts and decide they have to exhibit their gender neutrality.

We saw this in New York with that whole Bridget Marks custody switch fiasco. Where not one woman of substance spoke out on behalf of that mother or her twin daughters. Actually it was a group of the old patriarchs in the appeals court of upstate New York who finally overturned that travesty of a custody ruling and returned those little girls to their mother. Otherwise who knows where they would be right now. I didn’t hear anyone from NOW or any other female Judges or groups speaking out about this injustice. Really it was men like that Bill O’Reilly and a few others whose names I’ve forgotten right now who kept this case in the news and that’s the only reason those little girls were given their lives back again.

This is not the first time I’ve noticed women in power, not just being silent on important issues for mothers and their children, but frequently aiding and abetting men in these ongoing custody wars we see going on all around us. Many of these custody fights and/or abductions incited by the fathers rights movement in an attempt to get out of paying child support.

These are important issues for mothers and I don’t see any womens’ group or female politician addressing them. Instead they spend much time on issues of gay rights (which is 99% a mens issues and I might add an elite mens issue) that has little or nothing to do with the rights of mothers and their children. Since most women still become mothers, this is a major lack on the part of every women group that exists today.

Mothers rights are being undermined by a legal establishment which seems determined to assist men in holding our children hostage, the better to control their mothers with, and so-called womens groups better start addressing this issue.

Additionally when I say addressing this, I don’t mean another waste-of-time do-nothing conference about it either where everyone spends all their time at meetings and expensive lunches. I mean some public policy changes that will demonstrate real positive impact on the lives of mothers and their children.

Thus to return to my original point: it still remains to be seem how much the success of some women in reaching the highest levels of political power is actually going to benefit mothers.

10 comments:

silverside said...

True, but the U.S. in actually very backwards in terms of women's participation in politics. Even conservative Muslim countries like Bangladesh have elected women leaders. We're something like 56th or 57th in the world for women participating in the national legislature.

When you have just a few women, they act like scared rabbits. I don't know that there are any guarantees, but I think you have to get a critical mass (a tipping point if you will) of women who are mothers or sympathetic to mothers to get any real change. Right now, we have a lot of "queen bees" who are more interesting in solidifying their precarious position among the men (usually by sucking up to them and their interests) then representing the interests of primary caretakers or mothers. Especially when mothers generally do not have the cash and influence they crave.

NYMOM said...

I actually think that in some of those other countries the legislative bodies have little power so nothing is lost to have women in them...I mean even Iran has some women in parliament and many women going to college yet it changes nothing for women.

Not to mention that I don't believe the gender neutralized feminist Judges we have here in the US are acting this way to suck up to men...I think they believe in this crap they've sprouting, it's easy to sprout this stuff when there is no price to pay...Since they still get their reserved places in law school and their cushy jobs after graduation no matter how many ordinary women they screw...

So, it's other women who have to take the steps to punish them by driving them them out of power when they pull this crap. Unfortunately women in this country are still at the point where they support any woman just because she's a woman no matter the harm she'll do to them afterwards.

So the information has to be made available to women about the damage these gender neutral feminists are capable of once in power...Their records must be made public so women can judge them not by their words but by their actual deeds.

Anonymous said...

This is what women will benefit from!

Disabled MA Father Pleads With Governor To Save Retrofitted Home

www.mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/27/disabled-ma-father-pleads-with-governor-to-save-retrofitted-home/

Dan Iagatta was a volunteer firefighter, pilot and owner of a successful plumbing business before being hit by a car while training for a triathlon in 2004. Within weeks of coming home from the hospital Dan's wife filed for divorce.

The state of Massachusetts has invested $100,000 to make Dan's childhood home handicap accessible. Family Court Judge Boorstein ordered Dan to rip out his special equipment, sell the home, and give all the money from his inheritance to his ex-wife and her lawyers.

Governor Patrick has graciously given Dan an extra 2 weeks before he'll be evicted. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem. Please help Dan. Your phone calls and faxes can make a difference.

