<^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> ........Catt's Claws # 125 ... September 15, 1996......... ........ A Feminist Newsletter by Irene Stuber......... <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> <^> WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 (Catt's Claws) - ;-) Without the so-called gender gap in U.S. politics, the presidential race in 1996 would be a runaway as polls suggest men are throwing their votes away on a losing candidate. Polls over the past few months have shown a wide gap between the voting intentions of men and women, and that gap shows no sign of narrowing. A Gallup poll last week showed Dole trailing by 32 points among women but only trailing by an astounding single point among men. Conservative columnist Arianna Huffington whose husband is an ultra- rich white Republican who spent $30 million of his own money in a dirty but futile campaign to unseat one of California's two women senators said the gender gap, far from being a transient phenomenon, had become a fundamental feature of U.S. politics. "The gender gap of men splitting of their vote 50-50, is fundamental thing because it points to a basic flaw in the Democratic message," one writer explained. "When men are asked about the economy, their answers have to do with their own pocketbooks and ignore the plight of people in need," the writer said. "When Democrats upheld many government programs, they were seen by men as destroying men's control at home and in government, and destroying their ability to be the sole deciders of who is to receive food and health care." That became clear in some two dozen interviews with voters conducted by a news service last week, in which one man after another expressed fear that Clinton would keep valued social programs that half the men want to be dismantled. In an op-ed in a conservative newspaper, one writer argued that there were important differences in the way men looked at social issues and judged which ones were key issues. Men tend to be uncaring towards others' emotion, like to take risks with the social protections, and are keenly competitive rather than depending on tried and true economic methods. For example, men don't think abortion should be an election issue. One prominent Republican boasted how the party came through with a strong anti-abortion plank and that the Democrats in supporting choice have lost the ability to communicate with men in terms they could understand. The Democrats explain problems as they affect their families and their children instead of using charts and graphs that the average man likes, While Clinton is shown being friendly and revealing his emotions, men are more drawn to Dole who appears uncomfortable even shaking hands. Men are also drawn to Dole's position opposing the popular family leave law that allows women and those men who would do so to take time off from work to care for a new baby or a sick family member. While Clinton calls it one of his proudest achievements, half of the men agree with Dole's interpretation: "why should the federal government be getting into family leave? It ought to be left to the employees or the state or the county and the federal government ought to be out of it." Obviously men want to continue to control their employees personal lives or the lives of their wives. A White House spokesperson said, "Ninety percent of the businesses say that it's right to be able to provide leave when you've got someone who's sick in the family, or someone who needs attention," and that obviously is at odds with the opinion of half of the men. For half of the men, the abortion issue has become emblematic, of a party that advocates freedom from government control except where the reproductive rights of women are concerned. Half the men obviously believe women must be controlled. "Men increasingly feel the Democrats don't understand their problems, don't value their part in society and want to prevent them from returning to being supreme rulers in their own homes." ==================== (No, this is NOT a parody - it is only *slightly* rewritten from a column by Alan Elsner, Political Correspondent of the NY Times and all we've done is rewrite the masculist opinions to bring them into line with feminist principals. Our apologies to Elsner, but frankly, we're sick and tired of being written about all the time as "the other." We thought we'd rewrite the usual macho man, him boss garbage from the valid viewpoint of the majority. Listen up guyz. Yes, I said MAJORITY. In a speech I give about how women have gained political and social power in the United States, I delineate many of the problems women had to overcome, how they did it and then summarize where women's rights are today. "How did it happen?" I say. "Anything magical? Hardly. Day by day, week by week, year by year, through the millennia women fought for their human rights. Inch by inch. Let Carrie Chapman Catt, after whom my column is named, sum it up. She said in 1920, only 76 years ago after a major victory for women's dignity: "I have lived to realize the great dream of my life - the enfranchisement of (American) women. We are no longer petitioners, we are not the wards of the nation, but free and