feminist blogs

A nation built with African slaves inaugurates an African-American President.

A nation driven by culture wars born out of the Vietnam era moves into hope for more pragmatic, if still partisan, politics.

A nation fallen into the darkness of torture, of "collateral damage" of hundreds of thousands of lives, of ends justifying any means returns to an age of striving for the highest of American ideals.

A nation seduced by the fantasies popularized by Ronald Reagan, that markets are God, that government is evil, that global warming is a myth, that liberalism is out to destroy America, a nation almost paralyzed with the shock of the revealed lie of those fantasies -- a long nightmare, really -- returns to a reality-based vision of the world.

A nation coming off of one of the more ugly racist federal elections puts a black man into office.

Barack Obama is a pragmatic progressive whose intellect brings us hope that his leadership can guide the cumbersome bureaucracy and conflicting interests and influences into actions that make sense, based on reason.

It was truly audacious two years ago to believe this could happen. It took a lot of hope and the hard work of millions, and the faith of many more. But here it has happened.

Barack Obama is about to become President.

How unlikely.

How amazing.

The world is astonished. Today America returns to the light.

Watching the round-table on the NewsHour tonight, with Gwen Ifill leading several observers:

Rev. Joseph Lowery, who with Dr. King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; he will deliver the benediction at tomorrow's swearing in; Charlayne Hunter-Gault, a NewsHour alum who was also the first African-American woman to attend the University of Georgia, she's now a special correspondent in Africa for NPR and other news organizations; Ta-Nehisi Coates, contributing editor for the Atlantic and a fellow at the Nation Institute; and Rael Nelson James, a development associate for KIPP DC, a network of high-performing inner-city charter schools in and around Washington, D.C.

... my friend asked me, "If Hillary had won the election, would we have a panel talking like this, about the "transcendental" nature of her election?"

Yes and no. It would be different.

If Hillary were elected, I don't think that the world's reaction would be quite the same. The world has seen a few quite prominent and powerful female leaders. Major nations today are led by female presidents (or similar titles). If America had elected Hillary Clinton, I think the world would be relieved that it wasn't McCain and the Bush era was ending, but I don't think they would be quite so rocked to their core. For all the misogyny in the world, women leaders are not so unknown.

(Stay with me, I'm coming back to Hillary in a moment.)

If you've traveled overseas in the past few years, you might know that, as racist as America has been (and still is), the rest of the world is on balance more racist. "Ethnic cleansing" is a foreign thing, not an American thing. Frankly, much of the world truly believed that America would never ever elect a black president.

And coming out of this darkest era in the modern history of the United States -- Iraq, torture, extraordinary renditions, surveillance, unilateralism -- the contrast of the impending Barack Obama presidency vs. the Bush presidency is pretty shocking. The world is relieved, astounded, hopeful, and I think inspired. We turned from the dark side. And this former slaver nation has elected Barack Obama!

So what about Hillary?

I'll say this: If Hillary had been elected, it would not be such a profound worldwide event, but it would be an earth-shattering change in domestic politics.

America does not have a strong history of powerful female political leaders. It's not just misogyny -- that's too easy. It's also a matter of cultural habit, and blindness.

It took an exceptionally intelligent, graceful, savvy, tenacious Barack Obama to cross the racial barrier. And perhaps it's his bipartisan rhetoric that has made it possible at all.

It will take an even more exceptionally intelligent, graceful, savvy, tenacious woman candidate -- also bipartisan, I think, to win against the prejudgers -- to cross the gender barrier.

Because there is a barrier, no question.

Hillary might have been that person, but I think she truly undermined her own candidacy. Someday a woman will win. And while the world at that moment may just shrug, it will be a transcendent event in America.

(Unless it's Sarah Palin, in which case America is doomed.)

Or "Dick Fingers."

[via Shelley]

It's not quite 8 minutes long. Listen to Powell.

What politics could be.

In case you missed it, here is tonight's 60 Minutes report on the financial crisis, and how we got here.

No doubt this is not the whole story, but it's enough: $60 trillion enough!

Warning: You may find this frightening or depressing.

Think of this when you hear John McCain and the Republicans try to blame too much regulation for the current mess we're in.

The political "debate" is really a bunch of moralistic posturing. As much as the so-called "pro-life" camp tries to deny it, the crux of the conflict is not about abortion itself, but about governmental control of women's bodies.

A governmental ban on abortion means that the government is deciding what happens inside of a woman's body.

It means the woman has no say.

And it means a lot of scary implications.

Birth control could end up being banned as a consequence, since some people seem to think that "life begins at conception" which would make even the birth control pill illegal. Some people, especially a certain patriarchal legacy from the Roman Empire, seem to think every sperm is sacred, which would make even condoms illegal.

But it goes beyond that. Doctors have determined that drinking during pregnancy can have detrimental affects on the fetus. So do we start arresting pregnant women when they have a drink?

What about smoking? Can a woman who miscarries after smoking a cigarette be jailed for manslaughter?

What is to be considered an unnecessary, even reckless, risk? Riding a bicycle, where you could fall and suffer miscarriage?

What if the woman just has "unhealthy" eating habits? Toss her into prison?

