NY NOW accusing Edwards and Obama of "gangbanging"

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President
January 11, 2008

Search Site With

by Marcia Pappas, President NOW - New York State

" We've all witnessed scenarios where, on the playground little girls are being taunted by little boys while both girls and boys stand idle, afraid to speak up or even cheering. Or, in the workplace males tease young and older female co-workers; make obscene gestures, inappropriate comments, laughing and expecting (often correctly) that everyone will join in. Then there was that movie where Jodie Foster portrayed the true story of woman who was ganged raped in a bar while others looked on and encouraged the realization. Still others pretended the rape didn't happen. In short, gang raping of women is commonplace in our culture both physically and metaphorically.

This past week, we witnessed just such a phenomenon involving men who are afraid of a powerful woman. Hillary Clinton, in her quest for her Presidential nomination, has in fact endured infantile taunting and wildly inappropriate commentary. Indeed we have witnessed almost comical attacks by John Edwards who in turn sided with Barak Obama as both snickered at Clinton's "breakdown," which consisted of a very short dewy-eyed moment. Now John Kerry, who should certainly know better after his own "swiftboating," has joined the playground gang."

....

"Think about the legacy we'll leave behind when we support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Let’s put a stop to the psychological “gang banging” of women and girls. Let's stand up and be counted by way of the hard-won votes we can now cast!

Marcia A. Pappas, President, NOW New York State"


____________________________________________________________


Ok, first of all I found this by way of trying to research the "Kennedy's ultimate betrayal of women" accusation that is traceable back to the Albany NY times blog section which is apparently down. This was also reported in "Freerepublic" so it could be just an internet lie. However, what I found was the statement above which in my opinion is worse than the "ultimate betrayal of women" charge but certainly makes the other more believable.

So I have to ask:

1.) Is this shit for real?
2.) Doesn't the charge of Edwards and Obama "gangbanging" Clinton seem over the top?
3.) Wouldn't a similar charge of Edwards and Clinton "lynching" Obama be seen as pretty goddam dumb and divisive?
4.) Is this how women really feel about this election cycle?

I recognize that what the NOW NY president is getting at is important and serious but to charge Edwards and Obama with symbolic rape seems to really be the wrong thing to do. It's unethical and immoral in my opinion. Furthermore, it cheapens the use of the word rape, which is one of the most heinous and egregious things people do to each other, whether the victim is woman, child, or man.

Can any Clinton supporters please either defend or denounce this? I need some perspective here because I'm taking aback that people, especially people in very high positions actually think and write this way.

Gangbanging is an incredibly inappropriate term to use for more than one reason here.

My guess is that this screed will not be changing anybody's mind.

How dare we accuse Obama or Edwards of doing anything wrong. They can bash and trash, and whine and foam at the mouth and it's all fine. But if Hillary attacks it's dirty politics. And clearly, Hillary outed Obama. Nobody had an inkling that he was black, until she played the race card. What crap.....

The male population is deathly afraid of having a woman in charge. And, yes...a lot of women are afraid of this too. They like being the weaker sex and having a man take care of them. They don't want Hillary to mess with that.

If I thought she was the best, I would support her. If I support her while not thinking she's the best, that's patronizing to women, not fair.

you can't blame the victim card over and over, you know what the GOP will do in the fall, they will goat our candidate to play the victim card and then assail them over and over as whining. Edwards can't do it, Obama can't and certainly Clinton can't.

Thanks, but I disagree with her positions. Sue me.

My reaction -- they can go gangbang themselves.

before she really pisses off a lot of women who support Obama and Edwards.

JMHO.

sounds like a desperate renegade who is very bitter

Two guys piling on a woman moves beyond bullying into a somewhat sexually charged image, at least subliminally.

This is a more direct and graphic version of what Clinton's supporters have been saying for a while. The goal of getting women to identify and sympathize with Clinton is the same.

Comparing anything in politics to mass rape is sick. Having it come from a NOW president is beyond incredible.

it's hardly current and hardly reflective of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

:crazy:

:eyes: And what horrible terminology. :wow:

What a crock! To say it's commonplace in our culture both physically and metaphorically is a crock too. I'm 57 and have never seen such a thing. Can't be that common. Billary should be able to stand the rigors of the campaign trail or she won't be able to stand the rigors of office.

Clinton was the front runner. The front runner gets ganged up on in every primary in both parties. But now we're supposed to treat it differently because it happened to a woman this time?

I see what she's doing here. She wants women who have been harassed or abused by men to sympathize with Hillary. I think its disgusting and cynical.

Hillary Clinton can take care of herself and certainly doesn't need this kind of comment.

This entire campaign was a disgrace from the start but now it's getting scary

And good for her for daring to speak up, I don tthink Hillary was “gangbanged”, but it is definitely the first time in history where a woman can be serious contender for the U.S presidency, and there are many men , including Obama and Edwards, who don’t know how to respond appropriately to a woman running. This is what some women see and it is not a suprise to me, because I do feel that Edwards and Obama are ganging up on Hillary at times, and right or wrong, gender does play a role in how we interact with each other during social interaction.

