feminist blogs

Wil Wheaton has a post on his blog entitled “Hillary Clinton: the psycho ex-girlfriend of the democratic party,” and there’s really nothing more you need than the title to understand what the post is about.

I’ve seen altogether too much of this from Obama supporters; not just sexism, but also bitter derision and gloating.¹

My message to Obama supporters such as Wheaton: Stop it. If you’re so sure Obama has won, then it’s time to start acting like smart winners. We can’t win in November without the nearly 50% of Democrats who prefer Clinton to Obama, and every unnecessary word you write that dismisses, alienates or otherwise pisses off Clinton’s supporters is a word that helps John McCain win in November.

I’m not saying to keep silent regarding substantive disagreements, but if all you’ve got is sexist jokes and sneering mockery, then do Barack Obama a favor and shut the hell up.

Wheaton ends his post with this:

And allow me to just head something off right now that’s already come up on Twitter: I’m not sexist. This isn’t sexist. That’s a stupid straw man, and if you try to make that claim, I will point and laugh at you.

This so annoyed me I was going to leave a comment — but then I read the comments, and this response from Backpacking Dad had already said it perfectly:

Is it not sexist because it’s mysogynistic instead?

Is it not sexist because it’s funny?

Is it not sexist because it’s a metaphor that speaks to you?

So. Those were all questions. Here is a statement:

“Dude. You don’t get to decide what’s sexist.”

Here’s a reason to think that it MIGHT be sexist. You can g’an and point and laugh, but I’ll take this seriously for a second just to see where it goes:

The metaphor evokes a trope in sexual politics, that of the irrational girl who cannot accept that a relationship is over. Labeling, categorizing, pigeon-holing someone in this way “he’s a geek, she’s a slut, he’s a pig, she’s cow” is at once appealing to a fragment of truth, and also making the target controllable.

If they are controllable, they are marginalizable. And they can be dismissed. The problem with controlling and dismissing Hillary using a trope from sexual politics is that it moves her from the realm of discourse and debate into the realm of sex (as in “getting it on”). And labeling her as batshit crazy in an ex-girlfriend sense means that she is not only sexualized, but her sexuality can be controlled.

And that’s the heart and soul of sexism.

But I can understand if you didn’t really want to engage anyone on this. It is a funny piece, and sometimes maybe we want to hang on to the things we like even though someone else might think they’re inappropriate.

UPDATE:

According to U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, she may be starting to more closely resemble another famous movie character: The psycho lady played by Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.”

When asked about whether Clinton should drop out of the race on Fox 13’s “Good Morning Memphis” program today, Cohen said: “Glenn Close should have stayed in that tub.”

Rep. Cohen, would you please GET THE FUCK OFF MY SIDE!!!

(Curtsy: Talk Left.)

1. And yes, I’ve seen plenty of bitter derision from Clinton’s supporters for us “Obamabots,” as they charmingly call us, but that’s not the subject of this post.

I have $1000 to donate to charity. I’d like to split it among 3 or 4 charities. Could people please make suggestions?

Obviously, charities that relate to this blog’s themes (anti-racism, feminism, disability rights, cartooning, etc) are of special interest to me, but that’s not a hard and fast rule.

Angela Melick, the cartoonist behind the online dairy / general silliness comic Wasted Talent, has posted a positive review of Hereville.

The author, Barry, was my across-the-way neighbor at Stumptown. Hereville is “Easily in the top 3 comics about troll-fighting orthodox Jewish girls”. But in all sincerity, the book is awesome. I mean, awesome in such a way that I wanted to read it slowly so that I could spend more time reading it… you know? I was genuinely excited for the plot to advance!

The story is the epitome of a fairy tale… except that at every single place where Barry has the opportunity to do something cliche, he surprises you. The plot is so tight, that it’s really a delight to read.

Hereville is painted in a limited pallete of henna-tones that really comes to life in print.

Thanks, Angela!

I barely talked to Angela at Stumptown, because twenty feet of space separated our tables, but we spent the entire two days facing each other and every once in a while we’d wave. :-)

It’s always nice to get positive feedback — but it’s doubly nice coming from other cartoonists. Please check Angela’s comic strip out.

