Author: has written 5280 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

68 Responses

  1. Holly
    Holly January 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm |

    Although I do favor a lot of Clinton’s policies, I have to say I’m surprised by how thoroughly the author seems to trust her — far more than all the other politicians who she categorizes as betrayers — to do the right thing for women, simply because she herself is a woman. When has that ever been a reliable yardstick for any oppressed group? This is not to say that there’s no value in having leaders who are not from the same old demographic of white guys, but this kind of fevered language about betrayal and the Great Female Hope as embodied by Hillary Rodham Clinton makes it sound like it’s somehow sufficient that she’s female. And well, that discussion has been done to death. I suppose Toni Morrison is a betrayer as well for endorsing Obama, despite her claim that she considered the candidates on their merits, not their gender or race?

  2. norbizness
    norbizness January 28, 2008 at 9:22 pm |

    It’s almost Shakespearean; the disease seems to have also extended to 21st-century Benedict Arnolds like Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sibelius, and Claire McCaskill.

    Say, what was the name of the woman Clinton steamrolled to run for the Senate to begin with in 2000?

  3. Cara
    Cara January 28, 2008 at 9:43 pm |

    I’ve already commented on this elsewhere, but . . .

    Does NOW-NY want me to hand in my vagina, or would just shutting my feminist blog down be enough of a penance for betraying all women with my political opinions?

  4. liza
    liza January 28, 2008 at 10:59 pm |

    Have you seen this?

    Former President of Chicago NOW explains why she bolted from Clinton to support Obama
    http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/former_president_of_chicago_now_explains_why_she_b

    It has a link to the WaPo article that describes the smear campaign waged by the Clintonites in New Hampshire and which might have irreparably damaged the pro-choice coalition in the state.

    And I don’t necessarily feel the same about Hillary, especially if she wins the nomination.

    If not voting for the Clinton dynasty revokes my feminist card, I am more than happy to loose the moniker. This primary was always about Billary, about how to get Bill back into the Oval Office. The twofer. That’s why she was able to raise millions in NYC in the blink of an eye. That’s what people talked about behind close doors –that he was coming back.

    http://culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/ms_clinton_billary_makes_you_weak

    People have to stop being apologists for HRC, especially with the magnitude of Bill’s campaigning. This is not an election about her. This is about Billary –not the republican construction but the dynastic machine oiled by the the DLC establishment.

    I voted twice for Hillary to be my senator.

    I even campaigned for her in my neighborhood.

    But we do not need dynasties.

    And we certainly don’t need an unelected co-president.

  5. liza
    liza January 28, 2008 at 11:20 pm |

    Oh, and by the way … YOUR RESPONSE IS AWESOME!
    I want that image!

  6. an anonymous kate
    an anonymous kate January 28, 2008 at 11:21 pm |

    I still can’t forgive Hillary for ruining our chances for heathcare reform in the 90’s. I haven’t seen any indication that she’s learned from those mistakes. When I look at what Obama has chosen to do, in terms of sponsoring legislation, I think that Morrision’s description of him as “wise” is spot on. He seems to be looking for places where he can make the maximum impact for the least cost and controversy (in the Illinois senate, reqiring video taping of interrogations; in the U.S. senate, going after loose nukes and supporting legislation to care for troops returning from Iraq). In order to clean up Bush’s mess, we need someone who can cut through the BS and locate the best solutions. HRC seems to me to be a BS magnet.

  7. Veronica
    Veronica January 28, 2008 at 11:26 pm |

    I got that press release as soon as it was sent out and I was floored. I’ve worked with NOW for almost 8 years now and I can’t find the words to express my feelings about it and how it will hurt the organization. Please know that this NOW member doesn’t feel that the endorsement was the ultimate betrayal.

    BTW – Good work on the new Alternet section. I dunno how you do it all chica.

  8. Mary
    Mary January 29, 2008 at 1:17 am |

    I am extremely happy to have found this blog and to read the comments here. I am a 58 yr. old woman from NYS. I just saw Marcia Pappas on the news and am appalled at what she said. It had seemed that all I have been hearing or reading from the “feminists” was woman should vote for Hillary BECAUSE she is a woman. It’s people like that that make others hate feminists. It’s nice to see that women are speaking out for our use of intelligence and not our gender in decisions we make!
    I’ve come to the realization also that if Obama becomes president it opens the door for ALL minorities, which includes ALL minority women.

    Thank you for making me proud to be a woman!

  9. Carleton Wu
    Carleton Wu January 29, 2008 at 3:04 am |

    I guess we’re lucky Phyllis Schlafly isn’t going to be the GOP nominee, since apparently feminists would be compelled to vote for her. At least, the brain-damaged ones would.

  10. Cecily
    Cecily January 29, 2008 at 3:24 am |

    Wow. I guess I better turn in my feminist card too. Since I considered my impression of Hillary as a weasel, rather than her gender presentation, when deciding how to vote. Silly me! I thought feminism was about equality and social justice, and it’s really about being in a club and making sure my club wins!