equal citizens. "To get the word 'male' out of the constitution (Irene's aside: put there in the 14th amendment which by its careful wording intentionally disenfranchised and de-citizenshiped all American women) cost the women of this country 52 years of pauseless campaign ... During that time they were forced to conduct 56 campaigns of referenda to male votes, 480 campaigns to get (all-male) legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to votes, 47 campaigns to get state constitutional conventions to write woman suffrage into state constitutions, 277 campaigns to get state party conventions to include woman suffrage planks, 30 campaigns to get presidential party conventions to adopt woman suffrage planks to party platforms and 19 successive campaigns with 19 successive Congresses. "WOMEN HAVE SUFFERED AN AGONY OF SOUL WHICH YOU CAN NEVER COMPREHEND, THAT YOU AND YOUR DAUGHTERS MIGHT INHERIT POLITICAL FREEDOM. "THAT VOTE HAS BEEN COSTLY. "PRIZE IT." My speech continues: "This is then is your political heritage. Not Washington, but Carrie Chapman Catt. "Not John Adams or Thomas Jefferson but Abigail Adams. "Today women constitute 53% of the voters of this nation. While Abigail could only dream of the power, the fact is, that the women in 1996 HAVE the power. It's no longer a dream. We are now able to control our own destinies at the ballot boxes. We are the majority. "It is the culmination of the dreams of millions of women since time immemorial. "It is also an awesome responsibility because you and only you are in charge of things to come." Then I pause and in a wry tone of voice say, "Congratulations?" . . . . . . . ^c^c^ . . . . . . . I feel strongly about the vote, both as a researcher into women's history and as one who has seen a lot of changes as I come nearer the biblical three-score and ten. So when I hear so-called feminist leaders betraying women by suggesting women NOT use their vote in 1996 - when the options are so plain - I am sickened. These "leaders" are betraying all those brave women of the past who fought so hard to change things so that we have the vote today and so we have the power. Those "leaders" would betray our children and their/our rights in the future. Please, make sure all the women you know are registered to vote. Then make sure they vote. Women have the power IF WE USE IT. We can change the way our government is run, but ONLY IF WE VOTE. ONLY IF WE PARTICIPATE. Only if we stop listening to so-called feminist leaders who want us to stay victims by staying home. . . . . . . . ^c^c^ . . . . . . . We found it fascinating that a NOW activist mailing included the WRITTEN statement, and not what Patricia Ireland ACTUALLY SAID before TV cameras on 08-22-96 - a verbal statement that created such a firestorm that I faxed her, begging her to correct it. The NOW statement written by Melinda Shelton or Diane Minor (both excellent writers) reads (in part): "While some of us may hold our noses and vote for President Clinton, many of us will refuse to lift a finger or contribute a penny toward his re-election. We know he is at best our option this year, not our answer. The real hope for tomorrow is right here among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to fighting back. We will take our energy and anger over this bill and put it into the campaigns of candidates who have the courage to vote correctly, out of their convictions. We will remember in November." HOWEVER, CNN and AP, etc., recorded Ireland as SAYING: "This fall, we will be voting for the lesser of two evils," NOW President Patricia Ireland said. "Many of us will hold our noses and vote for President Clinton, but others of us will not - we'll be discouraged voters who will simply stay home." Yes, Patricia - we will remember next summer in Memphis when YOU are up for re-election. "(1994) The Year of the Angry White Man was also the Year of the Turned-Off Woman. A full 59 percent of the American who voted in 1992 but stayed home in 1994 were women. That was the Gingrich margin of victory." -- Ellen Goodman in a recent column. And Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, wants women to stay home this November - a move that would give Bob Dole and the radical religious right complete control of our government from the Congress to the White House to the U.S. Supreme Court. Even suggesting that women stay home on November 5 is so repugnant, such a slap in the face for the millions of women who have fought for the right to vote and are working so hard now for equal rights, that I am left sputtering. Every woman who stays home on election day is effectively voting for radical religious right and the officials of NOW know that. They can't be THAT politically naive/ignorant....or is it actually a personal pique that drives the officers of NOW in their anti-Clinton campaign? . . . . . . . ^c^c^ . . . . . . . Let me thank the many, many NOW members and state and local chapter officials who have written me to express their support. I am keeping faith with their wishes to remain anonymous because of their fears of reprisal and so they can stay effective within the organization's hierarchy, namely the national board. The nastiness towards Tammy Bruce is high