I've noticed on Facebook that some of my friends have become "supporters" of Michelle Obama. Though I truly admire Ms. Obama, in all her 5'11", fiercely-intelligent, jacked-badass-lawyer glory, fervor for her gives me a bit of a facial tic, and I'll tell you why:
Go back 16 years and all you have to do is change the names--we're talking about Hillary Clinton.
People say the same things about her that they did about Clinton back in the day--you even heard it a bit about Elizabeth Edwards before her husband dropped out. My favorite quote is always, "I wish I could vote for HER." Y'know, instead of her husband. MICHAEL MOORE said this about Ms. Clinton once. So while it's only hyperbole, sure, we endorse the first ladies. But if two administrations from now, Lady Michelle tries to run on her own? I guarantee you the coats will turn. While in the 90's even the damn Animaniacs joked about Hillary being smarter than Bill*, now it's all about how people ACTUALLY wish they could re-elect the first Clinton--or how they're afraid that if Hillary won, Bill would be running things, even though the opposite joke used to be canon.
And right now you can even see Obama's lame attempts to soften her own image for those on the other side of the spectrum. While she guest-hosts The View and talks about how she has NO interest in policy decisions**, HRC once did the morning show route with her COOKIE RECIPE. Which is standard fare for first lady hopefuls--even Teresa Heinz had to make some reporter a batch of scones***.
I don't know which end holds the problems--are people fooling themselves when they say they'd vote for the wife, to convince themselves they're feminists, or are they right to espouse the theory and merely cowardly when it comes to the reality? Honestly, I think we just feel uncomfortable--we see brilliant, powerful, accomplished women like Clinton and Obama and Edwards, and feel guilty about the fashion-tipping, pastry-baking, literacy-promoting ghetto to which they must consign themselves.
It brings to mind the various vocational Barbies. We feel good about seeing that unavoidable blonde as an astronaut or surgeon or what the hell ever, because we like the idea of setting that example. But if you ask people to draw a picture of a NASA hero or a doctor, I can tell you what those drawings ain't gonna look like. In our nation's hearts, we still think the likes of Clinton and Obama will seem more at home behind the wheel of a pink plastic convertible, the word "Malibu" in front of their names. So spare me the bullshit. You're a FAN of Michelle Obama, not a supporter. What're you supporting, the legality of her marriage? Anything else rings hollow, and it's salt in the wound, hearing these lies now that we all know that's what they are. There's nothing wrong with wanting Michelle Obama to be president, it just has to be TRUE. So color me disillusioned.
It beats bright pink.
*From the "Presidents" song: "Now in Washington D.C./There's the Democrats and the G.O.P./But the one in charge is plain to see/It's Clinton, first name Hillary." Also there was a bit in a "Pinky and the Brain" sketch.
**YEAH. RIGHT.
***Oh, and pretend her last name is Kerry. But I digress.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Hillary And Michelle: Presidential Paper Dolls
Monday, April 21, 2008
Because Men Shouldn't Worry Their Pretty Little Heads Over Money
CNN.com has as their main article this morning a charming story entitled "Moms struggling with prices." (Or, when you click on the article, "Moms' new battle: The food price bulge.") It bears this June Cleaver-y photo:
There's not really much that needs to be said about this, because it's pretty obvious...MOMS? To the exclusion of DADS? Because country-wide, fathers are completely absent from all grocery-related decision making? One woman in the story works in cancer research, and her self-employed husband sometimes struggles to find work. So why isn't HE the one pureeing baby food and making his own detergent? More to the point, why does CNN take that as a given?
This is offensive to both men and women--many men are actually involved in their households, and shouldn't be treated as though they have nothing to do with how their children eat. Screw this "women's work" bullshit--aren't we at least supposed to officially be past that?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Fuck The Clever Post Titles: Just Don't Call Clinton A Bitch, Okay? Awesome. Glad We Had This Talk
Feministe has a great post up about why it's important to call out anti-Clinton misogyny, regardless of whom you support. An excerpt:
I’m focusing on the misogynistic stuff thrown at Clinton because this, as you may recall, is a feminist blog. And while there are hundreds if not thousands of other blogs as well as entire networks and mainstream media outlets rushing to the defense of Obama (thus rendering anything I have to say pretty well redundant), there are few outlets calling out misogynistic attacks on Clinton and/or on her supporters. And it matters that somebody’s calling it out. It’s got nothing to do with who’s the better candidate, who should win, the “delegate math,” or what have you. Vote for whomever you feel like voting for; I’ve been on record from the beginning of the primary that feminists don’t have to vote for Clinton to be feminists, since feminists get to make up their minds the same as anyone else does.
Read it. At least read some of it. It's really important, and tackles several issues, especially that of how such misogyny affects women in general.
