2008 “Goodbye to All That”… Again
posted by on February 4 at 21:34 PM
Old-school feminist Robin Morgan—the reknowned editor of “Sisterhood Is Powerful” and author of the powerful 1970 essay “Goodbye to All That” —has written a sequel, nearly 40 years later. Here it is in part. (H/T to the Slog lurker who sent this my way!)
Goodbye to the double standard …Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)
When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” […]
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
[…] Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman -hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?
[…] Goodbye, goodbye to …
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
[…] Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide …
Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”
[…] I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?
And goodbye to the ageism …
How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?
Old women are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!
We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.
We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.
Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.
So listen to her voice:
“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.
“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”
That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).
[..] We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.
Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first U.S. woman president, but as a great U.S. president.As for the “woman thing”?
Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.
Amen, sister. Read it.
Oh, and in response to Dan, below (via):
Let me see if I got that:
1) The writer does not know that the "iron my shirt" guys were radio station DJ's doing a publicity stunt, and that there was great outrage before that fact came to light.
2) The age of an endorser is all you need to know to know whether they are old school or progressive.
3) The writer does not know that there are plenty of offensive anti-Obama shirts out there.
4) The writer genuinely believes that any complaint about Hilary's policies is synonymous with hating all women.
5) The writer seems to think that one of Hilary's strengths is that she will not learn on the job.
6) At the same time that Hilary is so experienced that she has nothing left to learn about being President, she can't be held responsible for anything in the first Clinton administration.
7) The writer somehow thinks that focusing on the youth vote is sexist. I still can't follow the higher math involved in that proof.
8) Ultimately, the writer's conclusion is that she's voting for chromosomes, not a candidate. Nothing that went before means anything; she's a woman and she's damned well voting for a woman because... she's a woman. And this is noble how?
What a bunch of utter dreck. Hilary has a lot of qualities to recommend her and I think she would be a fine president. But if this hyperbolic and hysterical screed turns out to have had anything to do with her campaign, I will reconsider that position.
Penis's are important. VERY VERY important.
You may want to look them up in the dictionary. You'll see why ECB.
As an Obama supporter, I encourage you to repost this everywhere you can.
Never, never forget that the first thing that women did after being given the right to vote, was to ratify Prohibition.
It's all been downhill ever since.
as an obama supporter i find it funny how you posted the entire thing without a jump. trying to make room for hillary by posting a long rant?
I like that cartoon.
ECB, this post gave me chills. I’m sure the reactionary, sexist pile-on from the usual slog meatheads is forthcoming, but I just wanted to say thanks. Morgan’s words made me think, and forced me to examine my own internalized sexism and reluctance to support Hilary for fear she’s “not electable.”
It takes courage to put forth a feminist analysis in this “progressive” city and your “lefty” workplace full of men who can’t stop posting photos of hot ladies on slog, yet expect to be taken seriously as journalists. I don’t always agree with you, but I’m glad you are there.
I am proud to be a woman, but "feminist" drivel like this makes me sick, makes me ashamed to be a woman. Because what was the whole point of the feminist movement? Equality. EQUALITY. That means that as a young woman, I get to vote for who I identify with, man OR woman. I should not vote for Hilary JUST because she is a woman. And I find the writer's implication that young woman are afraid of offending their boyfriends with "power" deeply, deeply offensive; because perhaps, just perhaps, I don't find Clinton's positions on issues logical. Perhaps it has nothing to do with her gender. And perhaps I HATE how feminists have twisted the knife into the sides of American's men, claiming that "we made their compassionate fathers" when we did nothing but shame them into corners. "Men are pigs.... men are abusive... men keep the woman down, men are sexist! Men are immoral! Without we woman, the moral fabric of the country is lost!" No wonder we have a whole generation of young men dying a slow soul death on couches staring into space. We, as Womyn, have claimed rape as Our Problem, ignoring that men can be raped. Men can be abused. But no, Rape is only for the Womyn.
And apparently, to the writer of this article, the modern woman's vote should be only for the woman.
I thought Robin Morgan was dead. Huh. Go know.
Obama realizes he does well in many groups, but not among white males. Solution: Hellloooooo Scarlett Johansson.
Hillary realizes she too needs a little help with the white male demographic. Solution: Long angry screed on sisterhood, including graphic of raised fist inscribed inside female symbol.
Pure. Political. Genius.
Goddamit. This is such bullshit. The greatest threat Clinton faces in regards to her sex is from people who think they're defending her. Do we really want a president elected because she's a woman? Is that equality? Fuck. This is so sad.
