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.

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.

This is leadership.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

And here on this night, the first time an African American -- or a non-white person of any kind -- has won the nomination of a major political party in America, he speaks not of this but of Hillary:

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency — an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A fabulous speech.

Yeah, that'll show him!

John McCain is in favor of forced pregnancy, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

John McCain's healthcare plan is "let the market handle it" (like it has been handling it so far), but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

John McCain is obsessed with fighting wars and extending the war of choice on Iraq, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.

Why? Because they seem to feel that Hillary Clinton is somehow entitled to the nomination, despite the fact that she didn't get the votes.

What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. They are now in their own orbit, having abandoned popular Democratic Websites that reveled in crude anti-Hillary outpourings -- and established new ones on which they trade stories of the Obama people's nastiness. . The women talk of being taken for granted by a party leadership that never spoke out on some of the outrageous Hillary bashing -- and despite the close race, joined the early rush to crown Obama. . .

"Many of us feel slighted," said Lynn Eyrich Harvey, 76, from Los Gatos, Calif. "We feel that years of supporting the party is unimportant, that we are to sit down and shut up -- but be sure to vote Democratic in November." Passions can change, one supposes, but the women I hear from do not see the rampant sexism, particularly toward older women, as isolated gaffes but as a systemic dismissal of them -- an enormous voting bloc that has been reliably Democratic.

"How Obama's campaign has treated Hillary will not be forgotten," Janet Rogers, 55, who runs a Bed and Breakfast in Medina, Ohio, wrote me. "I will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. My husband and friends all feel the same way."

[via TGW]

How did Obama's campaign treat Hillary? She was the one always attacking him, remember?

It was her election to lose -- she had all the advantages early on -- and she lost it. She ran a lousy campaign, reinvented herself every week, and used political rhetoric of the tone and slant that fits perfectly with Karl Rove politics. A lot of Democrats have been looking at Hillary and just saying "ugh, no more."

If things were reversed, and the African American male candidate were the establishment politician defending the DLC's control of the Party, and the woman were the new face who spoke about politics with an entirely different tone and who inspired people into believing that change really is possible, then I'm quite sure the woman would win.

Clinton is a Clinton. Clinton has baggage. But what's worse, her political style, her campaign, her rhetoric all are rooted in the 90s, and sound way too much like more of the same than many would like.

You want to vote for John McCain? Knock yourself out. And think about the Supreme Court you are leaving to your daughters and granddaughters. Think about the fraying social safety net under yet another term of thrashing. Think about the Global Gage Rule and how it's being applied at home. Think about our failing schools. Think about perpetual war. Think about the nail in the coffin of progressive values you are driving in with a vote for McCain. All because your candidate did not win.

More women will run. Women will win. This is not going to change.

But in what kind of America? Change has to happen now, or we are setting this country back even more.

What do you think? Is she sticking around in case Barack Obama is assassinated? All these slips add up.

Liza writes:

To this blogger, Hillary Clinton has waged a campaign on bringing out the inner white supremacist out of many Americans who are frothing at the mouth over the prospect of having to vote for a black man. Of course, many other pundits and bloggers gave her the benefit of the doubt. Then her infamous, "white Americans" comment happened.

This after a long string of gaffes, innuendos and outright racist attacks that too many people in media decided to let pass and still give her the benefit of the doubt since many were coming from her own surrogates and even her husband.

Then Ketucky and West Virginia happened :

Are you telling me it is not in her mind that she has enough racists supporting her enough to go out and kill Obama for her?

Ouch. I'm not comfortable with the "for her" at the end of the last sentence, but I think there's no doubt that Hillary's dark view of the world contains scenarios where she rises from Barack's ashes.

But tell me, "feminist" Hillary supporters: How can you claim that I or Liza or any of the 40%+ women out there who don't support Hillary are anti-feminist or even misogynist? And what does declaring you'd rather vote for McCain than Obama say about your real feminist credentials? How is Barack responsible for Hillary's problems?

And tell me, realpolitik Hillary supporters: How does a woman who blunders so often make the case that she's "better qualified" to run the Executive Branch? This was Hillary Clinton's nomination to lose, and she's losing it, and losing it ugly -- so ugly that if, by some wild chance, she actually grabs the nomination, she will have alienated so many of those who have joined what's been a newly energized Democratic party that progressivism will suffer for years as a consequence.

How about a little dignity, Senator Clinton? How about acting Presidential instead of like some goon?

The Gaurdian has an article that starts off:

No wonder Iceland has the happiest people on earth

Highest birth rate in Europe + highest divorce rate + highest percentage of women working outside the home = the best country in the world in which to live. There has to be something wrong with this equation.

Of course. Can't have women outside of the home.

But a high birthrate doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. High divorce rate could be an indication of fewer unhappy marriages.

And we all know now that societies with more women participating not just in the workplace but in management thrive more than other societies.

So what's the "something wrong" here?

'That is not something to be proud of,' said Oddny, with a brisk smile, 'but the fact is that Icelanders don't stay in lousy relationships. They just leave.' And the reason they can do so is that society, starting with the parents and grandparents, does not stigmatise them for making that choice. Icelanders are the least hung-up people in the world. Thus the incentive, for example, 'to stay together for the sake of the kids' does not exist. The kids will be just fine, because the family will rally round them and, likely as not, the parents will continue to have a civilised relationship, based on the usually automatic understanding that custody for the children will be shared.

