You know, all this hand-wringing about young women’s alleged alienation from second-wave feminists would have a lot more saliency if Hillary Clinton were not a representative of the New Democratic wing of the party, if her campaign staff and advisers were not dominated by veterans of her husband’s campaigns, if she were not running a racially polarizing campaign, if she didn’t have severe electability issues (high negatives, issues with the truth), and if she could plausibly represent change and non-elitism after living for eight years in the White House.
People are simply voting against Clinton for other reasons than that she is a woman. Nearly every Obama supporter sees Clinton’s gender as a plus and would be pleased to vote for a woman for president. They are voting against Clinton either because they are inspired by Obama, or because they are progressives that oppose Clintonism, or because they can’t stand her advisers, or because they have been alienated by her campaign’s rhetoric, or because they believe in Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy, or because they look at Clinton’s negatives and vulnerabilities and conclude she is less electable, or because they are just plain sick of the partisan bickering of the 1990’s and don’t want to live in a political climate where Bill Clinton’s penis is a constant source of speculation.
I’ve met a few people at bars over the last two years that have openly admitted that they would never vote for a woman…any woman. They weren’t Democrats and most of them won’t vote for a black guy either. I’m not saying that Clinton hasn’t been the recipient of some misogynistic rhetoric from political commentators. But none of it has come from the Obama campaign.
Clinton’s problem is not that she is a woman but that, for a whole host of reasons, she is a flawed candidate. Rejecting her is in no way a rejection of feminism.
here’s my surprise. Without. any. prodding, all the women in my circle and outside my circle of influence don’t like and will note vote for Hillary.
Can’t explain it.
Btw, Hillary’s bar gig, calling Obama, Gore and Kerry elitists is not working.
April 14, 2008. Nice graphic too.
Gallup Daily: Obama Numbers Holding Strong
all of the above. I am opposed to Hillary for all of the above. I am inspired by Obama, while keeping his lack of experience in mind as a concern. I oppose Clintonism. I dislike INTENSELY and WITHOUT CEASING the notion of Bill Clinton again being at the center of things. I see NO elements of Hillary’s program which are not directly from Bill’s. Did you catch on Saturday that she promised to bring back the 100,000 new cops on the street? This was a direct Clinton program.
She can be a flawed candidate and there can STILL be sexism. Just as there can be a flawed candidate and there can STILL be racism.
I don’t believe you are sexist. I completely believe that you are against Hillary Clinton for all the reasons you say.
But it bothers me tremendously that you refuse to even acknowledge that there might be sexism in other people who are supporting Obama and that sexism might contribute to their refusal to vote for Hillary.
From that article:
(emphasis mine)
The possibility. The mere possibility.
It’s as if examining that possibility and actually finding sexism means that OH MY GOD now everyone will have to vote for Hillary. No. They won’t. There are still all the good reasons you listed not to vote for her.
But I really think you should consider the possibility that sexism is present in this race. I think there is. I feel it in my daily life talking to white male Obama supporters – but like many women in this piece, it’s hard to put my finger on the exact reason. But I’m a rational professional woman who has dealt with sexism all my life and I don’t call sexism at the drop of a hat; so when I feel it I tend to think there’s a real possiblity that it is there.
It would be a lot easier to determine if this feeling and suspicion might be true if we could talk about it.
Might be true.
Can you open your mind to ‘might’?
Some people won’t vote for Clinton solely because she is a woman. I don’t know any Democrats that feel that way, but I have met some jerks that have no compunction about admitting that they don’t want a woman running things. And I know that there are some Obama voters in that group, but none in my experience.
I think what we’re really getting at is that Hillary’s gender is a component for some men. Yet, how many Democratic men would vote for McCain over Clinton because she is a woman? How many do you know? Any?
When I see white well-informed progressives supporting Clinton, I admit that the prospect of unspoken (perhaps unconscious) racism enters my mind. But almost none of them are racist enough to vote for McCain over Obama.
So, yes, gender is a factor. But it is just not what is hurting Clinton’s campaign. I think there is a much stronger case that gender (and racism) is what is sustaining her campaign.
And my specific point or reaction to the piece was that hand-wringing over young women supporting Obama as if they were committed some act of betrayal against second-wave feminists is way off the mark. It might have been the case if they weren’t so many good reasons to vote against her.
And that is a discussion of the motives of women vs. women, not possible male chauvinism.
I don’t want to talk about male chauvinism. I hate labeling people with “ist” words: racist, sexist, mysoginist, male chauvinist, etc. Because then we get sidetracked into whether that person really is whatever the “ist” label says he or she is. But I think we could have constructive conversation about whether and to what extent gender and race are influencing voters.
And part of that discussion is what people perceive, whether it is backed up by data or not. It’s hard to put your finger on it because because there are too many valid reasons not to vote for Hillary. So we are left with perception. You say you don’t perceive it. Some people do, including me. We should allow everyone’s perceptions into the discussion.
My point is that this is the first time we’ve had a woman run who people could realistically believe could be the next president of the United States. There are all kinds of good reasons not to vote for her that have nothing to do with her gender. But it is also an opportunity to examine the extent to which gender is an issue in the Democratic party. Just because it might not be THE factor for why she will lose doesn’t mean it’s not important to talk about.