Yes, yes, OF COURSE, she shouldn't be treated badly because she's a woman. Does that make her the best candidate for president? DOES IT?
elenchos is of course spot on.
Oh darn. I forgot. She's a woman and just because of that I should vote for her. It's the only way to save the country. That's worked out so well for us with Nancy Pelosi, hasn't it?
You GO GIRL..
Keep the Faith ECB
Hillary 08
This was way over the top obnoxious. There's never any content to any of these pro-Hillary rants, especially annoying because part of the rant is so often "obama has no substance." the rants don't either, maybe ranters could get together with Obama and agree that neither will ever say anything with no substance again.
There were tons of jokes about Margaret Thatcher! Were they woman-hating or just neo-liberal hating? Maybe both. Are they relevant to a discussion of whether MT should have been Prime Minister? No, of course not. But Margaret Thatcher was a damn witch, and it's becasue she was just like Ronald Reagan, a man. They shared the same faults, despite the observable fact that they were a different gender, which I hope would prove to ranting feminists that there's no real need to hate men so much, women can fuck shit up just as well, being a shit leader crosses gender lines. They both fucked up because of the issues.
Issues presented here: Hillary is against killing baby girls. Well fuck that's really hard to be against! Man she's going out on a limb with that one, it must be because she's a woman.
Of course, you can really only support Hillary through vapid blather because her great "experience" has generally been being a huge sell-out on every important issue, from welfare to war. Would you be so kind as to make a post proving me wrong? I would actually appreciate that, cus I'm really not so pro-Obama, I'm just against crypto-Republicans running on the Democratic platform.
Also, about ecce homo, you guys should definitely get a strong troll policy.
Whoa, this is truly powerful stuff! Thanks so much for posting this, because these words need to be said—finally! Women bashing, and degradation and objectification of women are some the most accepted forms of prejudices, but of course I can't ever say so without being labeled bitter, crazy, dyke, etc. Hillary's b.s. treatment in the media should be unacceptable, but no one says a word about this stuff!
I grew up marching on Washington for the ERA, NOW and Roe v. Wade. When I was a little girl my mom sadly told me that I'd probably never see a woman president in my lifetime—that maybe my children would—but that I'd probably live to see a black man become president. It breaks my heart to think that my mom may have been right, not because I think Barack is a bad man or will make a horrible president (though not the best one), but because HIllary is getting dragged through the mud and not given her fair shake for all same deep-seeded prejudices that I marched against as a idealistic, naive, hopeful little girl. It's depressing.
(Oh, and, uh, thanks, Josh, for perfectly illustrating the pervasive and unthinking objectification of women with your inane, unnecessary, Scarlett Johansson post below. Brilliant...)
Not that I expect any of you Neanderthals to read all the way to the end of any of my posts before commenting, but here's how her piece ended:
"Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am."
And the Junior ... er, Senior Anti-Sex League has spoken.
Most of you idiots don't actually get what the post actually said, which means that you didn't actually read it. Similar to our "celebrity-culture-obsessed generation", sloggers read headlines, and care about rhetoric, and miss the underlying points completely.
Thanks, ECB.
That was very powerful, thanks for posting it!
On another note, am I the only one who found the Hillary Clinton nutcracker kind of amusing? I took it as an ironic commentary on her "ballbusting" persona. I also think it's kind of cool, like "Hillary kicks ass!"
Thanks, ECB. That was bracing. I was shocked by the comments, 'cause so much of what she said was right on.
Maybe I do know how I want to vote tomorrow...
mitten, I am sorry that all of your marching didn't succeed in making everyone willing to vote for a female candidate regardless of her policies. Have you tried marching some more?
It's also a shame that your mom was right that a black man might be president before a woman. Everyone knows women are better than blacks. Er. Or was that what you meant?
Not everything is about race or gender. If all you see in Hilary vs. Obama is "women versus blacks," you are really missing a lot of interesting stuff. They both have some strong policy positions, and they both have some more flawed positions. They are an interesting study in contrasting personalities; Hilary is supremely competent and plays the game fantastically well, while Obama believes that sheer force of will can effect change.
Neither is perfect, and neither is awful. But both of them are a whole lot more than a gender or skin color.
The ladies, they get upset when they have the menses and there is no man around to take their emotional outbursts.
If they would wear the skirts and try some lipstick and maybe rouge, they wouldn't be man haters. They would have babies and a home and be much happier.
But some ladies, they never listen.
Thanks for posting this.
This kind of rhetoric surely has to backfire (although I guess it's not backfiring when it comes to attracting attention).
