Planned Parenthood Welcomes Hillary's Nomination for SOS

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards lauds President-elect Obama's announcement naming Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State:

Senator Clinton understands that women's quality of life directly affects the major issues confronting the globe: national security, environmental sustainability, and global poverty.

In a speech that, by the standards of the Bush administration, sounds positively radical, Clinton addressed the Cairo Plus Five Forum at the Hague in 1999, saying,

"Women's reproductive health and empowerment are critical to a nation's sustainability and growth ... we now know that no nation can hope to succeed in the global economy of the 21st century if half of its people lack the opportunity and the right to make the most of their God-given potential. No nation can move forward when its women and children are trapped in endless cycles of poverty; when they have inadequate health care, poor access to family planning, limited education."

< Obama's Announcements | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Jerry's issue (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    Jerry believes he got a raw deal in his divorce and custody arrangement. It seems to inform everything about his life. He is kind of the Alec Baldwin of TL and hews to the unfortunate Mens' Rights agenda. There is little point in responding to him when he gets on a roll like this.

    Weeeeeell, if he wants "equal" rights (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    He can start by giving up at least 23% of his salary and his free Viagra and start paying for birth control. Again, just a start  ;)

    Be nice stray... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 04:50:38 PM EST
    Women traditionally have gotten the shaft far more than men in the history of the world, but to think that men in this country do not often get the shaft in divorce and family court is kidding yourself.

    Getting the shaft is getting the shaft...it's wrong.


    Actually, my response wasn't so much (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:03:40 PM EST
    about his getting the shaft in his divorce, but more about his comments in the thread. I know nothing about his divorce and wouldn't comment on that. BUT, any man that's going to start the equal rights whine . . . . .  {grin} I have a few pairs of shoes they can walk in.

    Do men "often" get the shaft on divorce in this country? I thought lack of child support was a big issue/problem, especially in the middle/lower classes?


    I was thinking custody... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:20:16 PM EST
    men don't get a fair shake in child custody battles, imo.

    Getting f*cked over because of your gender, race, sexuality...sh*t even your non-harmful to others lifestyle choices...it's just wrong, that's all.

    I'm a dreamer my friend, I long for the day when our inalienable sovereign individual human rights are so extensive and rock solid that there is no longer a need to break 'em down into sub-sections.  Though it seems like we take 3 steps forward and 2 steps back sometimes...or just a step back.


    Stability for the kids (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:41:25 PM EST
    is usually why the kids go with mom. And stability is not a physical location. It's caretaking. The mom being the main caretaker could evolve though, and then as men become more central in the caretaking area, we may see more balance in custody. Of course, that would mean women would need to be treated equal for the balance to happen ;)

    Over the past year or so, it's just felt like a step back.


    A very close male friend of mine got custody of (none / 0) (#35)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 06:16:42 PM EST
    his three kids and raised them to adults.  They are in their late 30's and early and mid-40's now so this was back in the early 70's when it was very unusual for men to get custody.  It was a hell of a battle for him but he persevered.  He once told me that he couldn't have survived without his kids, would have drank himself to death probably.  But in general I think that a lot of men do get the shaft in divorces and child custody battles, especially when the two "adults" can't get along or won't get along or whatever.  Unfortunately, it's the kids who suffer the most.  Lots of deadbeat parents out there.  I feel sorry for Jerry if he got the shaft.

    When I was a kid (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 06:24:27 PM EST
    my dad got custody, and truth be told, my mom had the more stable job too!  I believe there is a pro-mother bias in society that ends up getting reflected in the court system, but in my case we had a very good judge who was able to look fairly at the facts of my individual case and not prejudge.

    But on the whole, if you asked me whether mom or dad is likely to have the closer bond with the kids, I wouldn't expect it to be split 50/50 right down the middle, as an overall proposition.  But the role of the court system is to avoid deciding cases based upon stereotypes and generalizations, but to look at each case on its own facts.


    I disagree, kdog (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:07:40 PM EST
    Occasionally a man gets the shaft in divorce and family court. But more often than not the losers are the women and children. The women and children are the ones who end up living in poverty. Many men don't pay their child support, so many, in fact, that most states now collect the support from the non-custodial parent and pass it along to the parent with the kids.