For those of us who are women, it is very important. Even when we are NOT supporting Hillary. The failure of many male Obama supporters to take our perceptions seriously is seen as demeaning. THAT’S a large part of what that article was about. Not about Obama – but about Obama’s male supporters.
Yes, I know Democratic men who have told me that they will vote for McCain over Clinton. They are professional men so they would never admit if it was because of gender. But I have a deep suspicion that if she was a male candidate who was just as deeply flawed they would vote for him over McCain. I of course can’t prove that. But when they follow up their list of issues on why they don’t like Hillary with things like “and her voice just drives me crazy” – it makes me think. But of course – that is just a perception.
Certainly I would hope that they would change their mind – especially if their wives and daughters pointed out the choice issues involved in this election. And hopefully it won’t be an issue anyway. But yes, I’ve encountered it.
don’t take this as glib, and I’ll try to respond to your larger point in a bit, but her voice actually is an issue, and I’ve discussed that with you.
It’s doesn’t make me want to punch her in the face like the man in the article but it does make my cringe when it reaches a certain decibel. And I try not to let that influence my opinion of her and I certainly would never support a Clinton of any gender in a competitive primary against any reasonable Democrat, so her voice is the least of my issues with her campaign.
But, let’s ask this question.
Is there anything sexist about having my nerves set on end by someone’s voice? I don’t think so. No more than it is sexist to dislike fingernails on a chalkboard.
It is a superficial factor that isn’t unimportant, but also isn’t sexist.
I think sometimes people mistake people’s visceral aversion to her shrillness for something that extends to women in general. That’s not the case.
And…enough with the topic of Hillary’s voice. Her problems run much deeper than that.
I remember. Her voice seems to be a recurring issue for men. I wish I could find a link to this, but there was a study that showed that women use a broader range of tones in their voices when they talk than men do and that’s one reason men don’t always pick up on certain things that women think they are making clear by tone. And also that there are some tones that men don’t like or just don’t hear.
That’s not sexism. But it IS a gender issue. 🙂
Which is part of my point. We can talk about gender issues without getting into sexism.
Here’s the thing, Rebecca Traister wrote a piece for Salon. She begins with a woman who says she’s really bothered by “what I perceive as sexism [among some male Obama supporters]” and she says that it is the “intensity of their irritation that disturbs her” more than their devotion to Obama.
That is the theme of the piece. Perceived sexism among male Obama supporters manifested by the intensity of their irritation with Hillary. Now, talking about sexism may make people uncomfortable but we could certainly talk about the intensity of irritation that comes out partly because of gender issues – like voice.
Instead, you chose to blog about second wave feminism issues. It is a 48 paragraph piece. There are (to be generous) 8 paragraphs about second wave feminism. It is of course your choice and you are under no obligation to blog about anything. But it is a choice that you made.
There is currently a diary over at dkos by a jackass who thinks he’s funny saying that he read this:
and he determined that it was revealed to him As a man, my essential nature is to be sexist, and the only path to redemption for me is to vote for Sen Clinton.
So, so far this has generated two responsive blog posts. One (yours) chose to ignore her theme and riff off of a secondary theme. The other chose to intentionally (or idiotically) misread the entire piece. Two responses is not a trend to be sure, but still … it would be nice if any Progressive men wanted to talk about the actual theme of this piece.
Well first of all, here is the part that I took to be worthy of debunking.
That is the part immediately preceding the transitional paragraph the jackass cited.
I have no objection to using this thread for just the conversation you want to have. I welcome it.
But my post was about how that ‘media script’ that has ‘truth’ in it, really doesn’t have much merit on its merits.
There are older women (shorthand is inaccurate, but…second-wave feminists) that seem to have some kind of myopia that prevents them from seeing Clinton’s plain genderless flaws and that makes them resentful towards Obama and angry about his supporters. For the men, they see sexism under every rock. For the woman, they just see a mystifying indifference to ‘the cause’. It isn’t attractive.
When they can’t find any overt sexism they say that they just sense it, it must be there. You know, I sense racism with a lot of Clinton supporters. But I don’t talk about it. I don’t talk about it because I don’t want to accuse people of harboring feelings based on no evidence.
You yourself said that you sense a strong sexist component that is hard to put your finger on. It’s probably accurate in some cases and inaccurate in others. But Clinton is so hard to like and is running such a negative and ‘hopeless’ campaign that it is hard to separate ‘I hate that person’ from ‘I hate that b**ch.’ Do people hate her because she is a woman? Is it because woman are not allowed to act aggressively or be transparantly win-at-all-cost ambitious? Maybe that is part of it. But I can’t imagine liking anyone that campaigns the way she does and says the things she says. I hated Bush, I hated DeLay, I hated Santorum. I didn’t hate Dole. I don’t hate McCain. I hated Torecelli, I couldn’t stand Al Gore. It’s partly subjective, but it’s mostly just that I dislike certain traits and styles in politicians.
I find it interesting that out of the full 48 paragraphs, that was what really struck you. So hard that you felt you had to blog about it immediately to debunk even a brief reference to the media script that the author doesn’t even seem to buy into much herself. In fact, the whole piece seems to be a counter to the media script story. Not debunking it but saying Hey Media! There’s another story here that you are missing!