    “All this pitting of sex against sex, of quality against quality; all this claiming of superiority and imputing of inferiority, belong to the private-school stage of human existence where there are ‘sides,’ and it is necessary for one side to beat another side, and of the utmost importance to walk up to a platform and receive from the hands of the Headmaster himself a highly ornamental pot.” – Virginia Woolf

  11. louise
    louise January 29, 2008 at 7:51 am |

    Gotten quite tired of the message that not supporting Hillary equates with either not being a “true feminist” or buying into the patriarchal BS. That I’m simply listening to MSM and not using my own mind and thought processes. That I’m “betraying” the causes of all women and future generations of women. That HRC is somehow our Savior that will lead all women into some sort of Promised Land. What a steaming crock!

    Is it really so hard to believe that a woman might be intelligent enough to have enough differences in opinion with another woman as NOT to support her candidancy? Anon Kate here and so many others I have read on other sites are far more eloquent and logical in their reasons, so I won’t duplicate their laundry lists of examples- but they are spot-on.

    This goes far beyond a visceral “ooooo, I just HATE Hillary” sort of gut reaction. Her political history shows more than enough reasons why NOT to support her.

  12. Betsy
    Betsy January 29, 2008 at 9:55 am |

    Here’s a letter I just sent them:

    To whom it may concern:

    I am a lifelong feminist from Rochester, NY. I was appalled and
    disgusted at this press release from NOW New York State regarding Ted
    Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama:
    http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-10.htm

    To suggest that Kennedy betrayed women because he endorsed Obama over
    Clinton is to engage in the worst kind of identity politics. By that
    logic, anyone who supports Obama is against women, and anyone who
    supports Clinton is against blacks, and I guess black women are in
    trouble. It is to suggest that feminists cannot disagree over the best
    way to promote women’s interests in the presidential election; and that
    we must automatically support whatever woman is running for office,
    regardless of her policies, character, and qualifications.
    Nothing in Obama’s policies or politics suggests he would be bad for
    women; and many people believe he would be better, especially for women
    of color. Hillary Clinton does not represent all feminists, and
    certainly not all women. Many of us have profound misgivings about her
    votes on war and the conduct of her campaign. NOW New York State gives
    feminists a bad name when it issues such intemperate and impolitic
    statements.

    Further, regarding this press release:
    http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

    It is deeply, profoundly offense to compare a political debate in which
    a powerful woman argues with two powerful men to gang rape. Do you
    understand how that minimizes the actual experience of women who have
    been raped? I was shocked and horrified that a feminist organization
    would be so callous. Rape has always been a problematic metaphor, but
    I’ve never seen self-proclaimed feminists take it to this level. SHAME
    ON YOU.

    Sincerely,
    XXXXXXXXXXX

  13. Mightygodking.com » Blog Archive » Going The Extra Asshole Mile

    [...] insane and patronizing to feminists, to say the least. (I particularly liked this response from Feministe’s comments: “Silly me! I thought feminism was about equality and social justice, and [...]

  14. Natalia
    Natalia January 29, 2008 at 11:32 am |

    That was good, Jill.

    By their logic – Empress Wu Zeitan was a great, great leader. Even though she endorsed foot-binding.

    (For the record – NO, I don’t think that Hillary Clinton is Wu Zeitan. She’s gotten a lot of unfair insults in this campaign and is generally a leader I could get behind…. Well, beside the fact that I freaking hate the two-party system to begin with…)

  15. S.H.
    S.H. January 29, 2008 at 11:40 am |

    Say, what was the name of the woman Clinton steamrolled to run for the Senate to begin with in 2000?

    I’m pretty sure she beat a guy in the primary and then it was Guliani in the general election until he dropped out and that little scumbag Rick Lazio got in it. So I’m not sure what woman you’re referring to.

  16. The Procrastinator
    The Procrastinator January 29, 2008 at 12:23 pm |

    I organized with NOW NYS for several years before Marcia Pappas was elected president. Her unhinged, power hungry tactics are the reason I stopped. No one should take anything she says seriously.

  17. Virginia Ray
    Virginia Ray January 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm |

    At least Hillary does not advocate for more nuclear power plants. But no one is good enough for the mother seeking daughters of the third wave and no one is left enough except , oh , men, again. Why don’t you just stand in a circle and shoot? The women hatred on this blog is so typical of what calls them self feminist today. I guess it would be terrible to see another woman rise higher than you all.

    It is too much to expect that constantly working in the face of misogyny for the higher good would ever be rewarded by this cutthroat bully world. I sincerely hope that anyone with a conscious on this board read “Womens Inhumanity to Women”, by Phyllis Chesler, because these posts personify it.

    Ralph Nader I understood but Barrack Hussein Obama?

  18. Virginia Ray
    Virginia Ray January 29, 2008 at 1:38 pm |

    “This goes far beyond a visceral “ooooo, I just HATE Hillary” sort of gut reaction. Her political history shows more than enough reasons why NOT to support her.”

