With his radio shows, The List and Talking With, John Smart provides a great service by interviewing a wide spectrum of political activists, religious leaders, and other persons of public import, offering a virtual agora for open discussion, exchange of ideas, and debate.
On the July 27, 2011 edition of Talking With, Smart interviewed Amy Siskind, co-founder of The New Agenda (“TNA.”) Siskind’s comments were at once obfuscating and revealing. TNA’s singular goal is to increase the number of women elected to office. While every true liberal would welcome such an increase, TNA’s method of achieving it is counterproductive to promoting gender equality, and dangerously corrosive to our society in general.
Replacing (R) & (D) with (XX) & (XY)
Describing itself as an “organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home,” TNA vaguely sets its goals as achieving “safety and opportunity for all women by addressing issues which unite us and by advancing women into leadership roles.”
TNA claims it is a “non-political” organization. But aside from the token bio of an athlete or link to some actresses charity, (plus a blog devoted to the standard denunciations of society’s affronts to women), TNA is primarily devoted to supporting political candidates.
We also know, from Siskind’s own telling of the story, that TNA’s founding members were political activists: Democrats, feminists, but most importantly, Hillary Clinton supporters. Once upon a time, they fought for things like universal healthcare, social programs, a fair tax burden, gay rights, protecting the environment, and, naturally, women’s choice. That was their old political agenda.
Following the Democratic Party’s rejection of their beloved candidate, these women readily abandoned their former principles to embrace a new agenda — help elect women of any political stripe. TNA doesn’t give a damn what your position is on women’s rights or any other issue. if you’ve got the XX chromosomes, you’re deemed a better choice for the office than any man could ever be.
If any doubt remained whether TNA has replaced the traditional Left vs. Right political struggle with the battle of the sexes, one need only look at TNA’s perverse labeling of races — “Solid Woman”, “Likely Woman,” “Leans Man,” etc.
Searching for Sexism in All the Wrong Places
An additional objective of TNA is to oppose sexism against any female candidate. A laudable goal, considering the many & egregious instances of sexual stereotyping in the media and politics. Sadly, TNA can often be found tilting at windmills, attacking sexism where none exists. Let’s look at four examples among many:
1) Gypsies, Tramps and Sluts
As proof of Siskind’s theory that “powerful woman are always diminished by being thrown into one of three categories” — either “bitch,” “ditz” or “slut/whore”, she pointed to the accusations of two extra-marital affairs (i.e., “slut”) made against then-gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley. Siskind dismisses out-of-hand the possibility that these affairs actually may have happened. Yet the allegations by her former speechwriter and another GOP politico were made in some detail, were backed by sworn affidavits, and were considered credible enough to be investigated by at least one local paper.
Moreover, in Haley’s case, such questions were entirely germane. Haley ran on a “family values” platform, while a large part of her appeal lay in her image as a wholesome mom and obedient, Christian wife. Haley had also publicly censured her predecessor & erstwhile mentor, Mark Sanford, for his own affair. To expose the hypocrisy of such a “family values” candidate is no more sexist than to investigate the illicit affairs of Jon Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger … or Ted Haggard.
2) Shut Up, Bitch!
Back in 2009, TNA got its panties all in a wad over the perceived sexist slight of TNA’s official Hlllary surrogate, Kirstin Gillibrand. On the occasion of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, Gillibrand, like every other Democratic Senator, had been allotted five minutes to read into the record a brief, sugar-coated, meaningless endorsement. The notoriously long-winded Gillibrand “was just over 6 minutes and 15 seconds into what was to have been her five-minute speech” when chairman Patrick Leahy was seized by such overpowering misogyny as to gently remind Gillibrand that her time was up. When the loquacious rookie senator demanded “a minute more”, the wimminz-hatin’ Chair gaveled her.
TNA provided this “typical example of sexist behavior” from Leahy, who “apparently … didn’t take his anti-grumpy meds yesterday morning” — ouch, Amy! Talk about bitchy — with a thought bubble: “Sigh, young lady, what YOU have to say is simply not worth the time of day. Finish off so someone important (e.g. a male senator) can speak.”