Possibly you chose to blog about this because those older women are not just attacking the younger women but they are attacking you? So by debunking the story you are defending yourself too? In which case … this post was all about you. 😉
But for me this is what it was about:
Now here’s what’s interesting. There’s a lot of hissing fury coming from those older women you describe. And it’s not attractive
But the hissing fury coming from the white male Obama supporters isn’t attractive either.
And by focusing only on the hissing fury of some older women and ignoring the hissing fury of the other side – you are skewing the picture. Could some of the hissing on the older women’s part be a hiss right back to the hissing from the men? I think so.
The “intensity of the irritation” bothers me. I’ve told you when I’ve found your irritation too tense and too close to Hillary hatred. It approaches hissing fury. So I understand completely what these women in this article are saying.
You hated Santorum. But your irritation and anger never rose to the levels it does with Hillary. And the question is, what is the difference and can there be gender issues that contribute to that?
I don’t mean you are the problem – but as long as this post is all about you … 🙂
My irritation with Clinton has risen as the campaign has gone on. I obviously snapped during South Carolina and the reasoning was plain for all to see.
She is currently handing gallons of gasoline to McCain and the RNC and the 527 groups that will play clip after clip of Clinton saying that Obama is inexperienced, out of touch, elitist, condescending, hates religion, has the wrong kind of religion, hate hunters and anglers, and so on.
That’s not a recipe to winning my heart.
Would I be more forgiving if it was Edwards or Richardson doing it? No. The only difference is that I didn’t like the Clintons is the first place. And that has do with losing the health care battle, losing both Houses of Congress, getting impeached, running the party into the ground, costing us the 2000 election, attacking progressives relentlessly, and basically opposing the whole political phenomenon that I’ve devoted the last four years of my life to.
Her gender was a plus for me. At this point, there are no plusses left. She’s used her gender in a way I find dishonest, and therefore not even her gender is a positive for me.
Plus, racial politics is the surest way to turn me into an undying enemy.
Given all that, is it really surprising that I chose to focus on the woman v. woman aspect of the story than the woman v. man aspect?
Actually I don’t think any of the things you list explain why you chose to focus on the woman v. woman aspect of the story rather than the woman v. man aspect. I must have missed something about why all of that leads inexorably to ignoring the woman v. man part of the story.
Explain this:
she has complained of the boys ganging up on her and blamed her failures on a glass ceiling that, for her, doesn’t exist. That’s not an honest assessment of what happened and it was an effort to trade of real women’s real obstacles. That’s dishonest. Insofar as she has a gender obstacle, it is in the minds of the voters and not anything the other candidates did to her.
Doesn’t exist?
I don’t think I’ll be able to continue this discussion because I’m so angry right now that you or ANY man would make a statement that the glass ceiling doesn’t exist.
It exists. For her too. The difference between Hillary and other women is that she had more tools at her disposal to break through that ceiling. The fact is that she didn’t use them well. But if she wasn’t a woman she wouldn’t need the damn tools because the ceiling wouldn’t be there. Fortunately for her she was running against someone who had his own color ceiling. So they started out with ceilings and he had fewer tools – except he had more natural talent. And that just kills her.
But don’t EVER say that ceiling doesn’t exist.
You think there aren’t gender issues in this race? Meditate on your statement for while.
she was the presumptive nominee, had all the advantages of her husbands’ extensive rolodex, the big money donors, the political people at the DNC, and chips to cash in Iowa and New Hampshire, and every political pundit in the country said for 3 years that she was the frontrunner to be the next president.
Please explain how she was disadvantaged the way average women are disadvantaged.
Sorry I lost my temper. But I think you and I just can’t talk about this any more because either you are intentionally avoiding the point or you don’t get the point and you don’t want try to get point.
Read my comment. All women are disadvantaged by the glass ceiling; it exists for ALL women; some women, like Hillary, have more advantages that help them break through.
All the advantages you list should have helped her break through. And in fact DID help her break through one glass ceiling and become a true competitive candidate for the Presidency. They should have helped her break through the next ceiling and become the nominee and possibly help her break through the final ceiling and become the president. She squandered those advantages. I won’t argue with that.
The glass ceiling between being a candidate and being the nominee isn’t the primary reason why Hillary isn’t going to win. But it exists and it has affected her candidacy. You say it doesn’t exist. There’s a reason it’s called a GLASS ceiling. Because over the years so many men (and other women) have claimed it didn’t exist. What do you think it is? It’s not an invisible force field of energy. It’s the invisible force field of opinion. It should not be belittled.
Gender is an issue in this campaign. It’s not the decisive issue. But it’s an issue.
I’m finished.
I’ll concede that a glass ceiling exists for Hillary in the sense you define it, but I meant that there was no unmovable obstacle in her way. She had this nomination if she ran a good campaign, and nothing external to that blocked her.
I know I said I was finished but … blame it on Ezra Klein who linked to New York Magazine which has an article about Clinton and sexism in this race. I might not have even read it if you hadn’t pointed to that Slate article yesterday and we hadn’t disagreed.