    FOR YOU MAYBE _ I DON’T SEE ANYONE ELSE WITH A RECORD ANY BETTER ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN WORKING WITH WOMEN WHO ARE OPPRESSED UNDER SHARIA – THESE WOMEN ARE IGNORED BY ALL DEMOCRATS AND FEMINISTS SO “RECORDS” ARE A JOKE. Who has a better record? None of the media talk ever discusses records – it is all innuendo and what someone might of meant when they said this or that — where is a record compared to another candidate’s record -and i dint mean a mythical record of mythical candidates.

    “I still can’t forgive Hillary for ruining our chances for heath care reform in the 90’s. I”…..

    YOU REALLY BOUGHT THE REPUBLICAN LINE ON THIS ONE – YOU KNOW THAT LINE – THE ONE THAT DEMONIZES THE PEOPLE’S CHAMPIONS. Hillary did not lose us medical care – we who betrayed her and bought the lie of the insurance industry’s TV ads lost medical care – those who called her pushy and unelected, like Dick Morris lost us medical care – she fought like a banshee to bring the issue to our attention and has given it her attention in increments ever since — Hillary took the first blast of public negative reaction on health care and people who organize know that someone will always have to endure the blow back for really radical change — it is the sacrifice — it has to be made — someone, the first voice, WILL be called crazy and WILL be crucified — but that makes people aware and eventually they look around and say – WHY NOT — That is what Hillary did for us. WE lost us medical care don’t blame Hillary – praise her.

  19. D.N. Nation
    D.N. Nation January 29, 2008 at 3:25 pm |

    Good points, Virginia Ray.

    Your friend,
    John McCain

  20. zuzu
    zuzu January 29, 2008 at 3:45 pm | *

    Ralph Nader I understood but Barrack Hussein Obama?

    And in the next breath, she froths about sharia law.

  21. Jovan1984
    Jovan1984 January 29, 2008 at 3:56 pm |

    FACT: The ONLY people who are going to bring the sharia laws to America is the Republican Party. All of them are very hostile to women.

  22. Feministe » On “Post-Racial” Elections

    [...] election when Bill Clinton makes comments like this? Or, even on feminist blogs like this one, commenters refer to “Barack Hussein Obama”? Or when this is published in a New York [...]

  23. Virginia Ray
    Virginia Ray January 29, 2008 at 4:29 pm |

    I know all about Dick Morris relationship with the Clintons including that he was fired for paying women to let him lick their feet and sharing white house gossip with those women who sold that info to the gossip machine. I know that the press now use him as an expert on Hillary whom he always hated.

    I did not think the first post was as bad as the comments on it but i am angry at all the women hatred this campaign is surfacing and they way women do not stand together.

    YES, I think the Bush adm did more to fight Sharia then any Democrat including Hillary. For proof google The State Dept Office of International Women’s Issues. They have a network of Muslim women whose lives will be dust when the adm changes if they are not protected. They have received Courage Awards and their work is being supported in the belly of the beast.

    I do not care if it is left or right only if it is good for women. I do not service either political party which one woman above accurately characterized when describing the Dean crowd. I have been working with middle east women since 1972 and I say it is going to take killing to free the slaves in the middle east. I am tired of trying to get my US sisters to care and to see – it is useless – you have so many arguments that would not last 10 min in Afghanistan. And Sharia is coming here – honor killings are here, genital mutilation is here – Canada is trying to fight a separate Sharia court for Muslim women — you think you are showing contempt for me with your arguments but you are showing your ignorance – and before you call me racist — no I will not defend myself from that — go ahead and call me racist – I will be in good company with all the other people you label including the Clinton’s.

  24. D.N. Nation
    D.N. Nation January 29, 2008 at 4:32 pm |

    Don’t surround yourself with yourself, Virginia.

  25. Virginia Ray
    Virginia Ray January 29, 2008 at 4:45 pm |

    One last thing – When a Saudi woman actually WAS gang raped and received a sentence of 200 lashes, national NOW refused to publicly comment and actually sent a letter to the chapters with some BS rationalization for not commenting. The war, Muslims, cultural relativism bla bla bla. Here, maybe the N Y comment was a little emotional but it was not as deadly as the other no comment.

  26. Virginia Ray
    Virginia Ray January 29, 2008 at 4:49 pm |

    “See, I wonder if you actually talk to any women who are Afghan. Or Iraqi. Or Palestinian. Because a lot of them are doing great work, and a lot of them will tell you that invading their countries and killing a bunch of people is just about the least productive way to spread democracy and fight fundamentalism. ”

    This is what I mean – You are not listening to women who actually live under Sharia – you are listing to women who live in the west

    “And, btw, you are extremely ignorant if you think that honor killings and FGM are part of Sharia law. Both of those things happen in places where Sharia law doesn’t rule; and there are places where Sharia law does rule where FGM, for example, is non-existent.”