Except that Gillibrand was the last speaker before the vote. Except that every other senator came in near or under the allotted five minutes. Nah … had to be the sexism.
3) The Shrill Word
Like other “gender-degrading” language, use of the word “shrill” has been banned by TNA as a “description of a woman’s natural vocal range:”
As we all know, the word ‘shrill’ has a very negative connotation when used to describe a woman or a woman’s voice. The term ‘shrill’ has recently been used by the media as a purposeful weapon against female candidates, although never male candidates.
This “disparaging adjective is a textbook example of gender-coded language that has been around for a long time…. This type of language is demeaning, misogynistic, and reminiscent of the Victorian era” and so must never, ever be used again. By anyone.
I was driving my kids to their post-camp pre-school dental appointments when my cell phone rang.
Cynthia … was calling to let me know that she was hearing that McCain would announce shortly AND that he had picked a woman!
On the way back from the dentist, the phone rang again — Cynthia was so excited when she called. She was screaming that is was Palin – we both shrilled with excitement.
This must be like how it’s OK for niggahs to call each other “niggah,” but we can’t. I don’t quite understand the logic, but how could I, seeing as I’m not a Shrill.
4) American History For Ditzes
On Talking With, Siskind accused the media of unfairly peppering Sarah Palin & Michele Bachmann with hard “questions on historical figures and Paul Revere” that male GOP candidates were not asked. In Siskind’s world-view, this can only be due to misogyny, and totally unrelated to:
- The Tea Party claiming philosophical heritage from the American Revolution;
- Both Palin and Bachmann exhibiting a glaring igrorance of said American Revolution by making outrageously false statements.
Siskind’s argument might be more persuasive had she presented examples of male TP figures bolloxing American History, and then highlighted the double standard in treatment. Yet she didn’t (or couldn’t), and instead copped out with her standard interpretation: that every attack on a female candidate is always a sexist attack.
Abortion Is Never an Issue (Unless Amy Says it Is)
TNA insists that abortion rights should never be a factor in women’s voting. TNA’s 2008 epiphany was that Choice v. Pro-Life only divides women, diverting them from their common goal of helping women everywhere beat men. So, TNA will never make a candidate’s stance on abortion an issue in a campaign.
Except when Siskind endorses a candidate, as she did with Meg Whitman over Jerry Brown. The “non-political” TNA felt justified in breaking its no-endorsement pledge because one of Brown’s (female) staffers used one of the FORBIDDEN WORDS to describe Whitman — “whore.”
So, in a Huffy Poo article, Siskind exhorted women, especially former Hillary supporters, to back Meggers — “a working mom” (ROTFLMAO) over Brown and his “long track record of sexism.” Siskind pointly referred to a decades-old Brown comment implying ambivalence on women’s choice, then falsely claimed that Whitman had never changed her position, when in truth Meggers had flip-flopped at least twice that year.
OK, except when Amy Siskind gets really mad, supporting a woman’s right to control over her own body is not relevant. Why? Because GOP “women understand women’s issues. Plain and simple.”
- That’s why TNA favorite Sharron Angle advised the victims of rape or incest to “make a lemon situation into lemonade”;
- That’s why TNA favorite Kelly Ayotte dragged Planned Parenthood before the Supreme Court in an attempt to save a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification prior to abortion on a minor;
- That’s why TNA favorite Nikki Haley voted repeatedly to make all abortions illegal, then as governor vetoed $56 million in education spending;
- That’s why TNA favorite Sarah Palin nominated a known perpetrator of sexual harassment for the position of Alaska’s public safety commissioner.
Qualified for Pub[l]ic Office
Siskind insists that Michele Bachmann “is very qualified to be President.” This ‘qualification’ must be Bachmann’s pudenda, since in most circles, a career House back-bencher with zero legislation and marginal real-world experience is not considered “qualified” to be POTUS. Unless, it seems, you’re a woman (or half-black), then you’re bumped to the head of the list, past truly qualified candidates.
In 2010, TNA lamented the low percentage of female candidates, but gushed giddily about how the GOP was “quietly filling its ranks with women.” But as I pointed out following the midterms, in 2010 the Democrats still lapped the GOP 2-to-1 when it came to running women. Yet for some unexplained reason, TNA displays an undue fondness for the GOP.