    It is expected that the mother will "get" the kids. If she doesn't, she is vilified as a "bad" mother. A man who does not get custody faces no such condemnation.

    I have no sympathy for the Mens Rights people. The ones I have come up against are whiners who don't want to pay child support and want contact with the kids to be on their terms only. It is a power play for them.

    I'm no "mens rights" guy... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    I'm a human and individual rights guy.

    Of course, there are lots of dead-beat dads, I have no respect for any man that doesn't feed his kids who is able to feed his kids.

    But that doesn't mean there aren't dead-beat moms out there who deny fathers their rights, and the courts are often not receptive.  


    Yup (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 06:42:37 AM EST
    I had never heard the phrase "men's rights" before a few years ago, and now I've unfortunately heard it way too much -- in 3 different divorce/custody situations, including my sister's divorce and two friends of the family. In all 3 cases, there was a custody argument and, in all 3 cases, the mother won custody while the father claimed that his "men's rights" got the shaft.

    In one case (my brother-in-law), the father was a raging alcoholic who, while not abusive, was just a crazy drunk who would do things like park the card on the neighbor's lawn by mistake and get up in the middle of the night while apparently still drunk and pee in the corner of the kid's bedroom. A great role model and effective parent! In another case, the father was physically and emotionally abusive to both mother and child and had previous restraining orders against him. In the third case, the father was rather a benign but irresponsible slacker who couldn't hold down a job and spent all of his time smoking pot and watching porn on the computer in the basement. In none of these 3 cases did the father assume anything like half of the parental responsibilities - it was more like none or less than 10%. In all 3 cases, the mother worked full-time or more and did the vast majority of the parenting.

    So, I gather that 'men's rights' in custody battles means something like men should have equal  parental rights with none of the responsibilities that go with parenting. Otherwise, they are getting 'shafted'.

    In cases where fathers are responsible, equal parents, I fully support shared custody and so should the courts - best interests of the children. But I think it is rather transparent what the "men's rights" movement is really about.


    Then there is my brother's best friend... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:22:20 AM EST
    a devoted husband and father...then one day his wife decides to start two-timing him, then runs off with the backdoor man and his daugther upstate, 4 hours drive away.  He fought tooth and nail for custody throughout his divorce, the court decides the child is better off with the dirtbag mother.  He's lucky if he sees his child once a month between working all the time and the 4 hour drive each way.

    Now tell me he doesn't have a legit beef about his rights being violated.


    I wouldn't know (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:18:30 AM EST
    since I don't have all the details. I guess I'd have to take your word for it that she's a 'dirtbag' and he's 'devoted'. I only know the cases I know personally and well.

    Like I said above, in cases where both parents are equally good and responsible parents, I'm in full favor of joint custody - it's best for the kids that way.


    A good article by Susan Paige of the (none / 0) (#1)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    AP  today pointed this out as the change we will see in our foreign policy if Obama "lets" his SOS have more of a role than the master/servant one envisioned by MSNBC. Since Hillary has been on record for a long time in this concept, I expect "community health" to become a new focus in our FP and not a minute too soon.  Even tho' Obama was not my choice, I do believe he is progressive enough to move with Hillary in this direction.

    Somewhat off putting statement by Clinton in 1999 (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM EST
    No nation can move forward when its women and children are trapped in endless cycles of poverty; when they have inadequate health care, poor access to family planning, limited education."

    Senator Clinton has few supporters more enthusiastic than I, but I think this sentence would have been even more legitimate and much more inclusive had it been written:

    No nation can move forward when its people, men, women, and children are trapped in endless cycles of poverty; when they have inadequate health care, poor access to family planning, limited education."

    It's not clear to me that impoverished men aren't trapped in cycles of poverty (and prison) or have some magical escape valve that women and children do not.

    What was the context for her comment in 1999? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    The conference was on population and development (none / 0) (#5)
    by jerry on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    I didn't see too much about what the conference was about in a brief google.  It was a conference on international development and population.

    It's not clear to me that that makes it "a conference about women and children."