1. Call or fax Governor Deval Patrick now!2. Phone: (617) 725-4005 / Fax: (617) 727-97253. Tell him you want "a stay of execution for Dan Iagatta."4. Then ask him to find out how this happened to Dan.5. Contact these media outlets:

* WBZ-1-617-787-7000 fax 1-617-254-6383
* WCVB 1-781-449-0400 fax 1-617-449-0260
* WHDH 1-617-725-0777 fax 1-617-723-6117

NYMOM said...

I'm not really that interested these days in these few stories about oddball situations. Unless you wish to link it to a change in public policy which might make it better for people, don't bother posting these weird stories.

LL said...

Hello NYMOM. It has been a while since our postings at Kelly Mac's blog over the summer. However, I just recently checked out your blog. This is the first article I am reading, it seems interesting and i'll leave a response.

"I just wanted to talk a bit about women making historic inroads into our political system this year and point out that it still remains to be seen yet whether this will translate into an overall positive trend for mothers and their children. Nancy Pelosi making history as the first female Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton with a strong possibility to be our first female President does not automatically translate into a good for us."

I think, when it all comes down to it, is what goes on in the "background". As much as politicians hate to admit it, many of them listen to the individuals who give them the most money or donations to their party, such as interest groups and lobbyers. In the end, money talks. I am not sure on the organizational background with mother's rights and they could have a big influence, so I may be wrong with this assertion. But even if you have a woman's advocate and she is in a position of power and eminence, she will listen to her constituents (i.e. the people with the money; if a gay rights organization is the one lobbying the most, she will adhere to them).

"Sadly as we have seen in the past many women climb up into prestigious and powerful positions painting themselves as victims of the patriarchy, then as soon as they get in a position to do something positive for other women, they suddenly turn gender neutral on us."

For many, it is a power play, however, not everyone does this. One thing that I think DOES happen is that many people get sucked in to the "power vaccume". That is, they take on roles that people in power have been implementing for centuries. Some people call it "privilege" or being "schrewed"; you can call it whatever you want (since, in the end, they don't want to lose their power). They change their tune because, well, they need to appease a large audience and they don't want to sound too "radical", they are doing "well" and their issues become less personal and with this, they are less determined to see their issues through to the resolution.

"This is not the first time I’ve noticed women in power, not just being silent on important issues for mothers and their children, but frequently aiding and abetting men in these ongoing custody wars we see going on all around us."

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So said Lord Achton. However, to be fair, this of course depends on the individual. Not every man or every woman is like this.

Men and women are humans and like many men, there are of course women who use the "equality" card (or any card, for that matter) to climb the ranks of power and once they achieve it, they suddenly make an "about-face" and show a new side to them. NOW is very narrow-minded and has made ill fated decisions when it came to a lot of things-not only mothers. But hey, every organization, in the end, has their own personal agenda.

As for me, I have to say I have my eye on Senator Obama. We shall see.

-LL

NYMOM said...

I have nothing personal against Senator Obama. However I noticed him already beginning to sprout off what I consider to be typical fathers' rights propaganda about his family and his place in it.

His wife got basically a peripheral mention in reference to the kids.

I mean let's face it Obama probably spends little time at home like most senators since they have to travel back and forth to Washington as well as their home state very frequently. It's not a profession conducive to family life.

Actually many have said that's probably why few women are in the Congress in general and those who are, are mostly grandmothers or mothers of older kids. Since most women become mothers and wish to raise their children, not disappear for months at a time off to another state.

Yet listening to Obama, you'd think he was a stay-at-home dad in charge of everything and their mother just a useless appendage handing around for photo ops.

In fact, it's probably just the opposite.

So that immediately turned me off about him.

Regarding women becoming just like men once in office: my response is then why do other women need to vote for them if that's the case? If I'm going to vote for some man in drag who's going to go gender neutral on mothers as soon as she gets in office then what's the point. I'll vote referencing other issues then.

LL said...

Regarding women becoming just like men once in office: my response is then why do other women need to vote for them if that's the case?