in people's memories. . . . . . . . ^c^c^ . . . . . . . This week Planned Parenthood announced it is asking the FDA to approve the use of Methotrexate and misoprostol for abortions. The FDA approved drugs have been used for abortions for several years. Catt's Claws started telling about the drugs in our 10-01-95 issue. For almost a year, EVERY MONTH, we have been repeating and repeating the facts, vowing that this time it would not be forgotten. Two women physicians made announcements of FDA approved drugs being effective in abortions several years ago, but their reports were ignored. I could no longer find those articles but I vowed - even in the face of the Henry Hyde ban on abortion information on Internet - that the new findings would not be suppressed again. So EVERY month we published the findings. We have no idea if our constant repeating of the facts about methotrexate and misoprostal for abortions had anything to do with PP's move, but we do know that we kept knowledge of the process alive to lay people. So maybe we helped... This is what has been published over and over again in Catt's Claws: Medical authorities are saying the use of two already approved drugs that induce abortions when used in combination has produced a surge in abortions but no one will realize it for several years because they are being prescribed quietly and in private in doctor's offices. Dr. Richard U. Hausknecht of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York published a study of the use of the combination of methotrexate and misoprostol to induce abortion in the Aug. 31, 1995 New England Journal of Medicine. In years past, several doctors, including a woman doctor released the same information and after the first news story, it was quietly ignored/suppressed. Catt's Claws vows this time the information will stay available. Methotrexate is FDA-approved for use against cancer; Misoprostol is FDA approved to treat ulcers. Because both are FDA-approved, they can be prescribed by physicians today and together, they produce abortions at a better rate than the RU-486 pill. Available today at your friendly M.D. (And soon at your friendly Planned Parenthood clinic!) . . . . . . . ^c^c^ . . . . . . . Love the cartoon of Ann C. Telnaes that shows a frowning, self- confident working woman wearing a modified power suit holding a strong whirling fan aimed at a man labeled Hillary Bashers. The Hillary Basher is throwing mud from a large bucket - with the expected results of pissing into the wind - the crap is blowing back all over him. . . . . . . . ^c^c^ . . . . . . . If anyone - ANYONE - has any doubts that women are deliberately not acknowledged so that women's words may be stolen by men; words that are then allowed to repeated as the man's own pearls of wisdom for which the man is rewarded (and the little lady originator ignored and debased) ... Well, read the following: "...Came this stupendous scoop by the actual Bob Woodward about how Hillary had an imaginary conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt - revealed to an astonished world only months *after* the first lady wrote all about it in her widely syndicated newspaper column." - From a 1996 Molly Ivins column. . . . . . . . ^c^c^ . . . . . . . We have subscribed to a wonderful weekly publication _Liberal Opinion_ that contains 32 pages of columns and cartoons by America's leading liberal voices from Molly to Ellen to HRC to Deb Price to Cynthia Tucker with cartoons from Eleanor Mill to Ann C. Telnaes. What a pleasure ... Call toll free 1-800-338-9335 for information. The sample copy I received contained the cartoon by Don Wright which shows Bill Clinton holding up a Newsweek magazine cover resplendent with a picture of Joe Klein labeled "our liar." Clinton says, "You wanted to talk about character?" . . . . . . . ^c^c^ . . . . . . . A cry for a health warning on the packages of birth control pills has been ignored by the FDA since 1989. LONG TERM USE OF BIRTH CONTROL PILLS MAY BE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN BREAST CANCER IN WOMEN YOUNGER THAN 45 YEARS OLD. Why hasn't a surgical procedure been developed - or publicized - that is as easy on a woman as a vasectomy is for a man. Don't tell me about inside and outside. Gall bladder surgery has women walking the next day ... ....................... * ........................ Women's rights are young and tender and we must protect them from the plagues of holy hypocrisy and newts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>> Send your ideas, comments, and news to istuber@cswnet.com for inclusion in the Catt's Claws feminist newsletter which will be emailed up to three times a week. This is NOT an interactive discussion net but an exchange of information. Catt's Claws is NOT sponsored by any organization. We are accepting *limited* donations (only what can be spared) to help offset the online costs of posting Catt's Claws. Copyright 1996, Irene Stuber. PO Box 6185, Hot Springs, AR 71902.<<<< To receive Catt's Claws by email, write and in the body of the note . Post all comments on the contents of Catt's Claws to istuber@cswnet.com. We thank Jennifer Gagliardi for handling the madding subscription list through her listserv.