Now Chris Matthews is saying that Clinton IS ONLY A US SENATOR BECAUSE PEOPLE FELT BAD THAT HER HUSBAND CHEATED ON HER. Check out the clip at Wonkette.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Picking A Pony
I've talked before about my mixed Clinton-related feelings. Well, they've changed. Kind of. Yes, I too have gotten swept up in Obamamania. It's hard not to. But last night I was reminded that I've been loving Hillary since I was 10 years old. I grew up on her. Watching Hillary's acceptance speech, I actually choked up a little. My reaction was basically, "Oh look, my mom's running for President. My mom would be an AWESOME President!"
I'm over my lame trust issues, and now it truly is down to electability. This issue is two-fold: Hillary arguably being not-so-electable, and Obama arguably being super-electable. If you'd seen nothing but the speeches last night, you could well have thought that he had won. Though his speech didn't really have any content (do any of them at this point?), it was undeniably inspiring. He's a superb orator. He might actually unite rather than divide--though honestly, do we want that? Wouldn't we rather be divided but winning? But I digress.
I wish people would stop talking about Hillary's unelectability. Not because they're wrong, or because it's not a valid issue, but solely because, well, it makes me sad. It irritates me the same way as when people criticize Juno even in the slightest--I want to cover my ears and scream "CHANGE THE SUBJECT CHANGE THE SUBJECT!"
Which means that this post is not actually as substantive as I'd intended, because I don't really feel like thinking about the many reasons why nominating Clinton could potentially be a bad idea. Maybe I'll return to this subject later. The bottom line is, I am officially torn. I have no idea whom I'm voting for in a few weeks. I love Hillary, and while I don't think she's UNelectable, I think Obama's hard for any Republican to outcharm.
Sigh.
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:
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race... and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
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:
[W]hat worries me is that [Obama] is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex... What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations... What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
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.
Prelude To A Post
In attempt not to bombard you with one giant post combining my thoughts on Clinton, Obama, Steinem, my mother, and possibly the movie Juno, I'm going to start with some evidence that I will later introduce to an argument. So, below, a (no doubt inexhaustive) list of weirdly sexist things Chris Matthews has said about Hillary Clinton:
-He asked Chris Dodd, "Do you find it difficult to debate a woman?" Dodd, sanely, said no.
-He then went on to tell Tim Russert that Bill had her on a "short leash."
-He pinched her cheek. Repeat: he pinched her cheek.
-Last night after the primary results came in, he said to her Communications Director Howard Wolfson something like about how her appeal lies in the "contrast" between her "strength" and her "being a woman." Not actually a joke. This is something I actually saw, but unfortunately I can't find a link to it. He actually contrasted being a woman with being strong. Wolfson was, rightfully, slightly thrown.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Ah Yes, 1992 WAS An Awesome Year, Wasn't It?
This is from io9, the new blog for women who like science fiction. I think. Anyway, here is the cover of a pulp novel from 1971:
I will not post the excerpt cuz I figure I should instead send you all over to io9 and you can read it there. It was their scoop, after all.
All Years' Resolutions
Looking at Nerve's "Scanner Emily's Top 10 Lessons Learned in 2007," one thing jumped out:
4. If you suspect a guy is blowing you off, he is. No matter what your friends say.
This is SOOOO not news but I feel it bears constant repetition. I think my friends and I have learned this lesson to the point that we don't actually try to convince our friends they're not being blown off, but I know I still have that little pipsqueak voice in the back of my head that tries to make excuses. One has to constantly remind oneself that if a guy likes you, he will try to keep you from screwing other guys by at least calling you now and then.
Neighbor Steve was in fact helpful on this front recently, when an attempted set-up by a well-meaning friend resulted in me totally hitting it off with* this guy and then he never called. A few days later (Monday--->Saturday), Neighbor Steve and I, being just about the only ones not out of town for Christmas, went to our local bar for a drink, where there were 3 other people (bartender included). Then, of course, Monday Dude walks in. Awkward wave. That's it.
So, Neighbor Steve and I do the requisite check-in. Did he think Steve and I were on a date? Nah, we were SO not acting datey, which he would've seen had he been looking for signals, and more importantly, if he'd been interested he would've called by then. Did he get an extension due to the holiday weekend? Steve thought a minute and determined that, had he been interested, he should at least have texted me an "R u in town this wk?" Was it because I'm Jewish and he's all Church-Going Master's in Theology? Apparently he has a long history of choosing the Chosen. So, no more excuses: he blew me off. Tant pis. Neighbor Steve was quite indignant on my behalf, which is all a girl can ask.
I will stop here, since I am trying to NOT just go on and on about my life but to actually have a POINT, which is this: we often need reminders of things that we know we should know, but we're only human so sometimes we allow ourselves to forget. The end.
*Fine, "making out with."
Political Quote Of The Day
"I know I've been campaigning too much because I was at a rally and instead of saying 'The time for change has come' I said 'The time for come has changed.' And I have to admit, everybody clapped."
-- Obama in a New Hampshire speech.
Via Jezebel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