What I deeply resent about it is the insinuation that, if you're against Hillary Clinton, you surely must be sexist. AIPAC (the right-wing Israel lobby) takes the same approach to squelching debate about Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. According to AIPAC, if you're against the settlements and favor a Palestinian state, then you're anti-Zionist and (though it's never quite stated so explicitly) an anti-Semite.
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek on Keith Olbermann tonight: "There's no history of women voting for women only on the basis of gender."
Hope he's right.
Ironically, for her part, the only comment ECB might actually acknowledge in any way will be ecce homo's.
Babaloo @20:
I love the Hillary nutcracker and frankly find it more flattering than derogatory. I wouldn't be surprised if it's more popular among Hillary supporters than Hillary detractors.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah. It's like I learned in freshman psychology. Basically, the worst meatheads live for an ECB rant. They get off on it. And Erica? She wakes up every day looking forward to getting slapped around by her most despised troll.
What did my psych prof call that? There's like this word they have in the psych world for it...
Cressona@25: Uh, what?
lolz @ 26: I respond to lots of comments, though not all--see? My guess is that if you had to endure the kind of abuse we deal with from commenters here, you'd crack and/or ignore it, too.
I like Robin Morgan, I used some of Sisterhood is Global in a paper, and i found her arguments about the tolerance of sexist statements about Hillary (read in ECB stupid sloggers) very prescient.
The racism that has occurred in this campaign seems to be universally denounced, and seems like more of a product of the Right. Esp. the Muslim baiting. But there is far more explicitly sexist statements coming out of the media and the public-at-large and this is very troubling to me as a young male feminist.
P.S. Still going to caucus for Obama, but i will vote for either/both in the general
I love it!!! Thanks ECB. I'm so glad you're on the SECB (and Slog).
I am not the biggest HRC fan, but I have come to see most if not all of the pathological Hillary-hatred to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled expression of misogyny of the worst kind... and what is so surprising to me is how much of it comes people who identify as progressives and or leftists. Some people I know seem to be even enjoying the utter irrationality of their feelings, which to me is just scary and weird.
Thanks for this amazing post ECB. I think I want to print this up and put it on my bulletin board.
Here's the thing. At base, I find Hillary completely inspiring. I know many of you don't. But we do exist. And it's hard given the Obamamania on Kos, Sullivan, TNR, here, etc, to find a place that gives voice to those feelings. Everyone talks about how Obama is all about hope, and how inspiring he is, but as much as I like Obama, and I do, I don't find him inspiring. I like Obama, but I love Hillary.
And so, again, I want to thank ECB from the bottom of my heart. I know it's not easy for you to be everyone's punching bag day after day. But your posts give voice to what I feel. To the sense of hope and inspiration that I get when I see Hillary Clinton.
Because the truth is Barack Obama hasn't cornered the market on hope. So tomorrow, I'm going to go vote. And hope. For Hillary.
Understand--I'm not against Hillary, per se, I just think it may have been a mistake to give women the right to vote in the first place.
And yes, yes, ECB does troll for these comments--watch her post a couple lines about enduring "ejaculatory politics" then wail about all the sexist attacks she gets.
She's really, really good at this.
Thanks ECB, I liked this piece a lot. This line resonated for me especially: "Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking... maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free."
Nothing personal, right, but the bolds and italics and bold/italics were very screamy.
You know what I think? I think we're seeing a really interesting phenomenon here. I think the stalwarts on both sides (Hilary / Obama) are surprised and a little offended that not everyone is ready to anoint their candidate as supremely amazingly superior.
"Why," these people think "can't everyone see? Hilary / Obama is obviously the superior choice. Those people who don't agree must be acting irrationally in the face of such overwhelming evidence to support my position!"
And from there it's easy to get to "anyone who doesn't support Hilary is sexist" and "anyone who doesn't support Obama is racist." Because, to True Believers, their candidate really is perfect, from policy to delivery to experience to electability. To suggest otherwise is to be willfully, almost nihilistically, irrational.
Uhm...that's still basing your vote on gender. "I'm voting for Barack Obama, because I'm a woman"--does that make any sense? No. Neither does this. Perhaps you should examine the logic of this statement a little closer, ECB? Either way you read it, this woman is still basing her vote on nothing more than chromosomes, the same thing she is accusing female Obama-supporters of.
Marty was right, the drivel about young women being "afraid" to vote for HRC because of their boyfriends is beyond offensive. Not all young women even have boyfriends. I'm pretty sure my girlfriend wouldn't think less of me for it. This is the same thinking that's driving all those "Ignorant" newscasters to divide voters into gender/race. Just because a so-called feminist is spouting it, doesn't make it suddenly right.