Read the article. It goes through a lot of misogynistic acts related to Clinton performed by Republicans and the MSM. Not from Democrats that I could see. And that conforms to what you said – that Democrats aren’t acting in a sexist way against her (not in a general way, at least).
So why did reading it make me angry at all men – even Democratic men?
Let’s take Hillary out of the picture.
Let’s pretend that our candidate is John Edwards and the Republican candidate is Condi Rice. What if Democrats and the MSM were slinging racist slurs at Condi — would white progressive men object on principle? I don’t know for sure, but I think many would. Because racism is wrong – we know that, as progressives Would you object? Even if you wanted her to lose? I would hope so. I actually think that you would – but maybe I’m wrong. Let me know.
If other Democrats were slinging sexist mud at her would you object? I would. Even though I would want her to lose. The thing is – I’m not sure you would. And I feel pretty certain that white progressive men in general wouldn’t. I suspect it would be greeted with the same laughter and sniggering that greets the hits on Hillary. An attitude of – hey, I’m not doing it but it sure is great, isn’t it?
I think that’s the problem. That’s what we all can’t put our finger on. No one says anything sexist but they not only don’t object to it – they either claim not to see it or revel in it because it helps Obama.
I want Hillary to lose. But I want my progressive male friends to acknowledge and overtly condemn the sexism and misogynism that is being flung at her. Because it’s not right. And condemning it is not making a case for voting for her. It’s just the right thing to do.
I stick by a basic set of principles. Race and gender are not choices and they’re not fair game in a political contest.
I didn’t like it when Clinton-Gore ran for reeection on a dishonest Mediscare platform fueled by illegal campaign contributions. I refused to vote for them.
I won’t support a candidate that I think is corrupt or that engages in hateful politics.
And I certainly would not support sexist attacks on Condi Rice even if I thought they were effective, which I can’t imagine that they would be.
I read the article and I didn’t find that it added much to the Slate article. It seems to making a tremendous ado about Republican assholes and dickhead midde-aged pundits making misogynistic comments, but provides no examples of Obama doing it, nor anyone even tangentially connected to the campaign, not even any Democrats.
The worst she can muster is that some men seem to be oblivious to all this misogyny that is out there. I’ll grant the point…I didn’t know there was a 44,000 strong Facebook group called Stop Running for President and Go Make Me a Sandwich.
But, why does this matter? Didn’t we all know that the world is filled with juvenile men? Considering that male chauvinism is by no means limited to Republican men, I think Clinton’s treatment from Democratic men has been admirable for the most part.
What is this discussion about, after all? Did Clinton lose because she’s a woman? I don’t believe that for one moment. Are younger women betraying Geraldine Ferraro’s sacrifice as she suggests when they don’t vote for Clinton? That’s horseshit.
My impatience with this is not that woman are having a new conversation about the meaning of feminism…that’s good. My problem is that is has nothing to do with Obama, or why Obama is beating her. It just doesn’t.
And so it comes off as something ugly and petulant and petty and dishonest and exploitative and graceless, and totally beside the point of the task at hand…beating John McCain.
Again, you’ve totally missed my point. Or you refuse to even consider my point.
I didn’t ask if you would support them. I asked if you would condemn them. Overtly condemn them. Even though you want her to lose.
From my point of view this isn’t about support but about condemnation.
This isn’t about the New York Magazine article except insofar as it is a basis for my opinion.
Well, what I am mustering is that many Obama supporters are not oblivious to the misogyny, they are well aware of it and they ignore it. Or worse see nothing wrong with it because it helps Obama . But they do not condemn it.
In fact, they pat themselves on the back because no one can point the finger at them.
Admirable. I do not think it is admirable to watch a woman be the subject of misogynistic attacks and stand by and say nothing.
Here’s how I interpret your final two paragraphs:
Let the women talk among themselves about feminism and I’ll applaud them – as long as it doesn’t affect me. But once it starts to look like they might expect me to do something, I’m going to call them names: ugly, petulant, petty, dishonest, exploitative, graceless.
I thought we could beat John McCain and still fight sexism.
I’m walking out the door, but in explaining that I have not voted for Democrats in the past that I considered dishonest and corrupt and you already knowing that I will not vote for Clinton because of her racialization of the race, I was trying to say that I would not vote for a candidate I considered to be making sexist attacks against Rice.
I don’t spend much time reading right-wing Hillary hating blogs. I don’t know what you want me to condemn. I did support the suspension of David Schuster for his pimping out comment.
Other than that, I haven’t seen much sexist writing about the campaign except in comment threads where I have condemned it
I give up.
But I will say this and maybe it is unfair to you. In my experience, these conversations about sexism with men who aren’t particularly sexist always end this way. The man insists that if the woman would just tell him what to do then he’ll do it.
Here’s what you should do. You should consider the whole of my comments; you should re-read the Slate article with them in mind. And then you should sit down and do the hard work of figuring out what I’m saying and how and if it affects you.