    The above statement is so ignorant it is criminal

  27. Bretton Jones
    Bretton Jones January 29, 2008 at 5:08 pm |

    Virginia, there is so much wrong with your thinking.

    It’s not like I’m not going to vote for Clinton because she, as a woman, would not represent my views as a man. Get over yourself and your gender. Obama isn’t running as a black man. Why does Hillary need to run as a white woman? This is why NOW will be gona as soon as its aging benefactors finally kick it.

    If you want to go liberate the middle east for all women, go right ahead. Look out for the roadside bombs. Maybe I should be offended since the majority of the soldiers who die for your sexual crusade would be men. Maybe after than you can go around the globe finding animal species that engage in oppressive sexual mating habits and force our standards on them as well.

  28. rachel
    rachel January 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm |

    haven’t read all of the comments, but i think this:

    “Clinton’s …. lack of apology for her Iraq war vote”

    is far and away my most favorite misogynist reason to not vote for clinton. because she doesn’t apologize often enough for her existence.

    i’ve said it before but i’m truly disgusted with feminist blogs and i imagine this disgust is going to get worse as primary season drags on.

  29. Lindsay K
    Lindsay K January 29, 2008 at 5:32 pm |

    Thanks for posting on this. I am beyond pissed off…this is entirely wrongheaded and embarrassing, for all the reasons already cited. Not to mention, claiming that your insane opinions represent those of all women, everywhere, makes me feel not a little offended…and used. Which is especially awful coming from an organization supposedly devoted to empowering women.

    And apparently they DO stand behind it, since their website proudly carries the press release.

  30. Josh
    Josh January 29, 2008 at 5:33 pm |

    Virginia Ray’s comments are pretty standard “feminists are full of shit because they don’t care about women in Muslim countries” trollery. The reference to Phyllis Chesler was a dead giveaway.

  31. Skwee
    Skwee January 29, 2008 at 5:55 pm |

    This seems kind of fishy to me. I mean, all the antifeminist stereotypes, under the logo of what they wpould consider an important feminist organization? I’m just not sure.

  32. rachel
    rachel January 29, 2008 at 6:00 pm |

    when the main or often-cited reason to not vote for someone is out of their refusal to apologize, yes, i find that appalling, disgraceful, and when directed towards a woman, misogynist. especially when coupled with the fawning over barack obama and his admitted shamelessness with forcing michelle obama into a second shift she never wanted.

    we have an opportunity to see someone who would otherwise be relegated to the Just Another Politician’s Wife shelf beat every single odd that worked against her and come out as a viable candidate* and dismiss her because she wasn’t perfectly feminist/progressive enough. i see *nothing* in either obama or edwards that should grant them points from otherwise intelligent feminist women.

    *as a pro-choice democrat, no less. how often had we heard the bleating that the first candidate to break to race/gender barrier wouldn’t – no, *couldn’t* be a democrat? this is the most super fantastic primary ever, i must say.

  33. Gwen
    Gwen January 29, 2008 at 6:17 pm |

    As a Canadian, I feel compelled to add that Canada is NOT fighting a sharia court.

    A couple of years ago, Ontario had Christian & Jewish courts for civil law, like divorce, which were overseen (I believe) by the larger Ontario court system. Muslims in Ontario, quite reasonably, felt that there should also be Muslim courts for civil law.

    Of course, most people in Ontario, myself included, had no idea that there were religious courts at all. And to be honest, there were a lot of people who only cared once there was the prospect of a Muslim religious court; that is to say, their concerns were clearly motivated by Islamophobia, and I don’t know if religious courts would ever have become an issue if it weren’t for Islamophobia.

    Opinion in Ontario was divided – and not between Muslims and non-Muslims. Some people, both Muslim and not, were in favour of the court. The Canadian Islamic Council argued, for example, that Muslim traditions of divorce were already common in some Muslim families, and at least this way, there would be judicial oversight. It was also generally felt that the world hadn’t ended with the establishment of Jewish or Christian courts, and so there was no good reason not to have Muslim courts as well.

    Other people, Muslim and Non-Muslim, were opposed to the courts, because they were opposed to all religious courts. The Muslim Canadian Council, for example, is a progressive secularist organisation, so they held the position that church and state must be kept absolutely separate.

    Ultimately, it was decided that Ontario should have a completely secular court system, and all religious courts were abolished.

  34. The Sirens Chronicles :: From our Dept of WTF? - NYS NOW chapter slams Kennedy :: January :: 2008

    [...] Hillary as well.The well-known blog Feministing is also aghast at this press release as well as Feministe and CultureKitchen. I wonder how Marcia Pappas feels about Bill’s thinly veiled race-baiting [...]

