feminist blogs

Seriously - we're going to have to come up with a word other than feminism if they keep associating it with Hillary Clinton, Emily's List, and the irrational women who think staying home or voting for John McCain is a sane thing for an adult American woman to do. I can't believe so many women are supporting Hillary in spite of her race-baiting, threats to obliterate Iran, her attempt to manipulate tensions between the Jewish and African American communities, her ridiculous attempt to ride her husband's coat tails, her bold faced lies, her whining about sexism and finally, her unbelievable failure to bow out gracefully and let the Dems bask in the glory of making history by nominating Barack Obama. Clinton has been a complete embarrassment to women and I can't understand why so many don't see that.

First, I want to acknowledge that there was blatant sexism in the media coverage of Clinton's campaign, and some of it really was beyond the pale. It is also not lost on me that Chris Matthews only backed off a bit once Media Matters for America called him on it, taking a formal complaint from an organization run by men after ignoring years of complaints lodged by women. It got to the point, however, where any criticism of Clinton was labled sexism and the critic labeled a sexist. I found plenty to criticize, and I don't think that label applies to me. I think we need to get back in touch with what feminism means.

Emily's List is currently supporting a female candidate in Memphis that is using racism, homophobia and anti-semitism against an incumbent male who is pro-choice and pro-LGBT. What the hell are they doing? I thought the idea was to elect pro=choice candidates. Do they now support any woman for any office, no matter what her positions are? That is absurd!

Feminism has many definitions and a lot of women make a lot of money parsing, defining, theorizing and creating them so they can publish books and theses and dissertations about it. The bottom line, though, is that feminism has to be inclusive and address issues of social justice- things like racism, colonialism, violence, war, hunger, poverty, civil rights for everyone and defending a woman's right to choose- or it's meaningless. Electing more women to office is great, but they have to be the right women. There are feminist men who would be much better choices than some ultra-conservative women. We can't just play a girls-only game while we live in a society with both men and women. (I do think that it might be a good idea to develop women-centric communities or neighborhoods, but that's not the state we currently live in.)

If John McCain wins the presidency, kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye. He has made it clear that he'll nominate conservative judges like Samuel Alito, and he'll make sure abortions are banned. The Global Gag Rule will keep killing women all over the planet. We'll continue to endanger our kids by offering "abstinence-only" education that leaves them unprepared to deal with a world of AIDS and STDs. Poor children will still have no health insurance, just like their parents, and single mothers will be without resources if they are abandoned by partners or isolated from family or friends. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue. Lives, especially the lives of women and children, are at stake here.

Obama is the nominee and we have to make sure he wins.

Americablog has a post called "HIllary's Girl Power" where they post a comment by Jacki Schechner, a feminist writer, in which she concludes that a woman would make a great Commander-in-Chief, but not necessarily THIS woman, Hillary Clinton. I heartily agree.

There is no doubt that the MSM has been horribly misogynistic in general, but particularly so in covering Senator Clinton's campaign. She has certainly used underhanded tactics that deserve derision, but the anti-female rhetoric was flowing from the very beginning of her run when she was just one of a field of candidates. Media Matters has covered this in detail, but I'll hit the high points. I don't remember anyone criticizing John Edwards' pantsuits, or debating whether any other candidates' show of emotion were real or practiced. John McCain has never been criticized for the unpleasant tenor of his voice. The word "bitch" flows from the lips of men who should know better far too easily - when was the last time anyone on TV called one of the candidates a "bastard" or some equivalent slur?

It took me months to resolve myself to rejecting the position taken by many feminists, as well as the majority of the Goddess community, that we should support Clinton because she was female. I've heard all the arguments - that it's a question of solidarity, that if she doesn't get the nomination, no woman in our lifetime will ever get it, that she "thinks like a woman" and is therefore a better choice, that she's the best qualified - and I don't buy any of them.

