feminist blogs

As a known, strong and continued Obama supporter, I would just like to say:

Not cool. Not fucking cool at all.

[The video on the linked page is no longer available. This one should work fine.]

First of all, good for the reporter for calling out Obama’s totally inappropriate and disrespectful word choice.

Secondly: WTF Barry?

(more…)

This is going to ruffle some feathers.

NARAL President Nancy Keenan explains why the organization chose Obama out of the two strong pro-choice Democratic candidates.

UPDATE: The responses are already coming in. EMILY’s List president Ellen R. Malcolm says in a press release:

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

What do you all think?

As some of you know, I recently deleted my entire blog. I had several reasons (of which this episode was less an immediate trigger than it was the icing on the hyper-rhetorical cake), but the bottom line was that my life had been overtaken by (overt) political blogging, such that most other subjects and activities had become subordinate.

There was also a growing disgust with the state of political discourse within the feminist blogosphere. Many of the feminist blogs to which I had once looked for nuanced explorations of crucial issues of politics and culture were now doing little besides spewing constant streams of grossly distorting invective against Barack Obama (or what they would oh-so-innocently refer to as “vetting the candidate”).

When I took a deeply felt, authentically diplomatic approach, my would-be sisters advocating for Hillary Clinton generally ignored me (with precious few exceptions - you know who you are). And when I took more of a fighting approach, I began to deplore the sound of my own voice.

Finally, I did a post specifically on the dangers of the Obama/Clinton divide among progressives (using a one-shot opportunity to guest blog at Huffington Post), and while responses were generally favorable (I was thanked, for instance, for “inserting a little sanity into the divisive discourse”), it was also clear that my words could not begin to counteract what was, after all, a tsunami-sized wave of grossly cynical, and sometimes openly hateful discourse.

So, does my about-face with regard to overt political blogging mean I no longer care - passionately - about these issues? Hardly. (Indeed, what woke me up in the middle of the night, provoking me to write this, was a dream containing the audaciously brassy and insistent chorus line from Skunk Anansie’s Yes It’s Fucking Political.) Well then, does it mean my support for Barack Obama’s candidacy is in any way lessened? Most certainly not.

But if months engaging in what had been a labor of love - writing about the issues in this election - have gotten me absolutely nowhere in terms of fostering open, substantive dialogue with progressives’ common interests in mind, why on earth would I continue with that labor now? (For while it is my candidate’s prerogative - and, indeed, mandate - to respond as needed¹ to constant attacks coming from the Clinton camp, I don’t see that my doing so adds to the current discourse.)

Today, as Pennsylvania voters go to the polls, I’m going to impose a total news blackout in this household (from TV to newspapers to blogs to Twitter) until I know most of the returns are in, and my kids are in bed. Because, in the event Clinton’s last-ditch effort to save her campaign, by deploying that most Rovian of all despicably Rovian tactics - using the image of Osama bin Laden in campaign ads, in an effort to scare voters (remember when Democrats were in universal opposition to this practice?) - is successful (where ’success’ would mean more than a marginal victory in this particular state, with significant net gain in pledged delegates), I am going to be incredibly angry. And I’d rather my kids didn’t see me like that.

Whatever the outcome, this time tomorrow, I’ll compose myself again, and deal with whatever comes next. If, somehow, Clinton becomes the Democratic party’s nominee, I will certainly vote for her, because McCain is by far the more dangerous candidate.

In the Huffington Post guest blog entry referenced above, I included in a footnote this somewhat out-of-place comment: Each post I write on the election, I die a little. Extricating myself from these debates, then - despite a constant stream of outrages to which I might otherwise have been compelled to react - has been in the interests of self-preservation, and I don’t regret it.

Going back to something I jokingly said on Twitter, awhile back:

Feminist blogosphere, I wish I knew how to quit you.

I’m happy to say that with this last post, I finally have.

Good luck, Pennsylvania. I hope you’ll vote your conscience.

__

¹ As Obama said, in an interview to be aired in full on the Today Show later this morning:

This is an old trick, right? Somebody attacks you and attacks you and attacks you, and when you finally call them on it, suddenly you’re ‘engaging in the same tactics.’ We have been extraordinarily restrained during the course of this campaign and have generally responded only to attacks that have already been leveled at us by Senator Clinton.