  35. rachel
    rachel January 29, 2008 at 6:47 pm |

    “you’ll be hard-pressed to come up for a reason to vote for Clinton, beyond “She has a vagina.””

    you’re absolutely correct there. the main reason i support *is* because she has a vagina. without a vagina i doubt she would be as vociferous for children’s health care, for contraception, for child care, for pay equity, along with a host of other things. as appalling as i find NOW’s latest press release, they had a tremendous point in that for decades, if not centuries, feminists have kneeled down to give the white man du jour a collective blow job in exchange for assurances that our causes will be represented. now that we have a viable female candidate, we’re told we need to support the non-white man. i certainly don’t think that a man who doesn’t see anything wrong with forcing his wife into the role of Politician’s Wife, a role she’s said repeatedly she doesn’t want, would know the first thing about how to defend women’s rights.

    granted, if the iraq war is your primary issue when you vote, then that’s certainly fair. i simply …. don’t get it. learned helplessness on my part, i suppose: oceania has always been at war with eastasia and always will be. i can’t see putting such a quagmire of a clusterfuck above the economy, environmental issues, and certainly women’s issues.

  36. Eliani
    Eliani January 29, 2008 at 9:09 pm |

    now that we have a viable female candidate, we’re told we need to support the non-white man. i certainly don’t think that a man who doesn’t see anything wrong with forcing his wife into the role of Politician’s Wife, a role she’s said repeatedly she doesn’t want, would know the first thing about how to defend women’s rights.

    I am curious then as to where my allegiances should lie being that I am a woman and a woman of color at that. So if I don’t vote for a woman, I am somehow a part of the group of feminists who are giving a collective blow job but if I vote for her couldn’t I also be accused of being a ‘sell out’ or ‘uncle Tom’? The way I see it, I am fucked either way, so why not just vote according to that whole candidate-that-best-reflects-my-concerns thing instead of the whole she-has-a-puss and I-have-a-puss or he-is-brown and I-am-brown thing. As far as defending the rights of women, what makes you think that your candidate is capable of defending the rights of people of color?

  37. Very Important Links « Liberals Eat Canolis

    [...] at Feministe responds to the utterly bizarre NOW-NY press release calling out Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama as [...]

  38. Darkrose
    Darkrose January 29, 2008 at 10:03 pm |

    Eliani, I’m sorry, but it’s simply not possible to be both black and fe–

    *vanishes in a puff of non-Earth logic*

  39. Cara
    Cara January 29, 2008 at 10:42 pm |

    Are Rachel and Virginia for real, or just some kind of weird trolls masquerading as the world’s most outrageous and offensive feminist stereotypes? Because something tells me that they more or less have to be real — the racism, mostly, because it always does come out in these types. And if they are for real, it’s extremely embarrassing.

    you’re absolutely correct there. the main reason i support *is* because she has a vagina.

    So would you vote for Elizabeth Dole, then? If not, you look very stupid. No, I don’t care what was said after that, though the part about how it’s more important to vote for a woman than a “non-white man” was fascinating. If you wouldn’t vote for any woman because they are a woman, that’s a pretty ridiculous “main reason.” Having a vagina never has and never will make you care about women. It sucks, but it’s the truth. [To everyone else, I'm not saying that Clinton doesn't care about women, I'm saying that her femaleness doesn't guarantee that she cares about women and that it would is a baffling argument.]

    Also, I agree with Jill’s earlier comments about why many women of color rightfully see feminists as racists. You don’t care about war because “women’s issues” are more important? Who the fuck do you think lives in Iraq? Did they somehow manage to build a population through the continual cloning of men? No women there? Women aren’t being bombed and shot and going hungry? Why the fuck would these not be “women’s issues?” I have a strong feeling that women in Iraq right now have a lot more pressing issues than whether or not I have maternity leave or child care. I guess that they’re not women? Because they’re not white? Because they don’t live here? Because men are getting blown up, too, so it’s equal opportunity and fuck it?

    *deep breaths*

    I’m leaving now before I get extremely nasty, degenerate into name-calling and Jill is forced to ban me.

  40. rachel
    rachel January 29, 2008 at 10:59 pm |

    eliani – lucky for you, either way you get someone to represent you.

    cara – i will always, always, always vote for a pro-choice democratic woman over any other option available. men never have women’s best interests at heart.

    i clearly need to clear out my blog reader.

  41. rachel
    rachel January 29, 2008 at 11:01 pm |

    oh, regarding the war, that includes issues of war. women get hurt in war. men don’t care. i’m not voting for a man if i don’t have to.

  42. eliani
    eliani January 30, 2008 at 2:27 am |

    eliani – lucky for you, either way you get someone to represent you.

    Represent me how? Oh, I see. I have now been reduced to my gender and race (which for the record is actually blatino –afro brasilian). So by your comment, I’m actually screwed because I am brown and a woman. I guess that means that neither candidate represents me. Sure is a good thing that most people haven’t followed your line of thinking over the decades, otherwise it would be an all albino sausage fest in Washington.

  43. eliani
    eliani January 30, 2008 at 2:33 am |

    i will always, always, always vote for a pro-choice democratic woman over any other option available. men never have women’s best interests at heart.