Solidarity, to have any meaning at all, means that we have to rally around a woman with equal or better qualifications for a particular position. I have grave concerns about the choices Sen. Clinton has made in her career. She opposed the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Her ties to Walmart and to overseas sweat shops are questionable. Her participation in The Family - a little known, DC based religious group focused on attaining and holding power for its powerful and often dangerous members - is completely unacceptable in a supposedly Liberal contender. The idea that she's the only woman in a generation to have a shot at the White House is insulting. We have many women in positions of leadership that would make better presidents, any one of whom might have a shot as Barack's VP, which would almost certainly guarantee a woman taking the office in 8 years.

I don't like her using gender as an excuse for losing. She's losing because she ran a poor campaign in which she, her husband and surrogates, have repeatedly behaved in racist and unethical ways, up to and including invoking images of violence against candidates in the past. These improper statements and tactics have convinced me that she lacks the judgement and ethics needed for the office of President. One need only remember her promise to "obliterate" Iran to know that she shouldn't hold sway in our public discourse, let alone control our nuclear arms.

I don't count her activism in her career of any greater value than Barack Obama's credentials as a community organizer and elected official in his home state. More importantly, she doesn't inspire the kind of hope and excitement that Obama does. America has, in my opinion, been on a gradual slide toward a form of fascism, or at least a greedy and inhumane form of Conservative extremism, since the tragic death of President Kennedy. The Bush administration is the direct result of the coup that began with that event - none of the Constitutional nightmare would be possible if President Kennedy had finished his term in office.

The Kennedy funeral is one of my earliest memories. I've waited my entire life to see another JFK, or Bobby, or MLK, who could invoke the "better angels of our nature." When a I see pictures of tens of thousands turning out to see Barack at his appearances, in numbers never seen before in presidential politics, It makes me believe that it's possible for America to be America again. Barack can begin to heal some serious national wounds - the enduring sickness of racism, our shame in the response to hurricane Katrina, our ill-advised and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, the specter of incompetence that was born of the failure to heed the signs that the 9/11 attack was immanent, and the suspicion of complicity by members of the Bush administration in allowing it to happen, the restoration of our Constitutional rights, the end of torture by our soldiers, and a possible restoration of our standing in the world and the end of our xenophobic and entitled stance toward the rest of the planet- none of which could be expected or even dreamt of in an administration built around the Clinton machine.

This is not about girls vs. boys. This is about hope versus cynicism, the past versus the future, whom we are and whom we can be as a nation. I am not prepared to concede my idealism for a new gender selling the same old shit. A token torturer is still a torturer. I want massive change, more, I'm sure, than Obama could ever provide, but I'm going with the candidate who promises more change than any other. For Sen. Clinton to say that my choice has anything to do with misogyny demeans the entire Women's Movement. Equality is about more than having a vagina. It's about a true shift in consciousness that Hillary cannot catalyze for our nation. The feminist candidate in this campaign is Barack Obama.

I left the following comment to a post about the racism v. sexism argument.

Feminist. Womanist. Bitch. Witch. Priestess. President. Labels don't really matter at this level. There are many women's movements co-existing, but that isn't the point.

There's no up side to arguing about who is the more oppressed party. We're dealing with 6,000 years of an unnatural social order called patriarchy, which is by definition sexist, racist, elitist, greedy, violent and intolerant. None of us is untouched by this no matter whom we are. America has had ignoble beginnings. It began with an act of genocide against the First Nations, prospered from the work of slaves, sustained itself by breaking the backs of women who had no say in the governance of their own lives or bodies. For the most part, we've been taught to overlook these waves of oppression and take what we can get.

The founders of the country knew intellectually that their society didn't meet the measure of their own philosophies. They did what they could get away with and left it to future generations to make the wrongs right as it became possible. We're chipping away at a power structure that oppresses everyone in one aspect or another, and even those with the most privilege are hobbled by that oppression in some way. Patriarchy hurts everybody.