“I luuuv Susana Martinez!” Siskind exclaimed on Talking With. And what’s not to love? She’s got tits and a snatch, thus meeting all of Siskind’s rigorous requirements for public office. It’s just icing on the cake that Martinez also:
- Opposes federally-funded abortions;
- Opposes any form of gun control;
- Supports an amendment banning same-sex marriage;
- Supports school vouchers;
- Vetoed $56 million in education funding;
- Opposes any tax increases; advocates reducing corporate taxes to ‘create jobs’.
Not to mention that Martinez is a rabid global warming denier and anti-environmentalist who:
- Accepted $220,000 in contributions from gas & oil donors;
- Moved to gut state pollution regulations;
- Named a conspiracy crackpot as environmental chief;
- Violated the state constitution by ordering that new environmental rules adopted by the state not be published.
TNA had declared the 2010 New Mexico gubernatorial race a “guaranteed win for our side“ because Martinez’ opponent, Lt. Governor Diane Denish, was also female. Yet Siskind and TNA displayed an unmistakable preference for the Republican.
Why was TNA so lukewarm about Denish? She had a track record of helping families and young children, and advocated expanding early education funding and nutrition programs. She was pro-environment with a plan for creating green jobs. She supported single-payer healthcare with universal coverage for every child. Denish was heartily endorsed by the pro-choice Emily’s List. As Lt. Governor, Denish lobbied for the passage of DNA sampling known as Katie’s Law — the same Katie’s Law TNA wrongly credits then-county DA Martinez with introducing.
The real reason behind TNA’s embrace of the GOP? Revenge, ‘plain & simple.’` In the minds of these women, the Democratic party was their loser husband, Earl, his rejection of Hillary the last straw in a long and abusive relationship.
When will the women of this nation stop accepting “guilt gifts” from the men in their lives who act abusively?
So these ladies worked out a plan, and didn’t take long to decide that Earl had to die.
When will we finally deliver the tough love and consequences for improper behavior?
Enter the dapper, older gentleman, McCain, to whisper the sweet nothings that these jilted pumettes craved. Yes, we care about you. I sooo want a woman as my running mate! I value your input and your support.
Thelma and Louise Siskind and co. fell for it hook, line and sinker. It meant abandoning every liberal principle that fosters women’s rights and real gender equality, but the sweet taste of revenge (maybe with some fried green tomatoes on the side?) was worth it.
Earl’s the Democratic Party’s sophomoric and sexist “Liberal Dude Nation” antics, TNA has decided to get back by throwing themselves into the arms of another man Party: “Democratic (and newly Independent) women are finally saying: Enough! If this keeps up, in 2012, former and current Democratic women might just be pulling the ‘R’ lever.”
And there we have it: the sad, embarrassing spectacle of alleged modern woman, Amy Siskind, displaying the archetypical, emotional, irrational fury of a woman scorned.
TNA’s home page prominently features this definition:
Prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination on the basis of sex.
Yet selecting candidates solely on the basis of their their gender — the very agenda of The New Agenda — is sexism in its most raw and ugly manifestation. “Sexism has no place in this great country,” insists Siskind. Yet, on Talking With, out of the other side of Siskind’s mouth came “voting on gender is a relevant criteria.”
“How did we allow such a high level of acceptable sexism to exist and flourish?” asks Siskind. That query is a bit of joke from “a lifelong Democrat” who admits she voted GOP for the first time ever “for one reason: McCain selected a woman as his running mate.”
TNA’s smug pride in removing the “divisive” Choice issue is overshadowed by the far greater divide they create by pitting one half of the population against the other. Is the goal is to establish a political landscape where men & woman are treated equally? Where, as Siskind claims to seek, “all the candidates are put on equal footing” regardless of gender? If so, then TNA is heading in the absolute wrong direction by prioritizing gender in its selection and treatment of politicians.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. The New Agenda is wrong, very wrong.
(c) 2011 by ‘tamerlane.’ All rights reserved.