    Rachel, who then has the best interests of the people of color? A candidate of color?

  44. LD JANAKOS
    LD JANAKOS January 30, 2008 at 3:42 am |

    I’d like to see Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama run on the same ticket. Now that’s a ticket that has the potential to break down a lot of walls and ceilings. Kick through a few doors.

    I don’t stand by any of the mainstream candidates enough, but I believe you have to start someplace. Who can beat that ticket? It’s the kind of surprise that comes with a pause, the right kind, the opposite kind of pause you stand together in just before the storm breaks or you’re waiting for the bombs to drop. I trust my feeling that this duet in office will turn the corner.

    ( With these two candidates on the same ticket, we will all get universal health care within a short time. With these two candidates, we will put borders around the power of some of the major corporations. With these two candidates, we will increase the chances of women and minorities here and in different parts of the world to gain a better lifestyle or access to freedom. This list of our demands is long and we must start someplace. )

    Here’s the real two for one: Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    What a fine ticket for the Democratic party, a place for it to turn a corner, to get out of this treacherously predictable time in history when assassins run the world; and yes, with all due respect, the chance for the new face of the Democratic Party to poddy train itself in harnessing its political shit and piss, so it can be recycled as rich fertilizer on the fields of We the People.

    This ticket may double the chances that the Democratic Party can provide us the momentum to get away fast from the Republican’s pursuing car of accumulation about to run over us on its way to its next conquest: our homes, paychecks or savings accounts. Not to mention those of persons living or dying in other countries. Who can fight against the current monstrous momentum sucking us dry of our money and our imaginations? We should hire these two to cultivate the voices of the people long repressed in this country, We the People, who are capable of taking back our country.

    In fact, we ought to demand they run together, whichever way it goes at the end. That’s my ticket. Which one heads the ticket is up to the election process. I have my favorite but I can go either way.

  45. denelian
    denelian January 30, 2008 at 3:52 am |

    Rachel…
    why do you say that men dont care? this attitude, this baffles me.

    men don’t care. i’m not voting for a man if i don’t have to.

    okay, so i had an extremly abusive (EXTREMLY) abussive stepfather. my dad was never abusive. my dad has, my entire life, bragged that i am smarter than he is (which, btw, i don’t know about. my IQ is 183, his is 181, is there actually a difference at this point). once he knew about my step dad, he tooks steps. i then lived with him, got into honor classes… my dad has always supported me and been proud of me, and never cared that i was female.
    my boyfriend introduces me as his brain. he doesn’t care that i have more schooling, that i am better with politics or math. hell, he doesn’t even care that i have to use a cane to walk right now. he has always supported me going back to college. never been jealous or possessive, never tried to shoot me down, never been abusive.

    actually, most of the men in my life have been (and still are) feminists, supporting of women and womens’ issues. my dad marched in DC more than once for reproductive rights, daycare benifits, and has consistently voted and contributed for feminist issues. its totally accurate to say that i am a feminist because my dad taught me to be one. yes, i KNOW assholes who have told me that i belong in the kitchen (and one who told me i should just kill myself because i can’t have kids.) yes, i know that there are lots of guys like this.

    but.

    the suffragist movement would NEVER have gone anywhere without men. it was MEN who passed the ammendment to allow women to vote. yeah, some men suck. some men want working women so that they don’t have to work. some men, like my dad and my boyfriend, think women are their equals, and that women’s equality is as important as their own.

    you really can be a feminist without hating men. and men really can be feminists themselves. i know quite a few.

  46. JANAKOS
    JANAKOS January 30, 2008 at 4:09 am |

    I’d like to see Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama run on the same ticket. Now that’s a ticket that has the potential to break down a lot of walls and ceilings. Kick through a few doors.

    I don’t stand by any of the mainstream candidates enough, but I believe you have to start someplace. Who can beat that ticket? It’s the kind of surprise that comes with a pause, the right kind, the opposite kind of pause you stand together in just before the storm breaks or you’re waiting for the bombs to drop. I trust my feeling that this duet in office will turn the corner.

    ( With these two candidates on the same ticket, we will all get universal health care within a short time. With these two candidates, we will put borders around the power of some of the major corporations. With these two candidates, we will increase the chances of women and minorities here and in different parts of the world to gain a better lifestyle or access to freedom. This list of our demands is long and we must start someplace. )

    Here’s the real two for one: Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    What a fine ticket for the Democratic party, a place for it to turn a corner, to get out of this treacherously predictable time in history when assassins run the world; and yes, with all due respect, the chance for the new face of the Democratic Party to poddy train itself in harnessing its political shit and piss, so it can be recycled as rich fertilizer on the fields of We the People.

    This ticket may double the chances that the Democratic Party can provide us the momentum to get away fast from the Republican’s pursuing car of accumulation about to run over us on its way to its next conquest: our homes, paychecks or savings accounts. Not to mention those of persons living or dying in other countries. Who can fight against the current monstrous momentum sucking us dry of our money and our imaginations? We should hire these two to cultivate the voices of the people long repressed in this country, We the People, who are capable of taking back our country.