Now it's personal experience time! I have a friend who is totally smart and not an asshole provided he's sober, but apparently decides to change things up when he's drunk and/or high. (What I'm about to describe is the only first-hand experience I have of this, so I'm not trying to comment on his character.) Basically the argument was over whether it's okay to call Clinton a bitch. He was high and not responding to anything I said so I eventually just left, but I will give you lucky readers the answer to this question:
No, it is not okay. Asshole.
It doesn't matter what you think of her. It doesn't matter if she is a bitch*. You don't say that about women in politics, you don't say that about women in power, you preferably don't say that about women, period. I came up with a great linguistic example (by which no one seems impressed except me, but I am way impressed so whatever): the word "niggard." Etymologically, it has nothing to do with the infamous N-word, but it unfailingly brings that word to mind so you really just shouldn't use it in public, not because of its meaning but because of its connotations.
Maybe this example doesn't impress my friends because it's really a debate tactic aimed at people who don't know they're being sexist. Because "bitch" is misogynist in both origin and typical usage, whereas "niggard" is racist in neither. Perhaps a better example is that you shouldn't call women "hysterical" because of the sexist origins of the term**, but to care you'd pretty much have to not be a misogynist in the first place. This friend was actually insisting that bitch is not a sexist word, ever. But like I said, he was high--when sober, he probably remembers that the word literally means "female dog." He also argued that he sometimes calls men bitches--I tried pointing out that people call men bitches for different sets of behavior than for women, and the thrust of the insult is that you're saying that the man is a woman. Which is, as we all know, A TERRIBLE THING TO BE.
Not that you have to like Clinton. This friend of mine's stance is still "Anyone but McCain!" whereas this other dude in the conversation took the horrifying stance "If Clinton wins I'll vote McCain." There are only two reasons to support McCain: 1) you hate women, and 2) you're a Republican, which means you hate women anyway so there you have it. There's also the possible 3rd reason that you're an independent and don't actually know anything ABOUT McCain, but if you're any sort of Democrat and prefer him to Clinton, I have this to say: dude, I'm sorry you hate your mommy and everything, but do you have to take it out on the rest of us? Do you really hate vaginas so much that you want to force mine to give birth regardless of my wishes? Douche.***
And that's The Word.
*And btdubs, I have never been given any evidence that she is a bitch. A politician? Yes. A bitch? Fuck you.
**From the Greek for "wandering uterus," a condition that was ascribed to women in explanation of "madness." In the 19th century it was used as a catch-all diagnosis for any issue a woman was having, and was sometimes treated with clitoral stimulation, which would result in a "hysterical paroxysm," something we're all fond of. (Vibrators eventually came into use because doctors' hands got tired. No joke.) Freud led the transition from hysteria to neurosis, which was a non-gendered term he used to discuss male and female patients alike, and now the term is not recognized by the psychological community, as it is not only sexist but vague and not particularly helpful diagnostically.
***A douche is, of course, a gendered product, but it's a bad one, so the insult is valid.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Pearly Teeth--Like The Shark, Dear
I've created a bunch of facebook groups in my day. One of my favorites is semi-recent, and it's called "Fuck you, I'll smile when I feel like it." I checked it again the other day, and discovered that it now has 227 members. This is, by far, the largest membership in any of the groups I've created. Most of the members are people I don't know, some from different countries. It's very gratifying, and I feel like I've filled a need. A lot of the commenters seem actually thankful to be on the record as vehemently against the phenomenon.
In explaining, to myself even, why it makes many of us so angry when strangers tells us to smile, I pose the question as it's posed in the intro to Manifesta: why is this person doing this? Manifesta described it as the "click" moment for a particular woman--the moment at which you realize that sexism and feminism do in fact affect you, the moment when everything is suddenly clear and you go, as Caryl Rivers put it, "Hey, this isn't fair!" It's not that being told to smile holds us back, but I always wonder what the ROOT is, and what the aim. I tend to gravitate towards one particular theory, though I've listed others in the group: a deep-seated belief that women aren't to be taken seriously. The business of running the world and thinking important thoughts falls to men, but why should girls worry their pretty heads? Why would they do anything but walk around smiling, looking happy for the sake of cheering the men around them?
And this, of course, relates to the world's fear of angry women. I remember sitting at a bar/coffee shop about a month ago, one that has an open storefront, and there was a really bad accident outside. No one was hurt, but a woman's sedan ended up crashed into an iron fence on the sidewalk, and the other party was a truck. None of us saw the accident--we heard it and then went to look. The woman got out and yelled at the truck driver, "You ran me off the road! You ran me off the road!" The owner (manager?) of the bar said to some customers, "It must've been her fault, the way she's yelling."