Yes, the MSM is sexist and racist. It is owned by greedy elitists with a financial interest in keeping women subservient and people of color powerless and dependent, and our country at war. I've been told by people I respect that I am betraying my Sisters by not supporting Hillary, but I refuse to believe that having a vagina is enough qualification to justify my voting for and elitist, racist and dishonest politician. Yes, she has been the object of extreme sexism and that is wrong. I don't have to support her to recognize that she has been treated badly. My objections to her largely stem from her race-baiting. She is both a victim of bigotry and a bigot herself. Many people fit comfortably into both categories. We are all damaged by patriarchy to some extent.

The mistake is that we think there's a difference in racism, sexism, classism, or any other form of oppression. Social Justice exists for all or it exists for none, and the situation might be improving here or there, but we still essentially live in a state of social INjustice. It doesn't matter what element of our person or position provokes the oppressive treatment - the treatment is the problem. The sense of entitlement that tells some elite group or individual that they are "more" is what we need to challenge. No one has a right to own, oppress, cheat, hurt or kill another human being. (Some would extend that to include animals, too, but one fight at a time.) That basic truth is violated all throughout our society. We have an elite group that feels blessed by a white male deity who loves them best of all, and that love justifies anything they want, at the expense of anyone or anything else. While we fight over who is more oppressed - WOC or women in general, the elite class continues its vampiric drain on our money, our culture and our lives. Our anger toward each other keeps us down. Only directing that anger where it belongs, at the elite classes who have stacked the game against us, is going to make a difference in any of our lives.

We can't afford to be divided - that serves the elite class. Why do their work for them? Why make it easier for them t6 keep us down? Everyone who is not independently wealthy needs to work together. We're a giant game of whack-a-mole and the moles only win when they all rise up together and take away the hammer. Ok, it's a stupid metaphor but you see what I mean. They can keep some of us down over there, and some over here, but if we all stand up together we outnumber them. This is class warfare and the only resolution to it is revolution. Solidarity.

A person of color should feel just as offended by sexism and they are by racism. Women should be as offended by racism in every form or situation. It's all the same hate from the top of one dominant hierarchy we need to tear down. This should be the function of the Progressive movement. If we aren't directly attacking that power structure, our efforts are wasted. Let's put all that hurt and anger where it belongs and get something done. Barack just might be able to focus our energy and make some real changes. I wish he were more liberal, but the movement behind him is more important than the man himself, though he gives it a name and a face. He creates the potential for a kind of healing both here and in the rest of the world that simply won't happen if Hillary is in charge. It's a long shot, but it's our only shot at the moment.

Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times wonders at — rather than analyzes — the sea change that has made “Pop TV” the new favorite venue for politicians. With all the recent appearances by the President, candidates and their spouses on everything from “Deal or No Deal” to the “Colbert Report,” Stanley notes, “It’s hard [...]

[This is a content summary only. Click on the headline for full links and additional content. Thanks!]

As my colleague Brian Howard says: Dance candidates, dance!

Go to Echidne. Read posts marked Part I: Inhale and Part II Exhale. My comments on part II:

Because of time constraints and laptop problems, I couldn't read all of the preceding comments, but i do want to comment on this issue. I'm not really old enough to be a second wave feminist, and I'm definitely too old to be third wave. I guess I'm a two and a half. Anyway, I haven't really written about the presidential campaign since Edwards and Kucinich gave up because I've been struggling with just this question - who is the remaining feminist candidate? Before, I was quite certain it was Kucinich, though there are some feminists that give me crap about that. Now, I'm torn as to what to do.

I usually call myself a matriarchist, which is a "feminist plus" - in my mind. There are a few issues, like pornography, typically lumped in with the tag "feminist" that I'm not in sync with the Sisterhood about. I am most definitely a Sister, though, I'm quite sure.

My perception of second wave feminism is that it was always about social justice, and that the broader purpose was lost when people had to whittle down their mission statements to apply for funding. Funding is bad - it obligates us to and limits us by the patriarchy we're supposed to be trying to destroy. Yes, I said and mean that we should aim to destroy it, not get along with it and not try to make it more woman friendly.

The human race is 54% female, and the other 46% includes a wide array of variations on the original theme. The first step to making progress is to get out of the artificial patriarchal binary. There is one original gender and a variety of adaptations, the most common of which we call "male" but it's certainly not the only one. One and many. E pluribus unum, as it were.