Oh, and this bullshit baby boomer rhetoric pisses me off. How about the baby boomers come to terms with the fact that they're becoming obsolete? There's a new youth vote now, and we're more progressive than you ever were. The media talks about "Generation Me" but with all the whining and attention seeking the baby boomers do, I think the name is much more apt for them. It's time for the Second Wave feminists to realize how conservative their ideas sound now, and step aside for the Third Wavers bursting on to the scene.
Oh, and yes, I am a feminist. Out and proud. And like Katha Pollitt, and many other prominent feminist writers, I and my XX chromosomes and my vag are all for Obama.
Everyone who supports my candidate is upstanding and right. Everyone who supports the other candidate hates America.
What's so difficult to understand about that?
So, ECB, how do all the people that were supporting Edwards, you included, rate in this histrionic rubric?
And, use a jump. I came to slog to see hot pictures of women posted by male sloggers.
Really? You think second wave feminists are conservative? Personally, I think third wave feminists want to roll back all the rights that second wave feminists got. As someone in her twenties, I should by rights be a third wave feminist, but instead I'm holding out for fourth wave feminism.
I think that the best expression of feminism is when one does *not* vote for a woman simply because she is a woman. In fact, I'd much rather wait for a woman who is not running on her husband's pretty pathetic record, especially because I'm thinking that she'll be doing more appeasement and triangulation than fighting while in office.
And the fact that you try to compare our dislike for Clinton and our feeling that a real change in government is needed in this election to misogynistic bullshit spewed out by the Right? That's pretty fucking insulting.
Well, in case Clinton didn't have the Valerie Solanas-loving white baby boomer radical feminist vote sewn up, I'm sure she's got all of them now. That was a close one.
Hey "Third Wave" @ 36: It COULD totally make sense... if Obama was pushing for pro-woman policies and prioritizing a pro-woman agenda. But he's not. Hillary is. Which is why voting for her "because you're a woman" makes sense.
Because nothing appeals to the white baby boomer radical feminist vote like a Corporate Lawyer?
Also @ 22: hey, I didn't mean to imply that women are better than blacks. That's not belief. My (perhaps poorly made) point is that prejudice against blacks is acknowledged and unacceptable. For women? Not so much. (as the other responses to this post make all too clear). Hillary is hated because she is a woman. I know a lot of people hate Barack for no other reason then he is black, and that's terrible, too. As a woman, though, it's saddens me to see the double-standard in play. I want Hillary to have a fair shake.
I like Barack and I'm well educated about all the candidates' issues. I just think Hillary would be a far better president, if anyone will ever let her.
Uh, you're one to talk, "Napolean."
@41 Really? That's fascinating. Who would you consider Third Wave? Hopefully not Wendy Shalitt and her ilk, they make me ashamed of our generation. But yes, I absolutely think Third Wavers are more progressive. Their refusal to allow MTF transsexuals into the movement and their anti-porn stance are the two most striking examples that come to mind. Oh, and also female chauvinism like this. They were absolutely necessary and amazing in their time, but at this point most (not all) Second Wavers that I've spoken with have been hopelessly conservative on the big gender issues of today.
K great. Hillary gets nominated. So does McCain.
Hillary has a higher chance of losing against a strong Republican candidate like McCain. He has a higher electability than all other Republicans. Hillary unites Republicans in deep hatred of the Clinton brand. Obama doesn't.
Don't get me wrong. Any Democrat has a high electability, this election. But the candidate who provokes less hate among independents and Republicans is Obama.
If Obama doesn't win the nomination, Democrats have a higher chance of losing in November.
I'm probably voting for a lawyer for President, whether I want to or not.
How about goodbye to hypocrisy on human rights? That's a great speech that Clinton made in China but what about the rights of the Iraqi people that have died in the war she supported? Or the Iraqi women who are much more repressed now than they were under Hussein. Goodbye to the politicians, of both genders, who want to gloss over their support for the war. And goodbye to women who act like any woman who votes for Obama is betraying herself and her sisters. Me, I am voting for Obama, not because he is a man (or because of his "marquee charisma") but because I am a woman who will not let some sisterhood bullshit keep me from supporting the candidate that I respect.
ECB: How is he not? Everyone agrees that they are the same on 97% of the issues--and the big things they differ on are health care (which I see as a difference between coercion and incentives) and Iraq. Neither of these are strictly women's issues. Further, HRC has amended her stance on abortion with "but we should have fewer", which to my knowledge Obama has not. That seems like a slippery slope to me. Abortion should not be made into a shameful thing, which is exactly what HRC does with such rhetoric.
mitten @ 46: point taken. And, while I don't think Hilary would be a "far" better President (possibly better, possibly not, but not dramatically either way), nobody needs to "let her" any more than Obama needs people to "let him."