    In fact, we ought to demand they run together, whichever way it goes at the end. That’s my ticket. Which one heads the ticket is up to the election process. I do see one of the candidates better as president but I can go either way.

  47. Mike
    Mike January 30, 2008 at 10:21 am |

    Rachel: you’re absolutely right. No man anywhere gives a crap about women. Not even one bit. Even we feminist men are just lying to get laid. And it’s true, only women get hurt in war; we men have a special secret forcefield called privilege that stops us being hurt in any way during our lives.

    OK, seriously, have I been sarcastic enough yet, or does someone else want a go?

    A sex-essentialist radical separatist. Lovely. Just makes you ooze with joy, doesn’t it?

  48. Virginia Ray
    Virginia Ray January 30, 2008 at 11:15 am |

    “Virginia Ray’s comments are pretty standard “feminists are full of shit because they don’t care about women in Muslim countries” trollery. ”
    “Are Rachel and Virginia for real, or just some kind of weird trolls masquerading as the world’s most outrageous and offensive feminist stereotypes? Because something tells me that they more or less have to be real — the racism, mostly, because it always does come out in these types. And if they are for real, it’s extremely embarrassing. ”

    I am the kind of feminists who made feminist institutional change from 1970 to 1985. Before that, I worked and lived in the civil rights movement. You call me a troll and a racist. I call you fascist who use name calling to silence your opponents. People using those tactics always destroy the peoples organizations. I have seen it over and over. It is important to answer them.

    On this day when Edwards dropped out, I call all this name calling sad. Edwards probably was really the best candidate especially on trade issues. We never even heard the trade argument in the debates. Despite that, I must support Hillary but because of the Edwards drop out the ugliness of the fight between BO and HC is going to stop in my heart. I have come to an understanding and I think other women will also.

    I am voting for a woman who has put in her time making change and has never been appreciated because that is also my story. It is the story of almost all the women I know. Hillary’s life is my life, from Alinsky through the civil rights movement, to feminism, to the betrayals and then she struggled on and I dropped away to solitude. I admire how she does not give up or give in. I feel the attacks against her personally as I know other women who actually struggle against sexism in an active way do – this struggle is different from what I call impersonal analytical feminists. These different types of feminists may both be in the same group or in no group.

    I listen to the media mock feminists for standing by a women. Too emotional, too hysterical, too desperate. Ah, I remember those words. They don’t dare acknowledge what she represents to older feminists. What we came from, our story, the story of the women who were not looking at feminism from the socialist workers party but were working class women who were changing the conditions that limited our own lives. And taking an incredible amount of shit for it. Now women on this blog say we are an embarrassment, I am an embarrassment. I guess I have always been an embarrassment to some types of women. Stand with a sign hanging on you saying “I had an abortion” in 1970 to know what an embarrassment really is.

    The media is calling our identification with Hillary and our attempts to support her desperate when their male loyalty is called strength and solidarity. And it is bitter to see women echo them. I see now that Hillary’s lack of appreciation from those she worked for is the source of my bitterness.

    I recognize it now because of this discussion and I can move on without the anger I have felt before. For that I thank this blog.

  49. John Clark
    John Clark January 30, 2008 at 1:04 pm |

    Instead of having a discussion on the candidates, we are forced to defend our choice. This press release replays a POV I thought we were done with long ago. While I am personally a secure enough feminist to let this one roll off my back, I’m sure that many will find it an affront to their very core.

    I thought the purpose of EMILY’S List was to promote women candidates in order to strengthen women challengers, the goal to get a woman elected as president.

    Only they played opportunist by throwing their support behind Clinton, who, while being a pro-choice woman candidate for president, fails the “true progressive” test. I’m sure that there were dissenting voices saying wait for the right woman; I’m sure that the majority raised the issue that women have had to take a back seat to Black men going all the way back to the 1860’s and that now is the time.

    I watched Bush Monday night. Right behind him was a woman. In front of him, although I have volumes of problems with her, was a Black woman. If Sen Clinton is promoted, there will still be women in the Senate. On the other hand, Obama is currently the only African-American.

    I also understand that the nature of the netroots is the nature of email, people tend to hit the send button before reading how words will be read by others. I find myself responding to posters who “cross the line” in their criticism of Clinton. Men have to be respectful or their comments will be perceived as sexist, and frankly, sometimes they are.

    I found Maureen Dowd’s observation today enlightening:

    “But Obama is the more emotionally delicate candidate, and the one who has the more feminine consensus management style, and the not-blinded-by-testosterone ability to object to a phony war.

    “As first lady, Alpha Hillary’s abrasive and secretive management of health care doomed it. She voted to enable W. on Iraq so she could run as someone tough enough to command armies.”

    We have discussed identity issues to death in this campaign. Why is that? Surely it is not in Sen Obama’s best interest. Who but Mark Penn, author of “Microtrends” and CEO of Burson-Marsteller would want to separate us into nicely fitting “identities”?

