Before delving into the massive amount of information from Super Tuesday, and beginning to glean any sort of substantive meat for the upcoming dates to come, let me lightly tread on thin ice.
Feminism and Hillary. Two words that rile you up or turn you off. I am slowly tilting from one side to the other, like one of those old bobbing toys that dip into a glass of water and then back, and forth. Today, I am not getting near that water.
Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of Bill and Hillary, "sent" (it is still not confirmed by the campaign if she did or didn't) an email to all the Hillary email devotees. It linked the reader to an essay by Robin Morgan, an old school feminists, and considered one of the founders of the current wave of feminism. This essay is a part deux of an essay she wrote some decades back. It is apropriately called "Goodbye to All That (#2)."
It is a call to arms to all women to support Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because of everything else but that.
Some choice excerpts (the "he" in these selections is Obama):
"—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)
—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.) "
She calls attention to the Clinton-hate out there:
"Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame."
And the usual feminist arguments:
"Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless.
We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides.
We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all.
We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf."
Fair enough.
This is not about that, anymore. The same argument can be made for Obama: slavery, segregation, lynching, discrimination, rape, ridicule, regress, poverty, genocide, assimilation, and many more powerful, and equally true terms to send sirens and tempers flying. I will not dismiss one argument or the other. I believe both are equally important and will be an issue this election with those type of people that are either motivated to vote because of an opposition to all of this, or motivated to stop the candidate because of an approval (if only tacitly) of all of this.
Where she misses the point is that her arguments are not that, but hyperboles. And badly aimed hyperboles at that.
Those remarks, attacks, and opposition against Hillary cannot be classified as "hate against women," just as the remarks made by Joe Biden about Obama are not "hate against blacks." They are only there because a she is there. An issue would be raised also if Mitt Romney were the front-runner (ooooh, a Mormon!), or Huckabee (a crazy Southerner!), or Kucinich (a hippie!). They would be an issue in a lesser degree, but still an issue.
That attitude toward Hillary and women in power is not because of 'hate.' But because of 'fear.' Fear of change, mostly. Changing the status quo is a scary thought for many ingrained in their ways. This is different from what Obama has and will experience. Obama is going against fear AND hate. Even the 'hate' written about here is relegated to fringe groups on the extreme right. Sure, there will be uneasiness in the hearts of bigots across the country if they see Obama take the presidential oath, but it will be just that, an uneasiness with the change this country will undertake.
Back to Hillary, she is not going against a man, but a movement. Vernon Jordan, a Clinton faithful, mentioned this truth. Hillary is not going toe-to-toe with Obama, but with his movement. His movement is based on youthful idealism, hope, change, and centers around intangibles, rather than policies and wonkiness. This is exactly what the John F Kennedy movement was about. If feminists like Morgan believe Hillary is fighting against the old ways of America, they are wrong. Hillary is battling the new, the change in America. It is not because she represents the old America, but because she DOES NOT represent the new America.
This transcends gender or race. Culture,class, and expectations are motivating this battle on both sides. Feminists like Morgan cannot grasph this notion, apparently. It is all about voting because I AM this, and I AM that, not I WILL be this or I WILL be that.
lhp
Feminism and Hillary. Two words that rile you up or turn you off. I am slowly tilting from one side to the other, like one of those old bobbing toys that dip into a glass of water and then back, and forth. Today, I am not getting near that water.
Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of Bill and Hillary, "sent" (it is still not confirmed by the campaign if she did or didn't) an email to all the Hillary email devotees. It linked the reader to an essay by Robin Morgan, an old school feminists, and considered one of the founders of the current wave of feminism. This essay is a part deux of an essay she wrote some decades back. It is apropriately called "Goodbye to All That (#2)."
It is a call to arms to all women to support Hillary, not because she is a woman, but because of everything else but that.
Some choice excerpts (the "he" in these selections is Obama):
"—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)
—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.) "
She calls attention to the Clinton-hate out there:
"Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame."
And the usual feminist arguments:
"Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless.
We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides.
We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all.
We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf."
Fair enough.
This is not about that, anymore. The same argument can be made for Obama: slavery, segregation, lynching, discrimination, rape, ridicule, regress, poverty, genocide, assimilation, and many more powerful, and equally true terms to send sirens and tempers flying. I will not dismiss one argument or the other. I believe both are equally important and will be an issue this election with those type of people that are either motivated to vote because of an opposition to all of this, or motivated to stop the candidate because of an approval (if only tacitly) of all of this.
Where she misses the point is that her arguments are not that, but hyperboles. And badly aimed hyperboles at that.
Those remarks, attacks, and opposition against Hillary cannot be classified as "hate against women," just as the remarks made by Joe Biden about Obama are not "hate against blacks." They are only there because a she is there. An issue would be raised also if Mitt Romney were the front-runner (ooooh, a Mormon!), or Huckabee (a crazy Southerner!), or Kucinich (a hippie!). They would be an issue in a lesser degree, but still an issue.
That attitude toward Hillary and women in power is not because of 'hate.' But because of 'fear.' Fear of change, mostly. Changing the status quo is a scary thought for many ingrained in their ways. This is different from what Obama has and will experience. Obama is going against fear AND hate. Even the 'hate' written about here is relegated to fringe groups on the extreme right. Sure, there will be uneasiness in the hearts of bigots across the country if they see Obama take the presidential oath, but it will be just that, an uneasiness with the change this country will undertake.
Back to Hillary, she is not going against a man, but a movement. Vernon Jordan, a Clinton faithful, mentioned this truth. Hillary is not going toe-to-toe with Obama, but with his movement. His movement is based on youthful idealism, hope, change, and centers around intangibles, rather than policies and wonkiness. This is exactly what the John F Kennedy movement was about. If feminists like Morgan believe Hillary is fighting against the old ways of America, they are wrong. Hillary is battling the new, the change in America. It is not because she represents the old America, but because she DOES NOT represent the new America.
This transcends gender or race. Culture,class, and expectations are motivating this battle on both sides. Feminists like Morgan cannot grasph this notion, apparently. It is all about voting because I AM this, and I AM that, not I WILL be this or I WILL be that.
lhp
No comments:
Post a Comment