Plenty of worthy white male candidates have failed to get their party's nomination, or have failed in the general election, without any -ism's being involved. Just because someone doesn't support your preferred candidate does not mean that they are ignoring his/her obvious superiority because of superficial concerns like gender or race.
Since Iraqi women don't get to vote and thus don't count, I suppose this might arguably be true.
Ugh. I do think there's a lot of misogyny out there in the way Hillary's perceived and the catch-22 situation of her emotion or lack thereof. But this screed projects that real problem into a set of assumptions about why people--feminist women like me--might support another candidate. And then it proceeds to depict some Hillary supporters (women, I'm inferring from context) as too weak to believe in their candidate with more than "ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles." Bleck.
I'd love it if more people examined their assumptions about Clinton and whether there's unconscious sexism at work. This new set of assumptions isn't going to get the job done.
ECB, the only way this post could have been improved is if you had lost the bolds and most if not all of the italics. It makes you look like Anthony Hecht.
Otherwise- keep it up.
Good-bye to all that by Robert Graves. London: Jonathan Cape, 1929. Good book. Possibly a little relevance to the Iraq War.
I kind of agree with ecce @2 on this one...
Same Robert Graves that did the English translation of the Iliad?
Might be worth a look.
Wow Erica. Do you also think Nellie Ross, Ma Ferguson, and Lurleen Wallace were the epitome of feminism?
I liked the article until I got to:
I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years
That's as condescending as some of the backhanded praise Hillary gets. And yes, there is a bit of "uppity negro should know his place" tinge to it I don't like.
@60 - or perhaps Louise Day Hicks?
Has this kind of crap inspired ANYONE in the past 30 years?
(@ Napoleon)
*18th amendment-Prohibition of alcohol enacted 1/16/1919
*19th-women's vote 8/18/1920
20th-"lame duck" amendment 1/23/33
21st-Repeal of 18th amendment(end of prohibition)12/5/33...What that means is, women did not vote the 18th amendment in because they did not have the right to vote on 1/16/1919. I'm sure some things were achieved because they got to vote, but no amendments were made law right AFTER because women got the right to vote.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]
@4,
Napoleon,
You seem to be suffering from the same problem that I often experience: confusing the order of Constitutional amendments. Completely understandable, however, the Eighteenth Amendment enforced Prohibition; the Nineteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to women. While women were instrumental to the prohibition movement, they did not have any ultimate say whether the amendment would pass.
@64,
Dang it. Foiled again.
Who wrote this crap? The same person responsible for that unhinged crap from the New York NOW.
Hey, ECB, where do you find this drivel? Hell, even your commentary is more insightful!
Listen, I'll be happy to vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. And, yeah, there is a lot of rah! rah! rah! for Obama. But it's not as though it's based in nothing.
Fact: Obama has risen from being a political nobody to challenge the presumptive front runner since the night John Kerry lost to W.
Fact: Obama generates substantially larger crowds than any other candidate in just about every place he shows up.
Fact: Obama has generated January contributions 2.5 times greater than Clinton. $32 to $13.5 million.
Whining about a "double standard"? Oh, save it. That is such a tired complaint. Clinton has a more than formidable opponent.
What's the problem with going out beating him? Oh, that's right. This was supposed to be a coronation.
Oh.
Well, that's what I get for talkin' shit.
thank you, ECB. i'm glad i got to read that.
@66
Hey, I love my booze as much as the next person, but there's no way I'm gonna let women take the whole blame for prohibition.
Happy Super Duper Uber Tuesday!@Moe's.
@64 actually it would have been the state constitutions that determine whether women would have voted for prohibition. Most states simply have the legislature vote on the amendment, so the population at large would not be voting for it anyway.
I've written a series of poems about my vagina. They're angry and truthful, and I will be reading them at a sisterz coffeehouse, which is held the first Thursday of every month at an undisclosed location so that we can avoid any paternal influence.
It's a clean and sober event, so all the coffee will be decaffeinated. No perfumes or other scents are allowed.
Afterwards there will be a tampon recycling event.
In that case, I blame the Railroads!
When Sen Clinton lost her voice, it wasn't because she was connecting. Sen Obama didn't lose his voice, but everyone can hear him.
