(This is my first diary in a looooooong time. It's good to be back, though I can't promise I won't disappear back into obscurity. I've been at Daily Kos for ages - my user ID is 663 - but though I read it multiple times daily I rarely post. Also, I recognize that I am not a woman, nor am I an expert on feminist thought; any misreading of feminism here is completely unintentional, and I apologize in advance and would like information that would allow me to correct my understanding.)
So's it's a lazy Saturday morning. I'm in a holding pattern on my dissertation while I wait for my advisor to respond to my most recent revisions in Chapter 3. It's raining here in the Atlanta area and I'm watching CNN whilst blogging. A story comes on about how women are upset at Obama for "not doing enough for them" - after all, they gave him 56% of their votes. In this story, a woman named Amy Siskind says that Obama is not being good for American women, and hasn't named nearly enough women to his Cabinet. (I haven't found video online yet; if I do, I'll post it.)
Now while I'm willing to allow for the last point (women are 52% of the electorate, after all), to say Obama is bad for women is being disingenuous at best. Let's examine what's going on here after the fold.
First of all, this week Obama repealed the global gag rule. Now I'm not so dense as to believe that one's views on issues of choice are the only way that one can be defined as "pro-woman," but the fact that the official view of the Obama administration - as set forth by this executive order - is that women worldwide have complete control over their own bodies certainly speaks volumes about Obama's views toward women. Remember also he should get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on his desk soon, and he has stated he will sign it. And of course, increasing accessibility and affordability of health care would help an awful lot of women; it would help an awful lot of people in general. These are not the acts of someone who thinks less of women.
Secondly, who is Amy Siskind? Well, if this article is true, she is a self-described lifelong Democrat who spent May 31, 2008 "telling a few hundred cheering people that she would not, under any circumstances, vote for Barack Obama." She is also the founder of The New Agenda, a "non-partisan" group devoted to women's issues (though tellingly, they take absolutely no position at all on issues of choice). Finally, she writes for The Daily Beast, which best I can figure is a center-right (though including some leftish types) answer to The Huffington Post. In short, we have a PUMA.
And that's OK, of course. She's entitled to her own opinions. Obama may yet prove to disappoint on women's issues, though you cannot empirically make that claim after less than one week on the job.
The final point here - and this is the most important - is that CNN decided to give this person airtime. I recognize that you have to fill up the 24-hour news cycle, but you're trying to rev up a controversy where, outside of the PUMAs and a few other groups, none really exists. Thus far, the major feminist blogs I've read are thrilled as all get out about the early days of this Administration. To put this person on TV and imply that she speaks for a significant minority of American women is disingenuous at best - and at worst, a continuation of the "Democrats in Disarray" storyline that has halted real progress in this nation for too long.
We all know that the corporate media is going to do its level best to fight the Obama Administration. Eternal vigilance is the key here. When you see something so blatantly off-kilter, say something. I'm drafting a letter to CNN right now.
UPDATE 1 (12:03pm): Wow. Thanks for the kind words.
Ms. Siskind has been saying this for at least a month now, and on CNN no less:
Why some women's groups are miffed at Obama
"Amy Siskind, co-founder of the nonpartisan group New Agenda, accuses Obama of taking 'shocking steps backward' and said 'this constituency does not matter to the president-elect.'"
The CNN story mentions nothing about Ms. Siskind's support of now-Secretary of State Clinton in the primaries or her appearance at the protests before the DNC meeting in late spring 2008 - just like today's article failed to mention these things.
UPDATE 2 (12:09pm): So's I go to the CNN homepage to send a comment about this particular story, and there, halfway down the CNN Politics page, is a section entitled "Discordant Democrats." The story today isn't up anywhere yet, but they're still pushing that particular meme. To quote Homer Simpson, "urge to kill...rising..."
WF