Anything that affects 54% of a population, and that 54%'s children, is a human rights issue as well as a feminist issue. These terms are synonymous, and it's time we really drive that point home to the boys on the Left who aren't really feminists at all - they just play at it to keep their incoming links count up. A pox on the ones who claim to share our goals then quickly sell out our reproductive autonomy when it gets in the way of their insider status. There is a very real enemy in this world and it's old, white, wealthy and male, though not all of the enemy meets all those criteria. Not all rich white men are bad, of course, but they have to try harder to make me take them seriously, as should any person of privilege who claims to empathize with an oppressed minority - even if said "minority" is 54% of the population. There are people of all races and genders, of all social classes who are with us and against us. The trick is to find those who are really with us and stick together.

Comparing "isms" plays into the hand of the patriarchy. It divides poor whites from poor blacks, lower class women from upper class women with means and access, lesbians from hetero women, and on and on. Divide and conquer. We fight over Obama and Clinton, McCain wins. It's that simple. The only way to defeat the old rich white male system is to approach it differently.

When the Constitution was originally written, the person with the most votes was president, the one with the second amount of votes was vice president, no matter what their party affiliation. If we look at the original intent of the Constitution, there's a clear solution - let the party decide whom to name president and whom to name vice president, and let's get on with it. Or we could just say that Hillary is older and has more experience, so make her P and Barack VP and let's focus on the real issues here. Barack could run for President in 8 years and be a shoe-in. What is clear is that we need to settle on a Clinton/Obama ticket NOW and waste no more money sniping at each other. That's what THEY want us to do. The media moguls and the power brokers are laughing their asses off at that "bitch" and that "uppity u-know what" doing their jobs for them. The key to feminism has always been inclusivity. Social justice for everyone IS feminism. Why waste obscene amounts of money, that could be put to better use, perpetuating a fight that gets us nowhere?

McCain is a nutcase and he has virtually sold his soul to get that nomination. He would be a disaster for America, and that is where our focus should be. Hillary and Barack need to make nice and focus their efforts outward. That's the only way we move forward. United. Anything else, and we lose. We can't afford to carve up the injustices - there's plenty to go around.

NIXON ... When it comes to experience, I want you to remember I've had 173 meetings with President Eisenhower, and 217 times with the National Security Council. I've attended 163 Cabinet meetings. I've visited fifty four countries and had discussions with thirty-five presidents, nine prime ministers, two emperors, and the Shah of Iran...

CHOTINER (privately) Jesus Christ, has he told them how many push-ups he can do yet? What the hell happened to him?

In last night's debate in Austin Texas, Senator Clinton sounded like the scene from the film Nixon.

Don't get me wrong. I like Hillary, but last night in the Austin debate with Obama, she bombed.

Hillary suffers from the malaise of resume-itis. It's what books like, "Getting into the Job Market Past 50" warn us about ... we have too much experience, most of which won't resonate with the young and restless who are interviewing us. Moreover, if she's got all this experience, "where's the beef?" It's all so passive voice, with her, with out technically being passive voice. All these things she's worked on, in, with, and through. To what end?

I am old enough to remember JFK when he ran. The more Nixon told of his accomplishments, the more satisfied Nixon seemed. Kennedy did not question Nixon's "resume," but rather underscored that this was more of the same-old, same-old, whereas we needed a New frontier. He said in the first debate with Nixon, "I am not satisfied ..."

- READ MORE -

NIXON ... When it comes to experience, I want you to remember I've had 173 meetings with President Eisenhower, and 217 times with the National Security Council. I've attended 163 Cabinet meetings. I've visited fifty four countries and had discussions with thirty-five presidents, nine prime ministers, two emperors, and the Shah of Iran...

CHOTINER (privately) Jesus Christ, has he told them how many push-ups he can do yet? What the hell happened to him?

In last night's debate in Austin Texas, Senator Clinton sounded like the scene from the film Nixon.

Don't get me wrong. I like Hillary, but last night in the Austin debate with Obama, she bombed.