It's time for a change. A real change. A change for the future, not the past.
does anyone care that a Hillary presidency means another possible eight years on top of the 20 years that the SAME TWO FAMILIES have been in the white house? whether or not she's a woman, she will still be part of this odd American monarchy trend.
besides that, I think this article is insulting, especially to young women voters. To imply that we won't vote for Hillary because we are afraid of our boyfriends is disgusting.
I consider myself a feminist. but I do not agree with this ridiculous, derogatory kind of writing. Who does is actually inspire?
finally: saying "I'm voting for Hillary because I'm a woman" is essentially the same this as saying "I'm voting for Hillary because she is a woman." there is no epiphany at the end of this post.
*who does this actually inspire
(sorry)
This annoying bit of Baby Boomer claptrap finally made up my mind to vote for Obama.
I'm tired of the crypto-Lurleen-ness of her campaign. Hearing some Boomer feminist accuse me of being a young chauvinist for thinking that, well, I will NOT get off her lawn, so she better just deal.
Clearly, my wife's support for Obama is due to my somehow scaring her into it. Or else she's just been brainwashed by the patriarchy. She needs a 70s feminist to save her and tell her who to vote for.
ECB must have gotton laid!!!!!
She seems to have cum on the brain to think that ANYONE would actually give any meaning to this crap.
Oh please, if anyone cared about experience we'd have picked Biden, Richardson or Dodd. Hillary has the least # of years in elected office of anyone. And the most years (15) working for a corporate law firm.
But she'd be an awesome hedge fund manager:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
Bottom line: the author is, in fact, supporting Hillary because she is a woman. This seems to conflict with the notion that Hillary supporters emphasize the "issues" while Obama supporters eat up his empty charisma.
My theory is that long time Hillary supporters have been salivating for the last 8 years over the idea of the first female president. Then this glitzy young black man had to come along and piss in the punch. They're steamed that their historic "first woman president" moment has been one-upped by the possibility of the first black president. Hence the lashing out in essays like this one; going on about how sexism in this country is somehow worse than racism.
Sorry, Ms. Morgan, for every anecdote you have about sexism against Hillary Clinton, I can give you one of racism against Barack. Speaking of which, I haven't yet heard the Obama campaign trying to use Hillary's sex as a wedge against her.
Sorry again, Ms. Morgan, if you don't get your woman president this year. Try making a strong argument for her rather than expressing how really super awesome it would be to have a female president and how all the super mean things some assholes said somehow means we should vote for her. I'm not voting for Obama because he's black and certain other candidates try to use that against him in certain Democratic primaries.
Part of the reason why I'm caucusing for Clinton:
She is a stronger candidate than Obama because she has been tested so many times -- and yet she has always prevailed! Whereas Obama has never been tested on the national level.
He's a good public speaker but that's about it. He doesn't have enough experience and I think that he will get clobbered when the Republican attack machine gets going.
The GOP can't attack Clinton -- at least not for anything new.
What are they going to attack her for?
Whitewater? Please, the public thought that was a witchhunt and actually elected more Democrats in 1998, a year that historically should have been Republican.
Standing by her husband when he fooled around? This gives her sympathy in most American's eyes. What, she should have divorced him? Yeah that's morality for ya. Sad to say but studies have shown that the majority of Americans cheat at one time or another.
Trying to reform the health care system? Yeah most Americans are now in support of health care reform.
What do we know about Obama? He's been a Senator for three years. Before that he was in the Illinois State Senate for 7 years. He's a good speaker and a decent writer. He's never ran for public office nationwide. His opponent in 2004 was Alan Keyes (yeah that's a tough race).
Clinton of course has been through several national campaigns as well as state wide elections in both the South and the Northeast. She had a real election in 2000 and she won only by campaigning hard in every county of New York, especially in Republican counties. She is known for winning over her opponents by campaigning aggresively in Republican areas. She started out her public life not by being the First Lady of Arkansas but by being a member of the impeachment inquiry staff of the House Committee on the Judiciary back in 1974.
There's not too many differences between the two candidates policy wise. They are both moderate Democrats, slightly left of center. The real differences involve experience, both in government and in political campaigns. I'll take the known over the unknown this time around. Because she is tough, I'm caucusing for Hillary Clinton on February 9th.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#United_States_Senator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
By the way I was originally for NM Gov Bill Richardson. Obviously experience matters more to me than platitudes about hope.
And ecce homo I have a totally sweet idea:
Let's commit suicide on the count of three. Ready?