Reykjavic, Iceland, May 2008: City Councillor Oddny Sturludottir tells us why Iceland is the best place in the World. Photograph: Ari Magg
The comfort of knowing that, come what may, the future for the children is safe also helps explain why Icelandic women, modern as they are (Iceland elected the world's first female president, Vigdis Finnbogadottir, a single mother, 28 years ago), persist in the ancient habit of bearing children very young. 'Not unwanted teen pregnancies, you understand,' said Oddny, 'but women of 21, 22 who willingly have children, very often while they are still at university.' At a British university a pregnant student would be an oddity; in Iceland, even at the business-oriented Reykjavik University, it is not only common to see pregnant girls in the student cafeteria, you see them breast-feeding, too. 'You extend your studies by a year, so what?' said Oddny. 'No way do you think when you have a kid at 22, "Oh my God, my life is over!" Definitely not! It is considered stupid here to wait till 38 to have a child. We think it's healthy to have lots of kids. All babies are welcome.'

All the more so because if you are in a job the state gives you nine months on fully paid child leave, to be split among the mother and the father as they so please. 'This means that employers know a man they hire is just as likely as a woman to take time off to look after a baby,' explained Svafa Grönfeldt, currently rector of Reykjavik University, previously a very high-powered executive. 'Paternity leave is the thing that made the difference for women's equality in this country.'

Hmmm.... Maybe progressive values are actually good for children?

Imagine this happening in this country.

Here's a strange notion from Megan McArdle:

Fundamentally, what the netroots want is a Fighting Progressive. They want an unabashed liberal who will go toe to toe with the Republicans and punch them in the nose.

But what they have is a choice between a Fighting Pragmatist (Hillary Clinton) and a Kumbaya Progressive (Barack Obama).

That's not quite right, is it?

What we have is more like an abrasive politico willing and eager to parrot activist views (Hillary Clinton) and someone more interested in achieving true progressive reform than scoring rhetorical points (Barack Obama).

Megan, it's how you define "Fighting", really.

No, the it's not unanimous. There are a lot of angry people out there who just want to hear the angry rhetoric, damn the torpedoes. But let's face it, the matter is pretty much settled. Count the states, count the votes, count the delegates, count the money, count the number of donors, Obama is the leader. Obama is the candidate.

And anything that ends up changing that fact, at this late date (and yes, it is late for this particular election season), will be perceived as the stealing of the Presidency.

Do we need that again?

A Kosnik called Alegre has loudly discontinued his participation on DailyKos:

Sadly, the majority of the administrators have allowed this hostile environment to develop in our online community for anyone who isn’t planted firmly in the Obama camp. They’ve routinely ignored personal attacks and allowed disruptive, spam-like posts to go unchecked whenever anyone expresses support for Hillary or challenges something their candidate has said or done....

...As a result, our community has become little more than an echo chamber with an attitude that harkens back to the early days of Dubbya’s administration - yer either with us or yer a’gin us, heh! The attackers and disrupters are no better than Chris Matthews with their sexism, hate, lies, and obsession with bashing - all - things - Hillary....

...[I]s that the kind of behavior that Obama would be proud of? Do the venomous attacks and lies about fellow Democrats represent him and all he stands for in an accurate and fair manner? Does this spiteful and vindictive behavior reunite our party? Would outing this working mother represent hope? Would it bring about change? Would Obama encourage that sort of anger, bullying, intimidation and hate from his followers toward another Democrat and her supporters? Do those followers of his help his cause at the end of the day?

I can't say I'm surprised. For me, I decided to stop enduring the abuse from "allies" when the pie fight happened.

Sometimes the partisan blinders end up being blindfolds.

Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft gets it all backwards:

Obama's Unity Schtick is precisely what the DLC and Joe Lieberman have been preaching for decades and that the progressive blogs were supposed to be fighting AGAINST.

Not.

Barack Obama is a progressive who pitches his rhetoric in rational, moderate, common sense tones to appeal to centrists and independents and even disaffected Republicans, drawing them to his point of view.

This is just the opposite of Joe Lieberman, who has been voting with the right on important issues (and let's start with the war on Iraq and go from there), while pitching his rhetoric against the left.

Equating the two seems to be simply -- as Barack himself might put it -- intellectually lazy.

While the Larry Craig scandal post-mortems move over all sorts of Via arcane, almost pointless speculations, I'm left wondering whether this is at all a political win for progressives.

Yes, the GOP is imploding over its holier-than-thou right to hate ______________ (fill in the blank), but is giving the "crime" of Craig's sexual orientation such political validity through all the chest-thumping really a "win"?

Yes, Craig seems to be a cheat. But cheats led the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. What's so different now? Because Craig is gay?

This is part of the sad spectacle of American politics that goes back in my memory at least to the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, when a clearly unqualified not-quite-a-judge was challenged not over his lack of qualifications but rather over sexual misconduct. Anita Hill may have suffered, and I'm inclined to believe her, but was her suffering really to the point? Clarence Thomas sits on the bench, writing inane opinion and dissent, one after the other, like some grumbling old curmudgeon clinging to the dogmas of his angry view of the world, all because the Democrats would not challenge him on the issue at hand: competence.

And now we see the crowing over the fall of Senator Craig, who is all too typical of the fragile conservative male who needs to pass law after law to prevent him from being himself. And we crow over his fall.

But isn't it a bit tragic? War, bloodshed, corruption in the billions of dollars, domestic and abroad, and the only casualties we see are over sexual "deviance" as defined by a bunch of fearful men afraid of their own shadows.

Some victory. Like standing on the top of the hill that's falling into a deeper and deeper hole.