Hillary suffers from the malaise of resume-itis. It's what books like, "Getting into the Job Market Past 50" warn us about ... we have too much experience, most of which won't resonate with the young and restless who are interviewing us. Moreover, if she's got all this experience, "where's the beef?" It's all so passive voice, with her, without technically being passive voice. All these things she's worked on, in, with, and through. To what end?

I am old enough to remember JFK when he ran against Nixon who had been Vice President under Eisenhower, and thus Nixon campaigned on having more experience than did the challenger, Senator Kennedy. The more Nixon told of his accomplishments, the more satisfied Nixon seemed. Kennedy did not question Nixon's "resume," but rather underscored that this was more of the same-old, same-old, whereas we needed a New frontier. He said in the first debate with Nixon, "I am not satisfied ..."

This is a great country, but I think it could be a greater country; and this is a powerful country but I think it could be a more powerful country.

I'm not satisfied to have 50 percent of our steel-mill capacity unused.

I'm not satisfied when the United States had last year the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized society in the world--because economic growth means strength and vitality. It means we're able to sustain our defenses; it means we're able to meet our commitments abroad.

I'm not satisfied, when we have over $9 billion dollars worth of food, some of it rotting even though there is a hungry world and even though 4 million Americans wait every month for a food package from the Government, which averages 5 cents a day per individual.

I saw cases in West Virginia, here in the United States, where children took home part of their school lunch in order to feed their families because I don't think we're meeting our obligations toward these Americans.

I'm not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are.

I'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid, or when our children go to school part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none.

I'm not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa, in charge of the largest union in the United States, still free.

I'm not satisfied when we are failing to develop the natural resources of the United States to the fullest. Here in the United States, which developed the Tennessee Valley and which built the Grand Coulee and the other dams in the Northwest United States, at the present rate of hydropower production--and that is the hallmark of an industrialized society--the Soviet Union by 1975 will be producing more power than we are.

These are all the things I think in this country that can make our society strong, or can mean that it stands still.

I'm not satisfied until every American enjoys his full constitutional rights. If a Negro baby is born, and this is true also of Puerto Ricans and Mexicans in some of our cities, he has about one-half as much chance to get through high school as a white baby. He has one-third as much chance to get through college as a white student. He has about a third as much chance to be a professional man, and about half as much chance to own a house. He has about four times as much chance that he'll be out of work in his life as the white baby. I think we can do better. I don't want the talents of any American to go to waste.

When Hillary cites her resume, she seems satisfied with where things have gone and the implication is that we can expect her to dish up more of the same.

Obama's supposed inexperience is going for him since he can say that he's not satisfied, no matter how lofty Hillary's resume makes her.

But let's face it, Obama has the power to attract. Again from the film, Nixon, when he speaks of RFK,

Bobby's got the magic, like a goddamn rock star. They climb all over each other just to touch his clothes!

Obama has that magic. He is not running on his resume. He is running on his vision and frankly he comes off looking more presidential than Senator Clinton.

I could see Hillary as a CEO of one of the Dow Jones Industrials, but not of the United States. She defends her ability to get things done, but what things need doing? A set of programs is not inspiring when there is no vision.

Her high point in the debate was when she did not let go of the topic of health care. Kudos to both candidates, especially Hillary. Her low point was the plagiarism argument against Obama. Hardly presidential.

Hillary does not have a vision. She has facts at her fingertips and plans that are ready to go. Yet, does the United states need a Strategic Planner, or does it need a leader who can rally everyone? Not as long as her resumes lacks real accomplishments.

Hillary does not have the tragic flaws of Nixon, but I close on one last scene fro the film,

PAT: You want them to love you ...

NIXON (interjects) No, I don't. I'm not Jack ...

PAT But they never will, Dick. No matter how many elections you win, they never will.

Unlike Nixon, at least the fictional one, Hillary could get to be loved, but she's got to get away from the resume, and the past, and her satisfaction with things as the were and the looking backward ... the question remains, has she run out of time to show us that side?