Clinton:

“There was just an AP article posted that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

Yes, there is a pattern emerging.

Elrod:

[…] The implication is, of course, that hard-working goes hand-in-hand with white. Never mind that Obama has won hard-working black Americans, or that he’s won whites everywhere outside the South and the Rust Belt.

The “hard-working Americans, white Americans” is a classic Wallace/Helms/Buchanan equation of whiteness with hard work and honesty. The opposite is either effete white intellectuals who don’t work, or lazy blacks who also don’t work. In fact, the Reagan coalition GOP even dropped the word “white,” knowing that “hard-working” and “law-abiding” already implied, in their minds, white people.

I don’t think Hillary Clinton really believes that only white people are hard-working. But she has to know that such phrasing is downright toxic given the racially polarized electorate in the primary.

Jack and Jill Politics:

Hard-working Americans = white Americans. Right. The rest of us sit on our porches eating watermelon and plucking banjos.

For some reason, despite this “broader base” Clinton still seems to be having trouble raising money, and you know, getting more votes than her opponent. But at this point any abstract metric besides votes or delegates that Clinton can use as a rationale for her candidacy becomes the only appropriate one to use.

This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it’s meant to give white voters the impression that they would be “disenfranchised” by an Obama win. It’s a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama’s success. […]

J&JP also points out that neither Clinton nor Obama will win a majority of the white vote in November (the majority of whites have always gone to Republicans, in recent decades). What matters isn’t who gets the majority of whites, but who gets the majority of voters.

Pam at Pandagon:

The frame is specific — that’s why Clinton referred to hard working white Americans. What happened to “blue collar Americans?” Oh wait, there are a lot of hard working black and brown blue collar/working class Americans, and many of them they voted for Obama, so she had to slice that demo down to the bottom line. Dog whistles no more.

I want to believe that it wasn’t a purposeful slip of the tongue because it’s too painful to contemplate that the black vote is now perceived as a “problem” because it skews to Obama, and because there are more white voters who have a problem with him based on his race, we have to nail that demo.

Remember, the black vote has been the most reliable Democratic vote, not the Reagan Democrats. Black voters don’t turn out for Obama solely because he is black. I’ve blogged before about this bizarre train of thought — if the affinity vote is so powerful we would have seen a bum rush for Alan Keyes. What Clinton is saying is not inaccurate (polls slice and dice this way), but its use here is inappropriate and inflammatory.

In Matthew Yglesias’ comments, Brendan writes:

The point isn’t that she’s calling non-whites lazy–I didn’t read it that way at all–but that she’s suggesting white votes should carry more weight than black votes in choosing the nominee. That is a blatantly racist claim, no matter the ostensible rationale behind it.

Steve Benen:

Let’s put aside the unfortunate wording of Clinton’s statement in which she equated “hard-working” with “white,” and consider the merits of her broader point.

Clinton has done well with white “hard-working” Americans, especially in states like Pennsylvania. But her argument is premised on the notion that White Joe Six Pack who votes in a Democratic primary would rather support a Republican than Obama. Where’s the proof to bolster this claim? There isn’t any.

By the logic of Clinton’s argument, we should also note that her support among African Americans is quite poor, and the “pattern” is pretty clear. Are we to assume that if she were the nominee, those same voters would back McCain over her? That Clinton couldn’t possibly win because she’d never get the support of African-American Dems? Of course not.

Why, then, characterize the race in this illogical, race-based way?

The Politico’s Ben Smith:

Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won’t feign shock. But it’s a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate’s mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voter.

And it’s also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there’s a substantial number of black voters.

More blogging on this: Stereohyped, All About Race, The Angry Black Woman, Comments From Left Field, Jeff at Blog Of The Moderate Left (but unless I missed it, not cross-posted to Shakesville), Fables of the Reconstruction, The Roland Report. The American Street.

The Terminator TV show (all nine episodes that exist so far) is an extremely pleasant surprise — who would have expected it to be good? Heron61 deduces some implications of time travel in the Terminator show and movies (some spoilers):

RICHMOND, Va. - Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Almost a year ago, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v Virginia decision, Mrs. Loving released a statement. Here’s part of what she said:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

I hadn’t realized that Mildred Loving was a supporter of same-sex marriage rights. She’d be a hero regardless, but finding that out makes me admire her even more.