Sexist writing about the campaign surrounds you without you changing any of your reading habits. Because it is sexist to ignore sexism.
and … because I feel sorry for you … 🙂
I’ll direct you to Kathy G who is a Pro-Obama female blogger who usually writes about economics and statistics but here writes:
This is not meant to imply that you are one of those lefty men. But when you come across it in other lefty men, it would be good to take them to task. Whether bloggily or in person.
That’s what I want you to do.
I don’t want to pile on here, but I have to be honest…I’m thinking the same thing–what glass ceiling exists for a former First Lady turned Senator who is the establishment and DLC standard bearer?? Where does it exist?
Wanna know what I think is being ignored in this race?
It is this: All the sexism in the world is a goddamned talking point as far as she is concerned and anyone except her peers, sycophants and climbers who want an Administration job is a goddamned fool not to see it.
I have an anger toward her, Steinem, Ferraro and that whole crew that borders on pure fury. And I thought that whole awful ilk actually thought spoke for me because I’m a woman. Christ, how naive was that??
Because you see, only women of a certain hue and income range would ever qualify…especially when it’s just a talking point.
I have for years caught shit because I once proudly proclaimed being a feminist. I know other Black women who dared “admit” this catch shit, too. I was reminded again and again that feminism was for white women. And I argued fiercely that it was not–just respect me, treat me as an equal, stay the hell off my body and give me a fair shot at the job I want at equal pay.
Boy, was I wrong. Because today, boys and girls, sexism=disliking Hillary Clinton. Sexism=not wanting her to be president. Sexism=liking Barack Obama.
Damn women of any hue that are stuck in low paying jobs with no hopes of getting out. Damn the way women of any hue that have been treated by Blackwater employees. BORING!!!! Not sexy enough. Who gives a fuck?
It’s all about Hillary.
Do you know how fucking furious I was to hear Cokie Roberts say:
This, said of a former first lady who became senator of a state she didn’t reside in by a woman who, I’m sure, slaved so hard in life with congressional fixtures as parents back when DC was much more…Southern.
Give. Me. A. Goddamned. Break.
Barack Obama worked for everything he ever achieved.
And here’s this upper middle class born First Lady who’s a senator from a state she didn’t live in who’s worth $109 million and she suddenly remembers that sexism exists??
And while she’s crying about sexism, she gets to pull all the racist shit that “we” say only Republicans pull. Would that were it so. All this “elite” shit to me–to my ears–is her saying, “politely,” that Sen. Barack Obama is some uppity nigger, and you don’t want an uppity nigger and his uppity nigger wife to be President and First Lady. As she knows damned well.
I swear, I don’t know if I’m more sickened on the face of her comments, or by the fact that she doesn’t begin to give one rat’s ass for “blue collar” white folks.
But I’m oppressed. I’m a victim! says Hillary.
Oh, but Black men got more rights before woman. says too many other people–a willful, criminal mis-reading of history.
I am one generation from that. One. My shit was candy and flowers compared to that faced by my Mom and Dad and their parents, friends and peers. MY mother was both called nigger to her face AND denied jobs because she didn’t have a penis. To her face. Do these latter day “I’m so oppressed” crew fucking GET that??? Go home and take care of your kids that asshole said. To her FACE, dammit!!
So? Who cares? She ain’t no fucking woman anyway, and she certainly doesn’t have enough money to make any of these asses care then or now.
And anyone doing even a cursory glance of history knows that because those of my hue are doing OK now, does NOT mean that the same will be said tomorrow. The same is not true for Gloria Steinem, Cokie Roberts nor Hillary Clinton. Folks can huff and puff and pretend they’re not privileged but no one is buying that whine.
Sexism is not a game. But for her it is. And I so fucking resent it.
Look, if she is woman enough to run on her husband’s machine for this office, then be woman enough to be criticized every now and again, too, without crying about how goddamned put-upon she is.
I don’t know where in the world that her stupid fucking candidacy became the great validation project for the Steinem set, and I don’t begin to give a damn. What I know for sure: The day the Clintons’ rotten asses steal this thing is the day I quit being a Democrat. It may not mean one damned thing to anyone else, and I don’t care. It means, however, a whole lot for my self-respect, and that I care about. No amount of money or guilt would ever make me vote for her. Ever.
And I don’t care if some moron tells Clinton to iron his shirt. She can afford to foot the cleaner’s bill and a butler to pick it up. She should save her “outrage” for shit that matters, and her royal sense of entitlement Does. Not. Matter. Her candidacy is Not. A. Feminist. Statement.
Maybe one reason that I feel the way I do is that I know people like you are feeling this without you having to tell me. I know the Clintons are injuring people because I know those people. Maybe most white guys don’t know because they don’t interact with people of color enough, but I know. And it hurts me deeply whenever I hear or see something that I know is needlessly inflicting pain on people that don’t deserve it.
Bob Johnson crossed a line for me, and I do not forgive him, or the people that stood silently by and hoped to reap an advantage from it.
I don’t need to unpack that sludge for you. You know what poison it was, even if too many white people didn’t know what the hell he was talking about. Talk about hitting him coming and going. He called him a drug dealer, an Uncle Tom, an elitist, a pussy, non black enough, and too black all in a few brief sentences.
I’d like to see anything remotely comparable that Clinton has faced because of her gender. Maybe if Obama’s staffers had told Hillary to iron their shirts and Obama shrugged it off, maybe that would be comparable.