Jeralyn Merritt and Kevin Drum are asking why Obama isn’t giving the press full-time access to his life. I suspect it’s because he realizes that they’re gearing up to take him down.

And why would he think that the press would turn on their golden boy? Oh, I don’t know… maybe because the guy can’t so much as eat breakfast without it becoming “waffle-gate“?

This is really beyond the pale. And really, if the “What election sexism?” Democrats can’t see how over-the-top this is, I don’t really know what to say.

Progressives should be better than this. I haven’t been a Clinton supporter, but the misogynist crap she’s gotten throughout the election has made me a whole lot more sympathetic towards her. There are a lot of questions to raise and a lot of skepticism to be had about both Democratic candidates — we can do that without resorting to sexist and racist crutches. And we can cut the whole “She’s tearing the party apart!” nonsense. You know what tears the party apart? Insulting and attacking the party’s base by launching racist and sexist attacks. Drawing big fat lines between Clinton and Obama, as if either he or she were the bad guy — and in doing so, giving John McCain (the real bad guy) a great big pass.

For thoughts on sexism in the election in general, I refer you to Rebecca Traister and Amanda Fortini.

Contact the TNR editors (letters@tnr.com) and tell them to stick to the issues — not sexist caricatures.

Thanks to Linda for the link.

Obama’s a pimp and Hillary is a bitch. Lovely.

And this comes from the pro-Obama camp. Can we please knock if off now, guys? I know we can do better than this.

Video from TRex.

Punish women? These guys? Nah…

This staff editorial manages to put out some of the more ridiculous anti-choice claims about pregnancy, punishment and responsibility. Plus they manage to get in a “reverse racism” slap at Obama, which is always special.

And now, in discussing the need for abortion, Obama says he wants to instill values in his daughters — but if one of them did get pregnant, he says, he wouldn’t want them “punished” with a baby.

The mainstream national media are ignoring it, but he actually said that.

Here’s our official editorial reaction:

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

His comment betrays a tragically dim view of God-given life. A baby as “punishment”? Forgive many of us for believing a child is the greatest gift God can bestow on either a parent or a nation.

Sure, a child can be a gift – if it’s accepted willingly. That’s a baseline for “gifting,” right? Voluntarily given and accepted? And that’s what pro-choice people believe: That a pregnancy can be a gift, and so it should be entered into voluntarily.

But take the next step with Sen. Obama: Let’s say a baby is a punishment to an unwed, wayward teen. It’s then acceptable to kill the baby in order to save the young mother the inconvenience of being “punished”?

I think they misunderstand. Not every pregnancy is a punishment — not even for the “unwed, wayward teen.” A pregnancy becomes a punishment when you’re forced to maintain it against your will.

The staff writers at the Augusta Chronicle don’t seem to bright, so I’ll explain it like this: Giving your kid his own room can be a gift (or it can just be a family decision). But forcing your kid to remain in his room, against his will, for nine months is not a gift. It is a punishment. Giving your wife a diamond necklace? Gift. Forcing her to wear the necklace for nearly a year, as it grows larger and heavier and weighs on her body, and as it impedes her ability to move and to sleep and to work? Punishment.

And since when is pregnancy a mere “inconvenience?” Have these people ever been pregnant? If you actually give a damn about pregnant women, it probably isn’t a great idea to demean their experience — an experience that changes their bodies and their health, that requires significant lifestyle changes, and that can have severe consequences — as just “inconvenient.”

Barack and Michelle Obama are obviously caring, loving parents. But part of loving and caring for your children is to teach them that there are consequences for their actions. To whisk a child off to an abortionist to help her avoid the consequences of her actions is in no way compassionate or caring. It’s quite the opposite. It’s teaching young women a perverse and utterly false notion that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions — or for the precious, vulnerable little lives they helped create.

Why is it that pregnancy is the only situation in which people are supposed to “take responsibility” in a way that is often totally irresponsible and ignores all other options? Why in the world is it not responsible to terminate a pregnancy that you simply cannot carry for physical, financial, personal or emotional reasons?

New life isn’t punitive. It’s restorative and miraculous and our sacred obligation to accept from on high with humility and gratitude. Rather than a punishment or inconvenience to be escaped, it’s a solemn obligation from our Creator to care for that child as we would want to be cared for.