1, 2, 3
ECB. Take a breath. You're trying too hard. Hillary is a big girl and can take her knocks. But I'm tired of listening to her -- I used to be her biggest fan, but she has morphed from the unscripted liberal of her Wellesley days into a robotic semblance of a human being. Of course I know she's not REALLY a robot, but this is the image she has conveyed daily since setting off on her Presidential run. She is so closely planned and programmed, her every word so carefully scripted, that I have completely lost interest in her. She never motivated my 20-somethings... in fact, few have, politicallly, until Barak Obama. Suddenly they are excited, cheering him in front of the television as he gives his speeches, picking up the papers for reports of his progress, following the political blogs and talking to their dad and me at dinner about candidates. I am Hillary-age, I am smart and politically savvy,I am an elected politician's wife who has seen so much campaign dirt that I thought I could never again look at a politician of any stripe without a cynical eye...until Obama. He moves me, he moves my husband (NOT of the same political persuasion as me), he moves my children. That trumps the gender issue for me. I am NOT afraid of looking anti-feminist by voting for a male candidate rather than the first serious female candidate for President because I think it is in the best interest of the next generation, this country and the world. So be it.
I thought most of this article was stunning. Thank you so much for posting it, ECB, and for not letting the abuse you take here beat you into silence. Your voice makes me feel less alone.
I do not agree with the conclusion reached in the article, but reading it did help me better understand the perspective of those who are like-minded.
And I feel that in their justified criticism of some of second wave feminism's outmoded views of gender identity, some third wave feminists unjustly catagorically condemn second wave feminism. Truly, parts of this article are breathtaking. Can you really read through Slog and not notice how many "second wave issues" still need work? Choosing to move on from them does not mean they are resolved.
And, Third Wave, calling on a group of people to "step aside" because you feel they are "obselete" is a needlessly divisive, simplistic and agist thing for a self-proclaimed feminist to do. I say this not to pick on you personally, but to illustrate a point about this type of rhetoric: Is the fact that is woman chooses to speak her mind preventing you from speaking yours? I hear feminism is about equality. So even an elder who disagrees with you has a right to air her views in public. Dividing women against each other is a patriarchal tool we don't need to mimic. ('We disagree about some stuff, so just shut the fuck up. We're useless to each other. Let's make a wall!') Maybe we can still disagree but engage each other instead. Second wave feminists get that sort of communication in a way few others do, in my experience, what with their dedication to consciousness raising and the steep prices they paid just to be able to communicate about such ideas freely in the first place. I see little of this among self-identified feminists. Disagreement is great. Uniquely divisive rhetoric is easier, but I think it hurts us.
Finally, has anyone else noticed that the word "screed" has been in unusually heavy use on Slog the last 24 hours or so? According to Slog, hysterical screeds are of feminine authorship.
Jesus Christ. What is she, a fortune teller? How does she know what would've happened if (fill in the blank)? Ridiculous.
Sigh.
All this election coverage almost makes me long for all the non-stop, hyperbolic, bloviated Monorail coverage of 2002 - 2005.
hysterical screeds are of feminine authorship.
I suggest you go look up the etymology of "hysterical" and try that again.
The trouble with keeping your nose to the grindstone is that you lose your perspective. Hell, things can sneak up behind your back and clobber you. Let's compare and contrast:
Obama was a community organizer; Rodham was a Wal-Mart director.
Obama was a civil rights attorney; Rodham was a corporate lawyer.
Obama served as state and US Senator; Rodham has held only one office.
Obama got where he is on talent and merit; Rodham got where she is because she married the right man. Or is it typical for New York to elect Arkansas corporate lawyers to the Senate?
I'm voting for Obama not because he's a man, not because I'm a man, but because he's the first candidate I've actually wanted to become President in thirty years.
Hillary voted for the war.
Hillary sold out on health care.
Hillary leapt to her feet applauding when Bush talked about our escalation in Iraq working (whatever "working" means in that context).
Fuck Hillary.
And this: "Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am." is completely retarded. Should I vote for warmongering Joe Lieberman because he's a Jew?
What's probably the most irritating thing about the comments here is the way the pro-HRC crowd blithely trot out the labels of "sexist" for Obama supporters, seemingly without reading the substantive criticism of HRC and her positions and her voting record.
Yes there is massive rampant sexism and no IT IS NOT DOING YOU (OR HER) ANY FUCKING FAVORS TO KEEP BRINGING IT UP. In fact I'm pretty sure she knows that and is smart enough TO NOT FUCKING KEEP BRINGING IT UP. I second tsm @3. Thanks!
Pru @84 - worth slogging through both the post and the reader comments for - thanks. Also Marty @8 and others.
in the interest of equal opportunity re screed/hysterical/feminine:
Robin Morgan - shrill
ECB - shriller
Josh - shrillest
Great post, ECB.