I was so angry and depressed for the rest of the day. My mother talked later about that woman who died mysteriously in the Phoenix airport while in police custody--she was arrested in the first place because she was yelling and making a scene, and my mother felt this would never have happened with a man, that her "crime" was being simultaneously angry and a woman. If it'd been a man screaming at a truck driver over the same accident, there's no way the bar owner would've said that. He'd probably have said something about what a menace those huge trucks are*.
I'm not happy being a feminist today. But I'm glad 226 other people understand what I mean.
*All of which is probably why I didn't let him buy my apartment.
Yes I Can
I've just realized that there is a really awesome byproduct of being an Obama supporter: I can call people out on Hillary-directed sexism with impunity. The "I voted for Obama, but..." may prove very useful, as I can make all the points that some women have made without undermining it all with the "and thus you should vote for Hillary or you're sexist too" ending.
This occurred to me at a coffee shop yesterday when I LAUGHED ALOUD at a man who was talking to the barista (baristo?) about supporting Obama because he got a "control, power-hungry vibe" from Clinton. I love* when people convince themselves that Obama is not a politician, that he doesn't want power, despite the fact that he's RUNNING FOR FUCKING PRESIDENT, which is arguably the definition of wanting power. This dude also followed it up with the, "She just wants Bill back in the White House" argument, which people use almost invariably in contradiction to their other arguments. She's power-mad, but she doesn't plan to have power? Someone hates their mother!
I didn't actually engage the dude, but he heard me laugh at him. So that was fun.
*If by love you mean hate! Which I do.
Monday, January 14, 2008
More On Moore
The Carpetbagger Report has a good response to the Lorrie Moore op-ed, and actually found the statistics. Steve M., the guest poster, makes a few excellent points I missed:
So, yes, one out of every nine boys drops out, which is appalling in what’s supposed to be the greatest country in the world — but if “only” one out every eleven girls drops out, it’s not as if we have that problem all sorted out, is it?
and:
...yes, the black dropout rate is noticeably higher than the white dropout rate, but the Hispanic dropout rate is twice as high as the black rate. Doesn’t that mean we should have all abandoned our support of Clinton and Obama and rallied behind Bill Richardson?
(And isn't the highest drop-out demographic pregnant teens? Are we allowed to vote for Clinton if she gets knocked up?) And finally:
We can parse this all day, but as I read it, blacks have crumbs, women have a somewhat larger supply of crumbs, and white men still run most of everything. So why pit blacks and women against each other?
Why indeed.
New Times Op-Ed Inadvertantly Supports Steinem Op-Ed
Yesterday's New York Times featured an op-ed by novelist Lorrie Moore titled "Last Year's Role Model," the basic thesis of which is: "The political moment for feminine role models, arguably, has passed us by."
Um, yeah...first of all, Lorrie, "feminine" is different than "female," so I'm not really sure what you think you're saying there. From the context it seems you mean "female," in which case...false. Or rather, what the fuck is that supposed to even mean? It would be one thing if Moore were trying to say that political interest in female role models has waned--which anyway would be contradicted by the recent increase in female political role models such as Rice and Polosi, whatever you might think of them. But based on her subsequent argument, she seems to be saying that female political role models are actually unnecessary-- that they are, in fact, totes lame.
The first big piece of evidence for this is that boys of color are suffering more academically. This is clearly true, but...shit, let me just bullet-point all the problems with this argument:
•Um, I think women still maybe have any other problems in society, like, at all. Yknow, one or two.
•Moore argues that the American educational system was "designed by and for white girls." Wanna back that up with any evidence, or maybe explain it in some way? Some sub-points:
•Actually, that merits its own bullet. BLACK GIRLS EXIST.
•It is kind of a leap to assume that having a black President will encourage all boys of color to study harder--and asserting that this is true undermines the notion that it is the design of the educational system that puts boys at a disadvantage. So all they need to do is apply themselves, and then the system's cool?
Then there's a bunch of general "blacks have it worse than chicks" stuff: "The sexes have always lived together, but the races have not." Which is true--so then why have we not had a female President? Why is the Senate still a mere 16% female? (An improvement from my childhood--and Lisa Simpson's--when it was 2%, but come on, we're half the fucking population.) Also, she likens Clinton's failed health plan to Guiliani's moronic placement of the Crisis Command Center in the WTC, against all sane council he received. Which totally makes sense, cuz Hillary's health care plan totally killed a bunch of people.
This piece is a perfect complement to Steinem's, for two reasons. One, it supports her main point that to a lot of people, sexism is sooooo not a big deal. Two, it's the exact same stupid thing Steinem was doing--falsely and detrimentally casting this election in terms of Race vs. Gender, and making up nonsense for the sake of touting the candidate of one's choice. Steinem likes Clinton. Moore likes Obama. All's fair in love and politics!