You want punishment? Shirk that duty!

Pregnancy isn’t a punishment, nah. You will accept that pregnant and you will like it. You will accept it with humility and gratitude because it is your obligation. Bitch.

Thanks to Jovan for the link. You can reach the Augusta Chronicle op/ed pages at:

Augusta Chronicle Letters to the editor

PO Box 1928

Augusta, GA 30903-1928

letters@augustachronicle.com

1-706-823-3345

Presently there is a petition available online, addressed to Virginia’s Superdelegates, noting, “Virginia spoke. Barack Obama won Virginia by 281,054 votes or 28.19% of the vote” [emphasis added] and saying in part:

The only way in which Hillary Clinton could secure the Democratic nomination is if you were to overturn the will of both Virginia’s and the nation’s elected pledged delegates. Continuing such a campaign until our convention in August will:

• Create major divisions within our party through August with little time to heal before the General election;
• Dishearten newcomers to the party by creating the impression that the important party decisions are controlled by longtime party insiders
• Waste tens of millions of dollars battling each other which should be focused on John McCain;
• Distract media attention from focusing upon our true objective - beating John McCain.

__
I have, tonight, added my signature to this petition, with the following note:

As someone born in Virginia, and who has made this my permanent residence for the last ten years (voting for progressive and Democratic interests in nearly every election, including for smaller local races), I care deeply about the future of our Commonwealth, which will soon belong to my two daughters.

And I implore you, with all sincerity (and as someone who truly respects Senator Clinton’s service to this country, and wishes her no ill will whatsoever), to please give proper consideration for the will of Virginia’s voters, who overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in our Commonwealth’s primary.

To do otherwise would be to sabotage the interests of not only our state, but of Democracy itself.

In peace, and with greatest respect -

Victoria Marinelli
Henrico County, Virginia

__

I would ask that those of you who also reside in Virginia consider adding your own names and (respectful) comments to this petition. Our Commonwealth’s - and our country’s - future is at stake.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jesus. Is he kidding?

Last night at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama took a question on what he’s looking for in a running mate. “I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I’m not as expert on,” he said, and then he was off and running. “I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area–foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”

“It’s ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags ‘I’ve met leaders from eighty countries’–I know what those trips are like! I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then–you go.”

“You do that in eighty countries–you don’t know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa–knowing the leaders is not important–what I know is the people. . . .”

“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college–I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . .”

There are two major problems with this statement. Okay, three: 1) He lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10, 40 years ago. I lived in New Jersey from birth to age 13. Can I be governor when Corzine leaves office? 2) As I discussed in comments to this post, dismissing the diplomacy that Clinton did as “having tea” or being “just a wife” or doing no more than watching “children do native dance” is sexist, because it diminishes the role of women in diplomacy and it ignores the fact that a lot of diplomacy is, in fact, simple schmoozing:

However, dismissing her experience as “having tea” or reducing it to being just some guy’s wife on pleasure trips *is* misogynist.

But it is worthwhile to ask ourselves why many people don’t consider Clinton’s experience as first lady to be “real” foreign policy experience. A lot of diplomacy is, in fact, done via personal relationships and cocktail parties and receptions. Is it less worthy of consideration if you’re the spouse of the president than if you’re in the foreign service?

Now we come to 3) WHAT THE HELL IS HE THINKING? Great, so he lived in Indonesia for four years as a small child, he took a couple of trips with his college buddy to Pakistan and India, and he’s got impoverished relatives in Africa whom he’s visited. By the standards he just set out, however, he still comes off with less relevant experience than Navy brat John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, traveled extensively as a child, and spent more time hanging by his thumbs in the Hanoi Hilton than Obama did in Indonesia.

And that’s leaving aside the fact that Obama hasn’t done a damn thing with his Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee, while both of his opponents have done a great deal with theirs.

So how does that help, at all, in the general election?

Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton are “big fucking whores.” Yes, it’s a comedy routine, but don’t you think we can do a little better than this? (And can’t we pick an insult that isn’t (a) gendered and (b) unnecessarily mean towards all the perfectly decent whores of the world?)

So glad that prominent progressive women are using their platforms to raise the level of discourse around issues of politics and sexism.

Thanks to Tommy for the link.