The one thing I kind of disagree with you about is the idea that you can’t be a feminist because of how other people define feminism. You can be a feminist of your making according to your own beliefs. And I think you are.
And there again–probably the biggest purveyor of hyper-sexualized stereotypes was trying to call Sen. Obama out? Oh, the mind reels.
Boo, I know you get it, and I’m glad you express it so well. I am probably taking this way too personally, and for the Clintons, it’s never personal. But history is not some academic exercise for me. And I feel in some ways that they’ve sold out many, many people. Please forgive me if I feel like I’ve been living in Bizarro world as of late. The anger is palpable.
It’s probably too late on that last point. I’m really just so disgusted, and it’s irreparable. I’ve already started self-correcting myself. Except in the last sentence in the preceding post. But so it goes.
It’s totally irreparable. It’s almost hard to believe that back in February the racialization of the campaign was actually a shock.
In retrospect, it almost seems like they were always this bad. But, they really weren’t.
Interesting that you mention Cokie Roberts. In her joint autobiography with hubby Steve they admit to their love blooming while writing news stories for Steinem’s propaganda mill at the Helsinki Youth Festival in 1962. Steve even jokes in their book that they were working for the CIA, but didn’t even know it. Heh heh heh… heh.
Curious that all these people who labored in a CIA propaganda/spying op back in 1962 end up in positions to guide public thought for us. Cokie Roberts is still on NPR, defining common sense for us non-elites, fixing the blinders for us. This morning she was going to tell me how badly Obama screwed up with his elitist “bitter” comment before I clicked off the radio. And how liberal was Steinem’s op-ed in the NYTimes right before the New Hampshire primary. Her piece, that sexism is worse than racism, was intentionally divisive. This theme repeats over and over in the Clinton camp. Qui bono? Ultimately, I don’t think it does any good for Clinton.
It serves the interests of the oligarchy (sorry, it’s just the way I diagram the world) to divide and conquer the rest of us. Steinem is practicing the same kind of “feminism” that she always has. Qui bono?
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.
when you’re diagramming the world it is a pitfall to have too few compartments. One common pitfall is to see a casual or youthful acquaintance with the CIA as more than it is. I suspect that almost every woman that has worked for the CIA above the secretarial level is smart, driven, ambitious, and likely to be interested in feminism of one sort or another. The Agency is kind of self-selecting that way. If a woman can kick your ass and outshoot you on the range, it is unlikely that she’ll defer to you just because you’re a man. The Agency has had problems since the late 1970’s with female officers that did not appreciate the All-Boys Club, the lack of promotion, the refusal to give them dangerous missions, etc.
I really don’t think that Steinem was secretly trying to ruin the New Left. I think she wanted her rights.
Working from the late fifties to the late sixties for the CIA propaganda operations isn’t a casual or youthful acquaintance, especially if you are operating a propaganda mill with world-wide connections and implications. (If I recall, her operation was out of the CIA’s JM/WAVE unit in Miami, which also ran the anti-Castro assassination plots; many of the people surrounding the JFK assassination were JM/WAVE; one of her “demonstrators” in Helsinki was a prominent anti-Castro Cuban, as I recall.) If you read all of the Redstocking information it’s pretty clear that Steinem’s acquaintances with people like John J. McCloy put her somewhere above the mail room. So much for youthful indiscretions.
Looking at her transformation from propagandist/spy for the CIA (despite her denial in the 1967 NY Times article, the Redstockings and and Ramparts found and reproduced copies of actual reports on international student leaders she wrote for her superiors in the CIA) you will notice no public declamation by her of her previous work. In fact, after the NY Times story you see a deliberate obscuring of her history, which all those anti-feminists in the media have managed to miss over the years (both her history and its disappearance). If you look at who financed and nourished Ms. Magazine you will see a lot of reactionary corporate interests footing the bills and you will see people like Clay Felker (another CIA alumnus) nourishing the magazine.
If Steinem’s definition of being a feminist means that the gender of the tush in the Big Seat is more important than what’s in a President’s head and heart, and if feminism is having gone to bed with one of worst war criminals of the 20th Century, then I guess my view of feminism is different.
Steinem has always been reactionary. She has always been in lockstep with the status quo. Her job has been to be divisive and keep natural allies separated. Go reread her NYT op-ed. It’s as reactionary as anything generated this election cycle. She’s Taylor Marsh with a portfolio. Just like Taylor Marsh, powerful people helped to invent and insert Steinem into the loop of national discussion. For a reason.
Ms. Malkin and Cokie Roberts and Valerie Plame (and hubby) and Larry Johnson and Gloria Steinem and Taylor Marsh. Throw in Rush. They’re all on the same team. Larry Johnson isn’t crazy. He’s “ex-CIA,” having gained the trust of the Left by writing pieces against Bush when it was clear that the smart money was shifting to the Dems in ’08. So why is Larry Johnson now all crazy about Hillary and making bizarre attacks on Obama?
Hint: It’s his job.
Larry worked for the CIA for about five years, part as an analyst and part as a case officer.
He then moved over to the INR at the State Department and worked in counterterrorism there.