Oh, and also: black girls exist.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
In Case You're Interested
Feministing has a "24-Hour Hillary Sexism Watch," and here is a particularly teeth-gnash-inducing post.
And don't worry, they hated Steinem's Op-Ed.
In Defense Of Steinem. (Mostly.)
Yeah, so, many of you have by now read Gloria Steinem's NYTimes Op-Ed piece about sexism and Hillary Clinton. Many people have had problems with it. This was my reaction after the first read: "She's basically right, except for the part where all this means that everyone should vote for Clinton." I would say I "mostly liked it."
Not that we shouldn't vote for Clinton. (More on that to come.) And if we ignore that paragraph, and pay attention to her other points, there's a lot to embrace. I have long held that sexism is the last acceptable "ism"--even among young, liberal, well-educated people like me and my friends*. Steinem seems to agree:
The evidence is everywhere--but because we're so bombarded with it, it's easy to shrug off even the most overt examples. And that's what I'm talking about: explicit sexism. Sexism is not necessarily more prevalent than racism, but being overtly sexist is way more acceptable. Sexism is mainstream. Take my Chris Matthews examples below: could you imagine him saying, "Do you find it difficult to debate a black man?" Far more egregious is the instance in Salem, New Hampshire from a few days ago: at a Clinton rally, a young man stood up and started yelling, over and over, "Iron my shirt!" He had a big yellow sign that also bore the slogan. Imagine if someone had stood up at an Obama rally and shouted, "Pick my cotton!" It would've been a huge event. There might have been violence. It certainly would've gotten media attention, whereas this event was ignored in favor of Clinton "crying**."
Perhaps the simplest example--which won me some supporters at a bar last night--is the question "Do you think a woman can be as effective a President as a man?" This question is being debated on Facebook. WTF? Think for a second. Can you actually imagine someone asking, "Do you think a black person can be as effective a President as a white person?" If you can imagine someone asking that, the person you are imagining probably not only has a Confederate flag tattoo, but would also actually say, "I hate black people." To ask a question like that, you have to be an avowed racist.
I'd been planning on talking about this for awhile--in the context of how it's okay for a movie to be sexist--but the issue's really come to a head. And while I DON'T agree with Steinem that it's cool to support Clinton because she's a woman (and this "on-the-job training" argument makes me uncomfortable for various reasons), what she says about the media's treatment of her is almost all undeniably true:
Steinem offers a few reasons for all this, which may or may not be valid. I mentioned the ubiquity of sexism, and how it's desensitized us to the problem, and I think ubiquity is also one of the root causes--in short, sexists know more women than racists know black people. There are more opportunities to be blatantly sexist. It's the oldest form of prejudice there is, because gender is the first characteristic available to us. After establishing that a person is, you know, human, gender is the next thing we want to know. Newborns are labeled as such in hospitals.
I'm not saying we should be squeamish about using gender as an identifying feature--I mean to illustrate the significance of gender in our lives from the moment we're born. And if we're basically okay with gross displays of sexism, think about how okay we are with implicit and unconscious sexism. It's scary.
*Perhaps even more so, since among this demographic the other "isms" are SO unacceptable.
**And Edwards being a douche about it, but that didn't get much attention either.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Call Me Aunt Tom?
I used to love Hillary Clinton. Loved her like Michael Moore loved her. When she ran for Senate, I was thrilled. I was pink with pride over having the best pair o' Senators in the nation: Chuck and Hill.
But President Hillary Clinton? Not so much.
So, when did the switch happen? I'm not sure. But I find I do not trust her on domestic issues like gay marriage and civil liberties. Except that I of course DO trust her on the subject of reproductive rights, which I only realized JUST NOW, and that's obviously not a small thing for me and I'm suddenly forgetting the other things I don't trust her on so what gives? Michelle Obama has said that her husband doesn't poll well among African Americans because black people have internalized racist ideas about who our leaders should be. Is that what I'm doing? Why do I find myself pulled towards both Obama and Edwards? In 2004, I called Edwards a mimbo! I started a Facebook group about Obama's lack of experience! Do I really think Clinton's Supreme Court nominees would be any less liberal than Obama's? Don't I trust her most to follow through on issues regarding contraceptives and sex-ed, while Obama and Edwards could well get away with lip-service?
So now I fear that I've just internalized the idea that Presidents are Men. I know liking Obama over Clinton is the hip thing to do, but when all we really care about is beating the Republicans, it's hard to sort things out. All I know is, I saw this post on Hillary's possibly floundering campaign, felt myself cheered by it, and now all of a sudden I can't quite remember why. Good thing I live in a state where primaries don't matter!
Posts
