DAILY BEAST: Nancy Pelosi, Feminist Nightmare
November 20, 2009
by The New Agenda
|The following is op-ed by The New Agenda’s Amy Siskind is published at The Daily Beast.
Is there an extra seat on Air Force One? Given women’s fury last week over the Stupak amendment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi should have hitched a ride with Obama out of town.
But she did not. Speaker Pelosi continued along unfazed. After taking away insurance funding for reproductive rights, she went off to Massachusetts. There, Pelosi stopped by to endorse a man running against state Attorney General Martha Coakley, an immensely qualified Democratic candidate vying to become that state’s first female senator in the special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Pelosi’s not much for helping women in her party, even ones with similar views on policy, with their bids for historical firsts.
How did the most powerful woman in politics become a feminist nightmare? A major element in our battle for equality is getting women into positions of power. The hope is that these leaders, once in place, would promote women’s issues and encourage the next generation of women leaders. Speaker Pelosi reveals a flaw in feminist thinking: There are exceptions. A powerful woman can in fact be an enemy to women.
It’s odd that Pelosi would turn on women. Her congressional district is amongst the safest in the country, so she has a certain freedom to pursue her desired agenda. Is it because she rose to power via a traditionally male path? Her father was a U.S. congressman and mayor of Baltimore who helped get her internships and taught her the skill of keeping lists while maintaining a favor file. Perhaps Pelosi’s dereliction on women’s issues reveals something more dire: that women as a constituency have lost their bargaining power. Why did Pelosi do it? Because she can. There seems to be negligible political cost in selling out women and women’s issues.
But the Stupak amendment could well change that. For many women, the amendment should mark an end to an era of complacency. Unlike our mild awakening in 2008, conceived out of the awareness of rampant sexism—the Stupak amendment is more of an electric jolt, a call to arms.
• Max Blumenthal: Gillibrand Targets the Stupak AmendmentBut what women must grasp here is that Stupak is not just about reproductive rights. It’s so much deeper than a single issue. The passage of the amendment is a testimonial to the erosion of women’s power in this country. It’s a reminder that all women, regardless of party affiliation, are still second-class citizens. Women still make 77 cents of what men make; still suffer gender-based assault at escalating rates; and still occupy only 1 in 6 leadership spots in government, corporate America, and academia. These issues impact all women; yet, our situation is not improving. And in fact, as the Stupak amendment reveals, women are actually moving backward.
Should we be alarmed? Absolutely. Numerous aspects of women’s safety and well-being are under assault. Just this week, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a federal entity, presented its findings on mammograms, which could impact the ability of women under 50 to get insurance coverage for breast exams. Many voices, including the American Cancer Society, repudiated the task force’s findings and their dangerous consequences. Who could have imagined that the first target of the “death panels” would be women in their 40s?
The challenge for women as this next wave of “feminism” continues to unfold is to re-engineer our thinking on women’s advocacy. Unless you were sleeping for the last two weeks, you by now have realized that the Democratic Party is not the party of women. Nor is the Republican Party. We must, as a gender, unite around the issues that impact us all—just as our women senators have united this year to pass fair pay and to protect women contractors from rape. We should embrace what the current Newsmax cover describes as The Newer Feminism, which has a home for leaders regardless of political affiliation: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Suzy Welch, and Kathy Ireland, among others.
Women will advance when we bolster women’s representation in leadership positions. State’s Exhibit A: If it were not for women leaders, the Stupak amendment might already be the law of the land. Democratic Reps. Dianne DeGette of Colorado and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois pulled together a coalition. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand organized a news conference with other women leaders. Senate candidate Coakley courageously denounced the House bill while her male competitor (the one that Pelosi endorsed) pegged her as naïve. Meanwhile, women’s organizations were working together and organizing their members. Mind you, there was barely a peep from progressive men early on. Even Nicholas Kristof told women to subjugate their reproductive rights and get health care passed.
We must seize this moment to work together toward better representation and stronger women’s organizations. There needs to be accountability for those who sell us out. And here’s the conversation that we want to hear someday soon on Air Force One: “We need to prioritize women’s issues. Or else we won’t be able to get support from the numerous women senators or representatives that we need to advance our agenda,” says Madame President. In the meantime, ladies, it’s time for unity.
Ever see the movie about Malcom X with Denzel Washington? He describes two types of slaves, one group is the field hands, the other is the househelp and identify with the master. The househelp is concerned about the master’s well-being because they know that survival depends on the goodwill of the master–I would put Nancy in that group. She is acting in her own interest. Perhaps she feels that she has no choice, but is a sad commentary on her leadership skills and her moral compass.