If that sounds to you like the predicate for a job as a pro-Establishment blogger a decade later, then you and I just don’t see eye to eye on the intelligence world.
Larry went on a warpath for the chivalrous reason that his friend’s career was ruined by an idiotic administration and he wanted justice. It isn’t any more complicated than that. As for why he went crazy for Clinton? He just bet on the wrong horse.
Her voice is problematic for some women too. My girlfriend says when she gets loud she sounds like a bad human resources person who stands by the timeclock or counts the pencils in your desk.
But irritation with her voice isn’t what sells people to vote against her. She has behaved like Republican Lite and she is not trustworthy for many people in the Republican party. I don’t think Obama’s voting record is much better but at least he appears to be talking honestly. Clinton’s lost a lot of people’s trust and many who had not been swayed by right-wing propaganda have given up on her by the tenor of her campaign.
What I don’t understand is why young women voting for Obama should be seen as a bad thing by so-called feminists. The point is to choose based upon who you see as best on the issues, isn’t it? And they choose Obama rather than vote their gender. Isn’t that true progress rather than just talk about it?
I’ve little doubt some won’t vote for her because of her gender, but some will purely because of it (see NYS NOW, etc). By telling young women that they must vote for Clinton, they’ve become the conservatives. It’s really sad. The country is passing them by.
The point of Obama’s campaign is to get to a “real” politics about solving social and economic problems and to transcend a politics of race and gender. Which is exactly the kind of identity politics that the fascistic right in America has used to bullshit people into voting for them and against their own interest for decades. I think it’s incredibly positive that people can be for or against Obama or for or against Clinton because of their policies and/or their character. Isn’t that, finally, after years and years, the point?
By the way, Senator Clinton’s problem is the ol’ bill and chain.
Why these (mostly) white women (Ferraro, Steinem, etc.) are getting their bloomers in a twist over Hillary is way beyond my comprehension. Hillary didn’t have that much of a problem becoming Senator from New York…so why all the hullabaloo about misogyny when it comes to making Obama president?
I reject the argument that they–being boomers–don’t have time to witness a woman become president. It should be clear to anyone that single-issue politics is not going to get a woman–or a man–into the White House. Moreover, it’s not just the idea of having a woman in the White House. It’s the idea of a woman with the right politics in the White House.
I am sick and tired of electing people who have the most loathsome set of values and attributes in the known Universe. I call bullshyt on anyone who seems to think that having a pair of breasts means that automatically things will change. I’m here to tell you that it won’t. Particularly from this woman Senator.
That being said, my voting for Obama doesn’t mean that he gets a pass from this black woman. I’m sure the same is being said by many other black women. I’m sure we’ll all be measuring the length of his spine once he’s ensconced in the Oval Office.
Go here:
http://www.namebase.org/steinem.html
and read about Steinem’s history. Then go back and read her op-ed in the NYTimes back on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. What she does in her op-ed is set up an either/or. Sexism versus racism. Ever since then it’s been a recurring theme among Clinton supporters. In labor we say, “An injury to one is an injury to all.” Not “My injury is worse than yours. and if you don’t vote for Hillary you’re a sexist.”
From another article at namebase this tidbit:
+++
“The Women’s Liberation Movement may be considered as subversive to the New Left and revolutionary movements as they have proven to be a divisive and factionalizing factor…. It could be well recommended as a counterintelligence movement to weaken the revolutionary movement.” This was from an August, 1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office. Within several years, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were pumping millions into women’s studies programs on campus.
+++
When you see Steinem moving from running a propaganda/spy operation for the CIA to suddenly becoming the foremost feminist leader (according to the press) after reading the last paragraph you get an idea of who Steinem is and who is on Hillary’s side in this primary.
Being a veteram of the anti-war movement in the sixties, I have seen this tactic, to divide and conquer socially progressive movements by finding and exploiting faultlines.
The long short, Steinem has been paid all her life to get her panties in a twist when it serves her handlers interests.
What caught my eye was:
Steinem’s definition of a liberal then included such young men as Zbigniew Brzezinski, an assistant professor at Harvard, and Tom Garrity, a lawyer with Donovan & Leisure. She arranged though Jackson funding for both men to attend the festival.
Isn’t Zbigniew Brzezinski one of Obama’s advisers?
Small world.
Old Z has been a cold warrior since the beginning of time. It’s hard to ever imagine him a liberal. I think that that’s more of a comment about Steinem. After all, she bedded Henry Kissinger. I wonder what they talked about after sex.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see Hillary as a feminist at all. She seems to think you have to be a pseudo-male to succeed. To my mind that just denies the fact that women are strong of mind and purpose. That deal with the shots and beer with the guys really turned me off. She was the only woman there…just one of the guys. What next? A stop at the tattoo parlor and an American Flag inked on her bicep?
Please woman.
That was the first thing I noticed also that there were no other women in those pictures besides how just plain stupid the whole thing seemed. I kinda think this is her ‘jumped the shark’ moment.