(I’m already wincing at the thought of the political cartoons that will be appearing. My guess is that several cartoonists will do Mildred and Richard, reunited at the Pearly Gates, while Saint Peter comments that no one will be able to keep them apart now.)

Related link: NPR page on the 40th anniversary.

Curtsy: Shakes.

PortlyDyke wrote a beautiful post about reflexive, safety-making cloaking:

I doubt that most straight, cisgendered people think about, or notice, how frequently they touch their partner in public in ways that are not necessarily “sexual” (in addition to kissing, cuddling, and the odd bum-squeeze) — ie. holding hands, walking with an arm around the waist, smoothing the other’s hair back out of their eyes — nor do I think that most straight, cisgendered people are probably aware of the fact that when I touch my partner in public, it’s nearly always a considered act. […]

So, I issued her and her husband a challenge (and I’ll issue the same challenge to any straight coupled allies here who want to raise their awareness of LBGTQ issues):

Spend an entire week pretending that you’re not a couple. Don’t write a check from a joint bank account. Hide all the photographs in your home and office which would identify you as a couple. Take off your wedding rings. Touch each other, and talk to each other, in public, in ways that could only be interpreted as you being “friends”. Refer to yourself only in the singular “I”, never in the “we”. When you go to work on Monday, if you spent time together on the weekend, include only information which would indicate that you went somewhere with a friend, rather than your life-mate. If someone comes to stay with you, sleep in separate beds. Go intentionally into the closet as a couple. For a week.

They took my challenge.

They lasted exactly three days.

There’s lots more, and I recommend reading the whole thing. Curtsy: TeaOtter.

Jeff Dinelli at The Left Coaster just sent this email to his daughter’s vice principal.

Ms. (Vice Principal),

My name is Jeff Dinelli, and I am the father of two (local school) students, one of whom is (my daughter), a 6th grader. I am writing to express my extreme concern over a Physical Education project that started this week in Mrs. (Physical Education teacher’s) class.

The kids were to enter their height and age into a computerized program, which informed them of their “ideal” weight and percentage of body fat. They have been instructed to count their daily caloric intake. Wednesday night I picked up a pizza on the way home from (my 2nd grade son’s) little league game and (my daughter) was frantic because the box didn’t indicate how many calories were in each slice.

She and her friends now discuss each other’s weight, body fat, and how many calories they ingested the night before.

Frankly, I am furious. Let’s leave aside the very real problem of the overweight children in the class who assuredly are suffering from utter embarassment right now because they are heavier than their classmates and are surely being harassed for it. We live in a culture where the ideal of what a female should look like is extremely unrealistic. From the models on the covers of magazines, to actresses on television and in movies, girls are taught to starve themselves to match up with their role models. I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of the horrific prevalence of serious eating disorders such as Anorexia nervosa, Binge eating and Bulimia (if you need help please Google the Center for Mental Health Services or the National Institute of Mental Health).

If an “ideal” weight or percentage of body fat is taught to 12-year-old children in school, it should concentrate on the absurdities of what our culture expects girls to look like and the often deadly diseases that can easily begin to affect young women who become obsessed with squeezing into the latest fashions and looking “good” exposing their midriffs or wearing that two-piece bathing suit at the pool.

There are many ways to teach the importance of proper nutrition and exercise without being told what they “should” weigh or how their bodies “should” look.

I would like this program justified, though I cannot think of a way that could possibly be done.

Yay for Jeff! And lucky for his daughter to have such a great father. (And I say that even though he’s a Hillary supporter. :-p )

There’s more at Jeff’s blog. I hope he gets a good response… although I’m not optimistic. There’s a lot of pressure on educators to make children more focused on, and more fearful of, their own waistlines.

Rachel Edidin has given Hereville a glowing review on her blog, Inside Out. I’m very happy — Rachel works for a big comics publisher and is one of the people behind Girl-Wonder, and she’s also plain smart as hell, so she really knows what she’s talking about. Here’s a sample:

Hereville is good. It’s really good.

It’s the kind of good that makes me want to carry a copy with me at all times, just so that I can look at it every few minutes as a reminder that any world that produces books like this one is probably worth the benefit of the doubt.