In terms of the healthcare debate, the timing of the findings for mamographies and paps is quite curious. In stark contrast to what we have been told about early detection, we are now being told to be blissfully ignorant. If the cancer is detected, it needs to be treated and pallative care is likely less expensive than surgery and seeminly endless rounds of cheomtherapy.
I have written both of my senators and my congressman, and a letter to my newspaper regarding this callous disregard for the lives of American women. I hope everyone will do the same and raise hell because our lives are at stake.
And the next time someone calls from your political party (whatever party it is), tell them you would love to contribute, but you are too busy paying for whatever medical testing for women that the “experts” have deemed no longer necessary. But you’d would really like to help,really, if you could afford it.
Nancy Botoxi was chauffeured back and forth to schools in Baltimore in a limo… her pretty little priveledged feet were spared having to walk amongst the riff raff of the private Catholic schools she attended. She has never dealt with, or even been exposed to a reality of every day people , or their problems , nor does she really care.
Her career is about ambition and power . She has chosen the route to power ; not as a strong intelligent woman standing on her own ; but as one of those women that choose to appease and manipulate men . This is well researched and time honored route for women that see themsleves as only having power thru those that already wield it. This is the same mindset that views other women as competitors, whioh would explain her betrayal of Hillary along with other women . It is so evident in every aspect of her demeanor , that I find even her reflexive smile of approval seeking during her speeches repugnant. She is a sad, pathetic, and anachronistic representative role model of women.
Nancy is is a tool in the Liberal Democrat party patriarchy. She does not identify with women she identifies with the patriarchy she serves. I do hope Democrat women wake up and realize the Dems don’t give a rats a$$ about women. Has anyone heard from NOW recently? I’t be interested in the thoughts of Ms and NOW regarding our “feminist” President.
excellent article again Amy. will send around. my democrate friends have started.
listening.
As Anne E said above above: healthcare taskforces have come down to ration healthcare to women. not just abortion. no mammograms for <40 year olds and no PAP tests for <21 year olds. I happen to see gyn biopsies of women with severe dysplasia by PAPs. there is a significant number of teenager who have high grade dysplasia before they are 21. if they are detected at the level of squamous cell cancer they need much more extensive surgery than cervical biopsies and the survival rate will decrease. Cervical cancer is the number one success story for the success of preventive care.
Some states have started advocating Guardasil from age 14. so far the expected effects have not hold true. we still see lots of high grade dysplasias. on one hand advocating teenage sex and on other taking out preventive care is a recipe for failure.
I used to be worried about the healthcare proposals rationing of care for the old and very young (which contribute the largest expense). never would I have dreamed that the current administration goes after women's health care.
I wonder who sits on these health task forces. Probably no practicing doctors.
“botoxi”?
I don’t get it. Since when do feminists attack women for their looks? It’s one thing to object to her letting the Stupak amendment through, but “botoxi?”
Also, as someone who can’t get covered right now, I want to see what ends up in the final version of the bill before coming down on Pelosi for trying to get me insurance.
Actually it is a comment on her “false face” of hypocrisy , and her lack of character … not her actual looks … if she wants to pay the botox tax so be it … but let us not pretend she is genuine in character… evidently she herself… is more concerned with appearances than actual assistance for women.
Nancy P. is an example of a bad person. The fact that she happens to be a woman is just an unfortunate act of fate.
She is the epitome of evil politician, and I will mention the botox only because it is so comical and demeaning at the same time. She has enough money (of ours) to spend that she can botox the hell out of her face I know women dying for a mammogram.
I am ashamed of her on every level and would vote for ANYONE or ANYTHING running against her. This is where Janis and I part ways because I would not vote for Nancy if my life depended on it.
And if women cannot pay for abortions, even out of their own pockets.. ( which is what Nancy was willing to GET YOU } what does it matter what the rest of us “get” ??
I marched with bloody coathangers , worked with and for planned parenthood, and never needed an abortion myself…………. but health care for women includes the power of choice and autonomy over your own body .. since when it is ok for SOME OF US to GET care?? Rich women could always get abortions ya know……. cheesh…
Women have to play ball in a male dominated arena in order to make it in Washington. She isn’t doing anything different than a Liberal man would do. I thought we were non-partisan and we don’t talk about Choice anyway. It seems to me that most people on this blog support Sarah Palin and are against Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi. I’m really glad we have Nancy Pelosi in the position she’s in and I support her totally to deal with the real world in a real world way. She’s doing something for women just by being in the position she’s in and fighting for what she believes in as best she can. Why are we attacking these women just because they’ve gotten into a position where they have to compromise?