In regards to many of these slog comments...
Why is it apparently more acceptable for a man to claim to be an authority on the state of sexism in America, than it is for a white person to claim to be an authority on the state of racism in America?
Also, thanks ECB for posting this. I'm a frequent slog reader and this is the first time I've been really moved to post something supporting you in this sea of reactionary anger.
Natalie Dee for President!
Clinton/Obama 2008. You know it's gonna happen.
I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care).
I'm not particularly pro either Obama or Clinton - I think they'd both do a great job as president overall. But this is so uninformed that it would be laughable - if it weren't so depressing. Obama was against the Iraq war from the very beginning, while Clinton has been a loud, unapologetic supporter of the war all along.
i say this over and over again, not much difference between the 2 finalists, one has better rhetoric than the other, and is getting people charged while the other is more wonky, but supported the bloody war.
i will support whoever wins the primary. obama talks the better game and is more inspiring, but people will say all kinds of stuff to get elected. its a campaign so is no big deal. if u beleive campaign promises and speeches, you're going to be disapointed in about 2 years, that said i think it will be great to have him in office after the reign of W Bush.
but i gotta say, maybe cuz im a football loving sixers-devoted type of dude, but im surprised by this country's and this blogs' level of hatred towards women as well as overall in this primary campaign. Your would think that HRC was the second coming of Jesse Helms and that ECB's post was some sort of hateful speech instead of a well written essay on opression and struggle.
Anyway, at least it looks like the Mariners are going to pull the trigger on the Bedard deal.
Putting the race in Monday night sitcom terms: Obama is Charlie Sheen to Hillary's Jon Cryer
I was totally on board with the first part of her piece – I’ve been a strong believer that sexism is more acceptable in our society today than racism (and @1, so what if it was a stunt by radio DJs – do you think those DJs would have held up a “Shine my Shoes” poster to Obama? No way). But, I lost her a little bit when she started going off against Obama. Maybe that’s because I think both are excellent candidates.
As always, the amount of sexism that shows up in the comments when ECB posts about Hillary is pretty shocking. And I’m not talking about the people who are supporting Obama. You can definitely support Obama and not be sexist (obviously), just as you can support Hillary for reasons other than that she’s a woman (obviously). I also think you can hate Hillary for non-sexist reasons…. but, that a lot (not all) of the Hillary hating that does occur has sexist roots.
Thanks for posting, ECB. I admire that you keep it up in the face of all the ugliness…
Great post Erica. Let's hope that Hillary can inspire women to vote regardless of who wins the primary.
Remember, a vote for a woman is important - because if we can't discriminate on the grounds of gender and race, what was the point of all those Feminist Knitting Circles!
Rise up! Insist on only female leaders and put those uppity folks at the back of the bus!
i don't hate woman, therefore i'm changing my vote to clinton(s). thanks for showing me the light, erica.
@103: Best. Slog Alias. EVER! :)
GEEZ ECB You really need a vacation or you need to get some. DAMN!
BEST SLOG POST EVAR.
I'm not joking.
Thank you Erica.
Now that we are up above 100 comments, earlier ones are going to get lost. Sorry, but I am going to repeat @32, bc it is right on:
"I have come to see most if not all of the pathological Hillary-hatred to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled expression of misogyny of the worst kind... and what is so surprising to me is how much of it comes people who identify as progressives and or leftists. Some people I know seem to be even enjoying the utter irrationality of their feelings, which to me is just scary and weird."
That bit of prose looked so familiar to me and I finally figured out why: Hillary is beyond criticism:
I have come to see most if not all of the pathological Israel-hatred to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled expression of anti-Semitism of the worst kind... and what is so surprising to me is how much of it comes from people who identify as progressives and or leftists.
I think both candidates rock and it's a tough choice. Either one winning the general election is a huge step up after 8 years of "monkey boy and The Death Merchant" (phrase courtesy of Mistress Matisse). The anger on either side of Hillary vs. Barack is a little over the top here. I hope no matter how this turns out that they both have strong political futures. Go Dems! Don't screw this up!
For all of you who are offended by this, and don't give a fuck what your boyfriends think, let's remember the bigger picture. We live in a very progressive city with people who thinks for themselves. We are a small percentage of people in the country who actually do this. The majority of the country is not progressive in any manner what so ever.
Take for instance, Sherri from The View. Today she admitted to asking her ex-husband who to vote for on previous elections. She is one of many who do that.
Stop thinking everything is about you and remember the bigger picture. This article may not apply to you, or even most of Seattle, but it certainly ought to be shown to a majority of the country!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).