Comics that can honestly be described as all-ages are few and far between. Knitting a narrative that appeals to adults and remains accessible to and appropriate for kids is no easy feat. Imbuing that story with layers of rich culture and tradition without overwhelming readers, and doing so while slyly subverting both form and trope take serious skill.

There are no spoilers in the full review, but there are criticisms of the artwork which will make more sense to folks who have read the entire story. I certainly agree with Rachel that the art changes (and, imo, gets better) as the story goes on. Rachel also thinks my coloring of the night-time scenes is too dark; I disagree, but I can see what she means, and a lot of people agree with her. I wanted to do something very different for my night-time scenes than I’ve seen other cartoonists do, but it may be I went too far; I’m still a bit of a fence-sitter on that question.

Those of you who are reading Hereville online will have to wait through another month or so of updates before you’ll get to see if you agree with Rachel about the night-time coloring or not. :-)

Posting on the Feminist SF Blog, the Angry Black Woman quotes people from both sides¹ of a debate going on about Podcastle, the new fantasy fiction podcast edited by our own Mandolin (in her secret identity as mild-manner fantasy/sf writer Rachel Swirsky).²

Essentially, some posters feel that Mandolin has infected Podcastle with (as ABW says) girl cooties, or maybe it’s feminist cooties. It’s hard to tell what the complaint is, because the goal posts shift.

Is it too many female-centric stories? No, wait, it’s not — because if that was objectionable, surely the critics would also be objecting to the fact that on Escape Pod, 14 of the last 16 stories had male narrators.

But we’re told it’s not too many stories about women, it’s too many female-empowerment stories in Podcastle. Except that “Come Lady Death” is hardly a female-empowerment story, unless “female empowerment story” is defined as any stories with strong female characters. Nor is four stories really enough of a sample size to say anything.

Well, it’s not just four stories — this complain is about the stories appearing on Podcastle, Pseudopod (the horror podcast), and Escape Pod, which in a single month did contain several different stories that really did have female empowerment or anti-sexist themes (oh nooooo)! But choosing just a single month, when it’s obvious that choosing any other time period would lead to different results (see “14 out of 16″ statistic, above), is just cherry-picking.

No, wait, it’s that too many stories are too political, and too heavy. But stories like Goosegirl and Come Lady Death aren’t political at all. So the only way this complaint makes sense is if including any stories with sociopolitical themes at all, is defined as too many.

At this point, the football field is scratched up like a tic-tac-toe board by all the shifting goalposts. I can’t help but wonder if ABW isn’t right — if this isn’t really about the girl cooties.

Earlier on, I left this comment on Podcastle:

It’s commonplace for podcasts to be organized by male editors, with stories by male writers, about male protagonists, and read by male readers. It’s not uncommon for there to be several such episodes in a row.

There’s nothing wrong with male writers, editors, readers, or protagonists, of course.

What is problematic is the double-standard. That the large majority of published stories are by men, published by men, and about men is something we’re used to; it’s invisible, like water for seahorses. But even one or two podcasts that involve multiple female creators will be objected to.

I think that’s an accurate take on the situation.³ There is, or should be, nothing extraordinary about several stories in a row that involve female creators, female protagonists, or female protagonists whose story involves working to overcome a disadvantage of some sort (i.e., a “female empowerment” story). Even in a situation of total equality, random chance would frequently sort small numbers of such stories together.

In a reasonable world, there’d be nothing extraordinary about an election in which a white woman and an African American man happen to be major candidates. In a reasonable world, there’d be nothing notable about a podcast happening to have a few stories in a row involving women, or involving women overcoming obstacles, or whatever the complaint is. That these things are notable doesn’t say anything about black candidates, woman candidates, or about how Mandolin is editing Podcaste. They do, however, say something unfortunate about the less-than-reasonable world we live in.

1. Including quoting a comment I wrote.
2. She wears glasses when she’s Rachel, and amazingly no one ever notices she’s also the famous superhero The Amazing Mandolin — not even Lois Lane, who is totally in love with Mandolin and never gives Rachel the time of day.
3. Although I’d want to hedge “the large majority” to make it clear I’m talking about a particular submarket, not all stories ever written!