  50. Raincitygirl
    Raincitygirl January 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
    the suffragist movement would NEVER have gone anywhere without men. it was MEN who passed the ammendment to allow women to vote. yeah, some men suck. some men want working women so that they don’t have to work. some men, like my dad and my boyfriend, think women are their equals, and that women’s equality is as important as their own.

    I agree with all the other stuff you’ve said, but this particular argument is, at best, wobbly. It’s very similar to HRC saying King and other civil rights leaders needed Johnson to sign the legislation. Which was rightly decried as a dodgy argument.

    you really can be a feminist without hating men. and men really can be feminists themselves. i know quite a few.

    Agreed. And I suspect Virginia and Rachel are clever performance artists.

  51. JANAKOS
    JANAKOS January 30, 2008 at 1:35 pm |

    Can you remove my posting under Janakos and LD Janakos?

    Thanks

  52. WIMN’s Voices: A Group Blog on Women, Media, AND… » Blog Archive » NOW-NYS claims Ted Kennedy’s Obama endorsement is “ultimate betrayal” of women: CNN reports the slam; feminist bloggers reject it

    [...] they called Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama over Clinton a “betrayal of women,” and blowing the feminist community into a tizzy, to say the least. (NOW’s national leadership released a less [...]

  53. ebonygrrl
    ebonygrrl January 31, 2008 at 2:04 am |

    Are such comments surprising when one looks at the hx of white liberal feminism? I don’t think those foremothers were too happy (and they made it clear) when it looked like black males were going to get the vote before them! The bottom line is that many white feminists gain a measure of power through their relationships with white men (fathers, lovers, brothers), and when those connections are challenged their status as “top women” is challenged. Not another black male before us! I don’t think black feminists like myself are really shocked by this at all.

  54. Mary
    Mary January 31, 2008 at 9:30 am |

    Some of you have to be pitied for your archaic views. It’s what’s wrong with this world. You have that “it’s us againts them” attitude. That is the reason Obama is getting the attention. He is urging people to work together for the good of all. Those using your intelligence to make your choices and not be lead by the nose are to be admired. More and more people are registered Independants today because they too do not want to feel they are being told who to vote for or how to live. It’s called FREEDOM. Hillary or Obama, let the choice be made by using wisdom. High IQ’s and great educations do NOT always mean a person is intelligent or wise, it’s how you use that intelligence that matters.

  55. flea
    flea January 31, 2008 at 10:04 am |

    I don’t think those foremothers were too happy (and they made it clear) when it looked like black males were going to get the vote before them! The bottom line is that many white feminists gain a measure of power through their relationships with white men (fathers, lovers, brothers), and when those connections are challenged their status as “top women” is challenged. Not another black male before us!

    I’ve seen this argument made a few times, and while I don’t dispute the points, it seems to me that since black women get the raw end of the deal on both race and gender, why does no one ever argue that black women should have gotten the vote before everybody else?

    I’m not being combative, it’s just every time I see this, it irritates me that giving the vote to black women first is so out of the question that nobody ever bothers to mention it. Too bad Sojourner Truth didn’t apparate into the middle of the Anthony/Douglass debate and squash them both.

  56. Suzie
    Suzie January 31, 2008 at 6:44 pm |

    Sojourner Truth was on the same side as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. People who were radical (not liberal) for their day supported equal rights for blacks and women. The 15th Amendment caused bitter divisions because some people (including Frederick Douglass, other black men and women, and a bunch of white men and women) decided to go for the vote only for black men. They thought black men had it worse and that it would be too controversial to try to get the vote for women.

    After working together for decades, some women felt like they had been abandoned, and some lashed out bitterly. Some of the remarks considered racist were actually more about class. I’m not saying this to justify them, but to put things in historical context. Some educated white women were furious that uneducated men would vote before them. They insulted men of every ethnicity. Class issues did not divide neatly between black and white. Just as there were educated whites who looked down on poor whites, so were there educated blacks who looked down on poor blacks.

    To put it another way: Some white suffragists felt betrayed when black men were given the vote before them. Some black suffragists were unhappy, too. But there also were a number of white and black women who worked hard for the 15th Amendment.

    Ebonygrrl, I think women of different ethnicities – not just white women – sometimes seek power through relationships with men. Male privilege extends across the spectrum.

  57. NVMojo
    NVMojo February 3, 2008 at 1:22 pm |

    With all due respect, I am a woman and I want the right PERSON in the White House who is anti-war. I am not upset, at all, about Senator Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama. Afterall, Caroline Kennedy endorsed him too.

  58. Feminist Critics
    Feminist Critics February 5, 2008 at 12:04 am |

    [...] Pappas’ unhinged press release, for example. I see plenty of criticism about her insult to women’s and feminists’ voting criteria and preferences, but none whatsoever about her portrayal of violence and bullying as being a universal [...]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.