It's disgusting and delusional. I suppose that's what she gets for swilling koolaid for seven years.

Deal with it.

as Obama the crackhead and Obama the terrorist. Do you really want to enable that kind of foolishness?

running. I don't think it's Obama or Edwards who are making a point of Hillary being a woman. Hillary should not be handled with kid gloves because of her gender. If she or anyone else thinks so, then they are a detriment to the womens' movement.

, its just that maybe there are different communication styles between men and women.

baby goats are called kids and the leather made from their skin in very soft, but not durable.

I guess I'm a usage nerd. Sorry.

I was kind of enjoying the visual of someone being treated with kids gloves. All those fingers with different colors and teddy bear and dinosaur appliques.

No different than how PETA hurts their own cause with their outrageous stunts.

Leave it to this "chick" to make the Duke rape diehards look reasonable.

I was in a really nasty regulatory hearing last week with three women taking turns trashing me and my employer. Did they "gang bang" me?

Or were they just doing what PR hit squads are paid to do?

Choo Choo!!

:spray:

How long before your post disappears??!!

:shrug:

CHOO CHOO!!



:rofl:

After Bush, the only thing that works on attacks is the bullshit.

on a pool table at Big Dan's. why i never made that nexus before is beyond me.

:sarcasm:

talk about hyperbole.

and insulting. x(

and someone MUST have proofread this beforehand. I'd like to think they were also disgusted but that their concerns were ignored. The alternative is to believe that more than one person in NYNOW didn't see any issues with this sort of language.

Interestingly enough, she makes the claims that the other candidates are attacking her just because they "are afraid of a powerful woman". Yes, gender discrimination is wrong. People should be chosen based on their qualifications, rather than their gender (or race, or sexual orientation). Just then, she seems to go on to suggest that we should vote for Hillary simply based on her gender. I guess it's okay in her book to support someone only because of their gender, but not attack someone for the same reason, but maybe that's just how I'm reading it.

I completely agree with Bread and Circus.

This commentary does not help Hillary's campaign and it does not help the cause of equality between women and men, which is what I always believed the women's movement was fighting for.

Most seriously of all, it trivializes rape and gang-banging to the level of name-calling.

Question 3 is totally right. Imagine if the President of a black organization in Illinois had written an online piece saying that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards had joined together to take part in an "almost comical" psychological "lynching" of Barack Obama.

I was mildly amused by the idea that, by seeking the Democratic nomination for President in the same year that Hillary is also a candidate, both Edwards and Obama can be put into the category of "men who are afraid of a powerful woman". And then I thought of Elizabeth and Michelle!

Riiiiight.

:eyes:

Just kiddin'....:evilgrin:

I vote for an 'anti-DUzy' for you. >.<

:evilgrin:

n/t

is all this NOW-NY stuff maybe some kind of a hoax?

Look at the date of the article.

It was just after the NH primary, when Hilary was taking gender-based attacks on every side.

She's a robot. No, she's ANGRY. Oh god, she's CRYING. What a LIAR - those tears are FAKE!

How is criticizing someone for being angry a gender based attack?
How is criticizing someone for lying a gender based attack?
How even is criticizing someone for crying a gender based attack?
and how is criticizing someone for faking emotion a gender based attack?

Any of these criticisms can be perfectly acceptable. It is only when Hillary's flaws are attributed to her womanhood that it becomes sexist. In that way any of these above criticisms COULD be a "gender based attack" but that does not mean that they necessarily are.

Or supposed lack thereof.

It's about as acceptable as someone calling Obama "uppity," and / or "articulate."

when they are attributed to her womanhood, but that goes to the individual criticism and the individual making the criticism.

It is a logical fallacy to say that because Chris Mathews (for example) criticizes Hillary's female "emotionality" (and I'm not sure that even he has been that overt) it does not follow that criticism of the specific emotion expressed is necessarily sexist.

Simply saying that they "are always attributed to her womanhood" does not make her so. That would imply that every criticism ever made of Clinton is either of her womanhood or motivated by her womanhood. That is not to say NO criticism of Clinton is either OF her womanhood or motivated by her womanhood, but theoretically the same criticism of the same person could be motivated by two different feelings.

For example it is my feeling that Clinton's "tearing up" moment was somewhat manipulative and insincere. My criticism was not based on any feeling that "because she was a woman" she was "too emotional" rather it was based on the idea that a person should not use emotion as a bludgeon to shame people into voting for them. Now you could call that sexist, but that would presume that women have a right to engage in certain behaviors that would be considered inappropriate in others.

My perception might be off, but that is a subjective opinion and certainly a blanket statement like "all criticism of Hillary is rooted in sexism" is as subjective as it gets.

jmo

:banghead:

How low class is that.