Does the government then establish breeding colonies where women's behavior and diet are strictly controlled, safely protected from the temptations and dangers of the outside world by razor wire and armed guards?

And what if the government decides that certain genetic lines are undesirable -- to many health risks, perhaps, or maybe just "the wrong kind of person"? It has happened before, even in our own country, and not all that long ago. If the government decides on what can happen in a woman's body, and controls the woman's body by force of law, then the government has the power and right to force abortions and sterilizations as well. Is that what we want? A kind of fascist breeding program?

It may sound silly or outrageous to you, but these are real implications of giving government control of the womb, the result of simply making abortion illegal.

Why do abortions happen? Because pregnancy entails real physical risk, real livelihood risk, real social risk, which makes an unwanted, unexpected or dangerous pregnancy a very real problem to the woman. How do we reduce the number of abortions to near zero? There are so many ways that have proven track records, but what doesn't work is government occupation of every fertile woman's body.

If you are really pro-life, then you will see through the false morality of righteous posing that defines the "pro-life" movement, and you will see the falsity of the claim that the pro-choice majority wants to abort babies just for kicks or to pursue some dark satanic agenda.

If you are really pro-life, then you would support:

• Easy availability of birth control
• Emergency contraception (which is not the abortion pill, by the way, which is another thing altogether)
• Real fact-based sex education for all children who are fertile
• The end of abstinence-only education, which is just wishful thinking (or do you really think that kids pumped full of raging adolescent hormones would not even notice their sex organs if adults did not tell them about it?)
• Stronger laws protecting women from date rape, marital rape and general violence against women
• Elimination of all laws that make rape the only felony where the victim's own testimony is not enough to convict the perpetrator (and here I'm speaking to you "tough on crime" folks)
• A cultural change to put responsibility for a woman's pregnancy on the man as well (because she sure didn't impregnate herself, did she?)
• Free sterilization for women who opt for it (for whatever reason)
• Free pre-natal healthcare for women who cannot afford to have a baby
• Free post-natal healthcare for children and women who cannot afford it
• Affordable healthcare for all
• Elimination of all pre-natal coverage exemptions that insurance companies are getting away with right now
• And many many other policies that empower women to more effectively control their own destinies, rather than empower the government to seize women's bodies.

Which candidate do I feel has the most level head?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate has a plan to address healthcare?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate has been pushing for change the most against the Republican status quo?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate is going to cut my taxes?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate is campaigning with dignity?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate most respects my own civil liberties?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate named a running mate to help him govern?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate speaks most intelligently on every issue?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate is the most unlike George W. Bush?

Barack Obama.

Which candidate would I rather have a beer with?

Barack Obama.

In the same vein as my earlier post, on the Huffington Post Dr. Judith Rich goes deeper, and asks us a question:

Palin looks to me like the patriarchy in a skirt, a Helen of Troy. However, her skirts are not hiding the army that will deliver us from male dominance as much as to perpetuate it. She gets to do the dirty work of spouting vitriol while McCain gets to smile and make fake gestures about bi-partisanship. She's the court jester; calculated to distract us from noticing that the emperor himself, has no clothes. Palin hasn't triumphed over the good old boys. She's joined them. And now, she's being used to serve them by helping to create the illusion they actually care about what women care about. But be not fooled. This sorcerer's apprentice is no Hillary Clinton.

Here's Sarah, "Miss Congeniality," the "pit bull in lipstick" jumping in line ahead of Hillary, the "Queen of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits". In both women we see our collective shadow, but wearing different costumes. Hillary was undone by a lifetime of compromising her authentic idealism in order to play by the big boy's rules. If Sarah is Helen of Troy, Hillary is Joan of Arc. What got burned at the stake in Hillary is the truth of who she is; a true champion for human being that thought being tough was the only way to succeed. We knew she had mastery of the issues. What we wanted from Hillary was a glimpse of her heart. How sad for all of us she thought she had to wrap it in barbed wire. Hillary didn't get that she could be lovable, just as she is, even with her less than trim ankles and calves. We just wanted to see who she really is behind the costume.

So which of these two women represents the future of all women? Will we cast our votes for the starstruck "Geeze, I can't believe this is really happening to me?" part of ourselves? Will we vote for the part of ourselves that yearns for a short cut to nirvana or our fifteen minutes of fame? Will we vote for "I'm getting to my goal no matter what the cost is to my life and my family or who I have to step on to get there" voice in us?

Indeed.

The "Change We Can Believe In" mantra of Obama's is really about the undoing of the old patriarchal system and the unfolding of a new paradigm, based on mutual respect and partnership. This is the true expression of the principles of the Sacred Feminine. How stunning to watch the way She works.

Stunning indeed. And look at the right-wing patriarchs go after Obama. They obviously don't use the blatantly misogynistic attacks they used against Hillary (and some lefty boyos are using against Palin). But it's every bit as dark-hearted, every bit as hateful.

It's nice that Sarah Palin can machine-gun a moose and abuse power like the big boys (albeit on a smaller scale -- Alaska is only so big, you know). But who's the candidate that truly challenges the system?