So instead of voters saying which candidate they’d rather have a beer with this election will be who do you want to do shots with I guess. Maybe her new campaign slogan could be ‘Real Women Do Shots’.
that desire to package herself as alpha-male troubles me greatly. Suddenly she’s a duck hunter, swills beer with locals, braving sniper fire in Bosnia. She resides in Chappaqua NY, which, according to wiki:
Nationwide, Chappaqua ranks 42nd among the 100 highest-income places in the United States (with at least 1,000 households).
So we have a very privileged woman lambaste Obama for elitism and pander to people she has very little in common with. And in many of those rural areas of Pennsylvania the only thing she has in common with the locals is skin color. Pretending otherwise is silly. Now, to have the one guy in the race who actually came from a broken home, with a mother having to rely on public assistance depicted as elitist just strikes me as absurd. I’ve already voiced this opinion on another site: HRC just keeps validating every negative impression I harbor of her. While I never thought of her as Beelzebub’s disciple, I do find her innate ability to triangulate and reverse positions based on political expediency so off-putting, that at this point my visceral dislike of her approaches proportions more akin to gasbag Limbaugh adherents than reasonably sane old lefties. Having come of age during the era of Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, I keep checking myself for vestiges of misogyny. So far, with most sincere genuflection at the altar of feminism, I find myself unable to summon any kind of sympathy or respect for her shameless pandering and propensity to surrender everything to personal ambition. This is not a gender based evaluation, for I find that very same quality so despicable in the persona of McCain.
When I was in the army I was a “race relations specialist.” That is, we ran seminars to try to cool down racial strife on military bases. In 1972-3 there were a lot of problems. During that time I found myself doing the same thing as you, that kind of self-examination. You know, “Do I distrust that guy because he’s black or because he’s untrustworthy?” Consciousness-raising. After awhile you have your self-monitor on most of the time. When I got to San Francisco I went through the same thing regarding feminism. And I had to do the same self-examination in dealing with the huge gay community here.
So when I hear the argument about Obama people hating Hillary soley because she’s a woman I have to reasonably dismiss it. Around my neck of the woods we’re always electing women to office, so that’s nothing new. The anti-Hillary feeling around here among Democrats crosses genders.
Reading some of the pro-Hillary blogs, the sexism angle seems to be used as a rallying tactic. It helps to insulate them from criticism of their candidate. I think that it ultimately works against Clinton because it continues to narrow her base. But it’s irrelevant now, she can’t win.
The new TV ad from Hillary:
Obama had better have a good response to this bullshit.
blksista said pretty much everything I had to contribute re: feminism etc, but I also want to say that I’m still really sad that Steinem seems also to have jumped the shark, too. (BTW I’m a 4th-generation 1st-wave feminist, and the Third Wave folks get all dogmatic and turn me off.)
Back to this ad, YES i hope BHO has a mighty fine response. The final note from the couple really got to me — saying their candidate
“has been fighting for people like us her whole life” — um, including campaigning for Goldwater as a teenager? WhatEVer…
She sure didn’t fight for people like my neighbors in the Air Reserve base, and perhaps she’s gone to some of their funerals (since I left town to go to school elsewhere), but she did not visit for the first death out of that unit, and there’s been more.
Bet there are some reservists (and careerists) from PA who don’t think she was fighting for them. (What was Wes Clark thinking, endorsing HRC, BTW????)
She was busy banning flag-burning. A scourge of society, that huge wave of several dozen barely post-adolescent protesters per decade is such a threat to everything we stand for… Which contender made it back to the senate for the latest FISA vote, hmmm?
If we had Pat Schroeder or Barbara Jordan (of blessed memory) or Marion Wright Edelman in the race, I would just have to pray for a joint ticket.
HRC seems to be bringing national debate lower and further back in time, not elevating it. Enough.
Steinem was never what you thought she was. Go up the thread and follow my link.
Remember, when Steinem was in her heyday she dated HENRY KISSINGER. Think about it. You’ve come a long way, baby. Now you can bed a war criminal. And do not doubt that many of the bombs that fell on his orders fell on women and children. Maybe brown women and children, but women and children nevertheless. Stanley Pottinger was no great shakes either.
Hm. Sad to know, but good to be more informed. (Will follow the link later, after more grading gets done…)
So she (Steinem) has more in common w/HRC than I thought, in that I used rose-colored glasses for both because of the truly (and undeservedly) hateful things that have been said to and about them. The pre-post-feminist Ms. magazine was a good read. (They’re now in post-post-feminist stage, haven’t read much so can’t judge.)
BTW, Pelosi showed some very very nice (brainy) muscle blocking the rushed-through trade deal, eh? Should I say spine instead since we’re on the lookout for offenses? Okay I should stop typing…
It’s gone through a couple of printings, but what is interesting is that in the newest edition, they left out the expose regarding Steinem’s CIA connections, which outraged Steinem and her crew to the point that they threatened legal action.
I have the original in my home library. You might have to do some digging around in used bookstores to find it, but every fcking word rings true.
Wiki link on Redstockings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstockings
Link to part of Redstockings’ expose on Steinem: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/8425/ST-CIA.HTM
Oh holy shit. Ugh.
Sexism exists, and affects all of us women (and therefore all men, I suppose). But, oh my god, I hate Hillary Clinton.
Wait, this made me feel better – let Jon Stewart cheer you up.