Rebecca –
If Nancy Pelosi does something to support women, I would support her. Yes, as House Speaker, she broke the “marble” ceiling and everyone cheered for her and her accomplishments. However, since she became speaker, she has been more focused on the Democratic Agenga at the expense of women’s issues. I believe that is what has TNA and other blogs infuriated.
I personally do not like the botax references – it is sexist in my opinion. But at the same time I have little respect for what she has accomplished since she became speaker. I fully remember her acceptance speech Nov. 20006 when Democrats took over the majority in the House and Senate. She promised us an open and honest government. What a dissapointment in that regard.
As for the choice issue – yes, TNA has gone a litte bit too left on that issue. I think though that TNA is trying to point out that no matter how hard a women’s group lobbies for somehting (pro-choice), it just got pushed aside for the “greater good”.
My apologies to the board on my typo – 2006 not 20006. This is what I get for blogging and trying to cook dinner!
Rabecca,
We want women to advance so they can represent our interests. When they get power, and then sells us out,its worse then men doing it because they are selling out their own.
I’m not a Palin fan and don’t think her policies are pro women. But at least she never claimed to support those policies that I consider pro women. She doesn’t pretend to beleive in something and then sell out her constituency.
On the other hand, Pelosi has claimed to be liberal pro-choice, equal rights, blah, blah, blah. And now she is pushing this sexist men’s health-care bill that blatantly marginalizes women’s health.
After helping the boyz steal the democratic nomination, Pelosi came out on T.V. insisting that if women wanted to keep abortion rights, they had to vote for Obama. The same ole, same ole “what about the Supreme Court?”
Less than a year into this guy’s presidency, she has played a significant role in turning back the clock on reproductive rights. She seems not to have any objections it these new HHS guidelines for pap smears and mammograms, that are clearly designed to ration women’s health care covered by the government, and which result in allowing insurance companies to reduce coverage for women’s health. She is a Judas!!!!
Her hypocrisy is sickening!
[...] More: The New Agenda » Blog Archive » DAILY BEAST: Nancy Pelosi … [...]
[...] Read the original: The New Agenda » Blog Archive » DAILY BEAST: Nancy Pelosi … [...]
can’t add to kendall’s and others comments on Pelosi. Rebecca, not standing up for womens health issues is not the usual compromising deal. she is just like the majority of the 83% male representatives who always will put women on the back seats, ignorant to the extreme.
the care issues with the new HHS guidelines are misogynistic and flawed.
they are not rationing prostate preventative care. I am sure one can come pup with similar numbers roughly 2000 not cancers to one cancer as with breast and cervix preventative care. first, this rationing is not even saving money. to treat one late detected invasive cancer can cost es much as doing the 2000 preventative exams. this is the situation where our private insurers like to have ceiling of compensation (meaning they won’t pay after a certain amount in the 100 thousands). second, the concept of statistics with negative and positive for cancer is flawed. The goal of preventative care is that you never see cancer. you spend money, money, money and hopefully never see cancer. this works because our bodies does not go from perfectly healthy to cancer, there are steps in between which are detected by preventative care. you find mild to severe dysplasias before you see cancer in situ (which means not invasive, 0 chance for metastases) or something like atypical hyperplasia through cancer in situ before you have invasive cancer. all the levels of disease before invasive cancer are fairly easy to treat with limited cost. and that is the reason why an organisation like the American cancer association comes to a different conclusion than HHS statisticians. I think i learned in my youth something like in old Egypt doctors were paid when people were healthy and not paid when they got sick. that would be a harsh incentive for preventative care.
to the concept of strategic voting for women until we have a certain number does in my view not contradict the points in this article. timid women like Pelosi who don’t dare to stand up against the almighty 83% male representative, may act quite emboldened if she were in a crowd of 50% females. andthe parties would accept female candidates if they knew women don’t vote for males, no matter how women friendly they sound.
Rebecca,
Women who act like men are part of the problem. I don’t support liberal men and I certainly don’t support liberal women. I support people who support women and the issues I believe in. Until we all start doing the right thing the wrong things are going to keep happening.
And Nancy Pelosi is wrong. She is a liar, she is a hypocrite, she LOVES spending our tax money, and her self-interest and ego are the only thing driving her. If she is this new feminism I’ve heard wind of, we are really f..ked.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) 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. More...