The thing is, women don't become like men . They develop necessary behavioral characteristics to maintain their artificial edifice of power they have constructed around them. There are many times where a good-hearted self-sacrificing human being (man or woman) becomes tainted by the use of power and in the end, looks out for his/her self-gain. Why? Because the game and use of power created them the way they are. Because there are many vultures and enemies around them who want exactly what they want and consolidating their gains become a life-long pursuit. It's a very delicate and complicated cutthroat game of control, domination, coercion and manipulation. The questions of male domination is only half-true; that, men dominated not because they were men , but because the structure of having power was what dominated in the end. Which is why, it is the same if you have a female leader. This isn't bad and the situation won't be worse-off , but it will have the same outcome in terms of who their constituents are that they listen to. If a female candidate was running for office and NOW was funneling her money, then she will speak on what NOW wants her to. Once she wins and a more powerful conservative interest group offers her more money, then she will turn to this interest group in order to get more funds, consolidate her power (because no one, in the end, wants to lose their power, which ironically, everyone does lose their power in the end). This is how it always was and this is how it will always be, regardless of the type of government you live under. However, it may be more subtle in our system but it is still there regardless. Does this mean that your interests will never be heard and that the situation is hopeless? Absolutely not. A group just has to appeal to the candidate as well; it has to be a symbiotic relationship.

Of course, there are always the people who never bend in their views and are loyal to one sect or organization, say women's liberation, and only one organization throughout their life. Have their been people in power like this? Certainly. Have they been in power for a long time and have left a long-lasting legacy? No. If you are a leader (and want to be for a long time) you need to reach out to a broad range of people (with a lot of money).

-LL

NYMOM said...

Yes women will be worse off if they elect other women who don't focus on their concerns. First of all we lose the benefit of putting a male candidate in office, who has the natural affinity which most men have for women. This has been shown to have an impact even on sentencing for women. With female judges sentencing other women to harsher prison sentences then male judges. I'm sure it translates into other areas as well that we don't even know about yet so haven't measured.

So why bother is my question just to help some gender neutralized careerist get into power? No other group wastes their vote like this, so why should women?

LL said...

"So why bother is my question just to help some gender neutralized careerist get into power? No other group wastes their vote like this, so why should women?"

Well, the bottom line is I believe that the most qualified person should get the job with no special privileges. There shouldn't be special treatments on either side. If a woman is better than a male candidate at the job, then she should get the job and visa versa.

I don't think there really is much difference between a qualified male candidate as supposed to an equally qualified female candidate. I think the part that does help the female candidate though (when it comes to what women want) is the fact that she *knows* other women-she can formulate policy that can benefit other women that men may simply overlook since they are not females. Also, the fact she doesn't give a higher sentence to a man that commits the same crime a woman commits makes the justice system more impartial.

There is also the fact that a female candidate is just that, a female candidate; she may approach certain aspects differently than a man would approach them. The argument that men look at one goal, but women are generally process oriented and seek the finer details when performing a job. Sure, there are your "environment is destiny" individuals out there, but in reality, the nature-nurture debate is probably split somewhere right down the middle. There are "some" men that are better at doing certain things than women and there are "some" women that are better at doing some things that their male counterparts lack. There are exceptions of course.

I think my answer to you would cover this: the exceptions. There are some women who have the knack for the political-or, the "mans" life and there are some men who are apt to parlay the "nurturing" role, or, the job that women normally do. It's through choice, not force, that people should be able to do what they want to do in their lives.

-LL

NYMOM said...

There is no evidence whatsoever that women candidates formulate public policies that can benefit other women. Actually regarding custody of their children there is plenty of evidence that female Judges, GALs, evaluators, etc., treat other women far worse, just as what happens in women getting sentenced by other women.

Bottom line my one concern regarding women candidates is if they benefit mothers. If they help some other gender neutralized careerist females by opening up jobs for them, well this means nothing to me. As men have always helped women they liked get good positions. However, this blog and myself are about mothers and their children.

PERIOD.

I don't care about these other side issues.