    Regardless of whether it was a conference for women, by women, to protect women, I still don't see why Clinton's statement is any less off putting.  

    I am told over and over that modern feminists:
    a) are actually humanists and egalitarians
    b) are very worried about everyone, including men
    c) are more worried about men than men are (patriarchy hurts everyone.)

    And yet, more often than not, I see/hear statements like Clinton's that needlessly seem to ignore men.  Or statements like the commenter below that calls me an idiot for saying something as mild as "her statement was off putting."

    If impoverished men have some escape route that's not prison, if they have some escape route that's not homelessness, if they have outreach to them that women and children don't, I am curious as to what that is.


    Don't get your shorts in a wad. That statement (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    was in 1999.  Surely she's said something since then to mitigate the damage you feel for her not including men in that ONE speech.  Sheesh.  

    I'm surprised. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    Usually it takes a bit longer for the "But what about the MEN!?!?!" objection to pop up in a thread about women's reproductive rights. I'm quite impressed that this thread has been so efficient.  

    we try. :) (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    I'm quite impressed that this thread has been so efficient.

    Yes, but your shutting down dissent with (none / 0) (#15)
    by jerry on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    mockery, shaming and other tactics is also right on target.

    I say her statements are off putting and explain why, and you go straight to an ad hominem attack.

    Why not discuss the issues?

    Why is it important for you to other, dehumanize others, and to shut down speech?

    I thought this was "TalkLeft", not mindlessly spout the talking points left.

    I find her comments offputting, and for you that is some sort of cardinal and sexist sin.

    I think it's the other way around.  Until you can describe to me the escape route that impoverished men have that women and children don't, perhaps this is an issue we should address.

    Are you aware how many of TL's blog posts are about impoverished men caught up in prison?

    Let's make sure we don't actually talk about them.  Wouldn't want to offend the women and the children.


    You do have a point Jerry... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:06:25 PM EST
    any knucklehead can see that there are more social and outreach programs for poor women and children than there are for poor men throughout the world.  I'm reminded of that scene from "Pursuit of Happiness" when Smith's character can't get a bed for him and his son at a shelter because the shelter did not allow men, only women and children.

    But all that being said, I don't mind there being more programs and outreach for women and children only.  I think men are more capable for providing for themselves in male-dominated cultures, such as those in parts of the Middle East and Africa.  Is it right?  Probably not, but it is probably necessary all the same. Men still get most of the breaks in most of the world, though it may not always be the case in the West anymore.


    Non-snarky answer (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    Okay, here you go. Non-snarky answer.

    The speech -- the link to which was provided by squeaky -- is, first and foremost, about women's rights. It's a variation on, and an affirmation of, HRC's famous Beijing speech, in which she famously stated that "women's rights are human rights."

    The context of this point is that for too long, the global community had largely parceled off and ignored women's issues in their otherwise admirable attempts to further human rights. The new thing that Clinton was celebrating in this speech was the growing recognition that we couldn't separate women's rights issues from human rights issues and realistically expect human rights issues to advance. Clinton argued that no culture that ignored the needs and voices of half its population could move forward -- it just wasn't possible. In order for a society to move forward, these peculiar "women's issues" had to be seen as human rights issues, not some subset of arguments to be dealt with at a time to be named later -- because the very deferring of those rights would doom what was perceived to be the "larger" struggle.

    That's the point of the speech -- celebrating and reaffirming that new thing, that newly gained perspective. To complain that she's not paying attention to men in the speech is to ignore the entire point of the speech -- the speech simply isn't about that. And worse, such a criticism backtracks on the progress that has been made in bringing women's issues to global attention, because the new perspective is the progress that was made, and that Clinton was celebrating in her address. To lose that perspective is to sacrifice the progress.


    Shorts in a wad? (none / 0) (#13)
    by jerry on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    I said her statement was offputting.

    I lied,

    a)  I loved her statement!  You go girl!
    b)  Her statement is not supported by logic, it's insensitive, and it leaves a lot of people literally out in the cold and hungry.

    As I said, her statement was offputting.

    If you want to tell me my shorts are in a wad, let's reverse that.  Such a mild criticism of Clinton has your panties all in a wad.  

    Why is that?


    How about I tell you to keep up the (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:53:49 PM EST
    child support payments?

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#16)
    by jerry on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:57:03 PM EST
    Ummm...getting a little personal here but I'm not (none / 0) (#20)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    wearing panties.  :)

    skip to the last paragraphs (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kempis on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    Hillary's speech.

    You'll see that she makes a point of including "boys" in her closing remarks, in which she expresses hope that making our children's present better will improve humanity's future.

    After all, those impoverished women are raising sons as well as daughters.


    Idiotic (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    One out of context quote to bone pick on? Your critique is at best a stretch, at worst,  pretty bad.

    This dialogue that was begun in Cairo among representatives from among one hundred and eighty nations came to a consensus for the first time: that women's reproductive health and empowerment are critical to a nation's sustainability and growth. The world agreed -- for the first time -- that smaller families and slower population growth are created by choice and opportunity, not control or coercion. And the world agreed that respect for women's rights must be a part of our efforts to improve the quality of life for all the planet's citizens.

    The speech was given in the context of women rights, reproduction and population issues.

    Context is everything. Your point seems beyond absurd to me.


    thanks for giving the link to the speech (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kempis on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    I hope everyone reads it.

    Jerry, if you read the entire speech, you'll probably see why your objection seems so unwarranted.


    What's your point? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jerry on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:15:30 PM EST
    That inclusion is bad?  That not discussing impoverished men is okay?  That the impoverished men have other ways out of poverty that the women and children don't have access to?  (If so, what?)

    Don't know why your attack on me is so virulent.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    Do you truly not believe that there are societies around the globe where opportunities which are open to men are not similarly available to women?

    Impoverished men and impoverished women (none / 0) (#17)
    by jerry on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:00:25 PM EST
    are pretty much sh*t upon the world over.

    Apart from the Army and/or certain kinds of slave labor, though, I am not aware in general of too many opportunities open to either.

    I am not a data collector, but the face of the homeless I see in the United States and many places I travel, while not exclusively male, is often a significant majority of male faces.


    Maybe because often times, impoverished women and children are given whatever access to shelters there are, and impoverished men are not.


    That's just not accurate (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    Throughout the world, women and children are much more likely to be negatively affected by poverty than men.  And women in many places are much less likely to have the resources to leave poverty because of constrictions on the type of employment they may pursue (or wages that are much less then men's for the same work).  

    In fact, in some countries women cannot work at all and are wholly dependent on a husband, father or other male relation.  If those relations die or decide to cast her and her children out, they are doomed.

    And in countries that are generally quite impoverished, women tend to fare worse then men due to societal norms.  Please read this account of a family in Burkina Faso.


    And I'll throw this in too (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST
    Regardless of your observation that most of the homeless you see are male, most people in poverty are female.  And women are less likely to have access to education around the world.  And health care.  And economic opportunity.  And fair treatment under the law.

    If you were to draw a picture of the "average" poor person in this world, that person would be a female.  And you cannot begin to deal with the issue of global poverty until you confront the specific issues women face in getting access to employment, health care, education, and financial assistance.


    My Point (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    Is that it appears that you did not read the whole speech, and that you have no idea as to the context of the speech.

    Shining a PC flashlight to cull out this one paragraph from a huge speech, in order to suggest that Hillary is either sexist, or unfair to men, is beyond ridiculous.

    Sorry that you are hurting that Hillary did not include you and your menfolk in that paragraph.

    Or is it that you are just being a concern troll, here?


    I read the quote from Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    and even without the context I found it something that needed to be said.

    To get graphic: can you imagine a society that would stone to death a 13 year old boy whose crime was that he had been raped? Yet this is happening to women. I think special attention has to be paid to this group of people who are targeted because of their gender.


    possibly, because your stated (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    objection was so transparently idiotic.

    Don't know why your attack on me is so virulent.

    but hey, that's just me!


    What objection did I make? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jerry on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 03:05:17 PM EST
    I said her statement was somewhat off-putting and explained why I felt that way.

    Apparently non-politically correct opinions are verboten.

    So let me say instead,

    "You go girl!"