In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Their Worst Nightmare

I was away during the elections, so let me first say: THANK FUCKING GOD, MAN.

I found the whole campaign just fascinating, particularly the Othering and anxious White Manhood on display by the GOP. Take, for instance, the whole “Macaca” thing with George Allen: in front of a group of good ol’ boys, he singled out a dark-skinned Webb campaign operative for abuse — not only with an obscure racial epithet, but with an Othering “Welcome to America.” ‘Cept, you know, S.R. Sidarth, native Virginian, was every bit as American as Confederacy-lovin’ California native George Allen. And then he flipped out when someone brought up his mother’s Jewishness.

The RNC (or was it the RSCC?) got into the act, with the less-than-subtle jungle drums and he’s-coming-for-the-white-women anti-Harold Ford ads in Tennessee. Which they didn’t pull for a long time after the Republican candidate asked them to. While Ford lost, he only lost by three points in a state that hasn’t elected a black Senator since Reconstruction. Plus, he’s a bit oily.

Anxious masculinity? Hell, yes. How many times did you hear about some GOP pundit or candidate muttering darkly about Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House? George Bush, acting like a whipped dog after the election, made a crack about picking out new drapes for the Speaker’s office. Because she couldn’t possibly have any kind of substantive agenda or anything. Bush’s demeanor sure changed after his party had its ass handed to it, though. Here’s Paul Krugman the day before the election:

At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood — and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.

Mind you, even though he said he was willing to work with the Democrats, in the same breath, he called on the lame-duck Congress to ram through his radical right-wing agenda in the last weeks of their term, everything from approving John Bolton as the ambassador to the UN now that his recess appointment is ending to retroactively approving his program of warrantless spying on Americans. Bolton’s finished, though — Lincoln Chaffee, who was voted out of his Senate seat, is doing the right thing and switching his committee vote so that Bolton’s nomination will never reach the floor before the end of the term. And as for those warrantless wiretaps? Many Republicans don’t like them, either.

Lord knows the Democrats aren’t willing to let them be given ratification by act of Congress. Here’s what Frank Rich has to say about why Allen’s “Macaca” moment resonated with voters:

The macaca incident had resonance beyond Virginia not just because it was a hit on YouTube. It came to stand for 2006 as a whole because it was synergistic with a national Republican campaign that made a fetish of warning that a Congress run by Democrats would have committee chairmen who are black (Charles Rangel) or gay (Barney Frank), and a middle-aged woman not in the Stepford mold of Laura Bush as speaker. In this context, Mr. Allen’s defeat was poetic justice: the perfect epitaph for an era in which Mr. Rove systematically exploited the narrowest prejudices of the Republican base, pitting Americans of differing identities in cockfights for power and profit, all in the name of “faith.”

Oh, those black committee chairmen-to-be? Other than Rangel (Ways and Means), there’s John Conyers (Judiciary) and Bennie Thompson (Homeland Security). All of whom were active in civil rights, all of whom well remember segregation and the targeting of civil rights leaders by the government. Which targeting included, it should be noted, warrantless electronic surveillance (something another civil rights activist, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, shot down this year — for which she was derided as intellectually suspect by someone who hadn’t even bothered to read the opinion, among others).

And now they’ve got their worst nightmare — women, black people and gays are in charge of Congress, and despite their warnings, the base didn’t really care enough to turn out to vote (well, except to help pass homophobic ballot initiatives in six states). Oh, and the emperor has no clothes.


43 thoughts on Their Worst Nightmare

  1. The wonderful thing about being half Anglosaxon and Asian is that you can love both sides. Also the wonderful thing about being androgenous is being able to address a potential partner by the word ‘darling’ and if he or she acts upon it, it would make for some sweet love making. Rene.

  2. Human kind needs to bring the kind back into things. I often hear my girlfriend addressing her girlfriends as darling. I think now, I am going to try addressing more of my boyfriends as darling too! Rene.

  3. Only priests are openly allowed to wear robes in city hall, the ones who have jobs to do there for instance if they were working part time as a teller. Now one day this fall I walked down 9Ave wearing a jean skirt and an Indian Kurta top which would not have bought a second glance in Tamil Nadu India and some guy hollered at me mind you nothing bad, just “whooo whooo nice skirt”. Rene

  4. I find these developments fantastic. I just can’t get over the passing of the abovementioned homophobic ballot initiative here in my state. It’s casting a pall over the entire thing for me, and I’m lost as to how to feel, I think.

  5. Yes, but the one who may sneak in ahead of them, one heartbeat from the Presidency (Cheney having no actual heart), is Lady Whitey Somethingorother. (The only Corn-something you could apply to a San Franciscan would be a republicanoid homophobic vulgarity, after all.)

    She’s teribly unproletarian, but the thought tickles me nonetheless.

  6. There is a great amount of promise and potential generated by the elections. The problem facing all is will changes be made to deal with just our current problems or will there be changes that will move us towards a trajectory that will break our patterns. Many who are coming into office in January seem to be ready to do this, but until they act accordingly we will still operate without things like habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.

    Most of our problems are not just an administration and allies with an understated propensity for fascistic methods. The fact that most of the American population do not understand their part in bringing such people and their plans to fruition is the deeper problem that needs to be addressed by not only the incoming Congress, but all those that follow. Tyranny does not spring forth instantaneously from a vacuum.

    Thomas Jefferson hit the nail on the head in writing the following:
    “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. “

    Too many people have become accustomed to the way things have been for years. I think that is why many are amazed at not just the win, but the environment in which they won. The elections at least offer a demonstration that our society’s behavior is not terminal.

  7. Well, I was absolutely shocked that the dems won so much. I was only expected to have a one or two seat majority in the house and a one or two seat minority in the senate. I’m pretty pleased at the way it went, though. And I just keep saying ‘Speaker Pelosi’ over and over to myself because it makes me so damn happy. Plus, I love Barney Frank (he’s very entertaining to watch on C-Span because he doesn’t take shit from anyone) and I want to move to his district just so I can vote for him once.

  8. Good to have you back.

    I think it’s (barely) possible that a big macho Republican would have made the drapes remark about a man. That’s not to minimize the sexism of the comment, only of making it about Pelosi in particular.

  9. Welcome back, Zuzu! I agree, the machismo evident in this campaign really exhausted me, it’s one reason why I don’t even want to THINK about ’08 for at least a few months.

  10. I think it’s (barely) possible that a big macho Republican would have made the drapes remark about a man.

    The “picking out the drapes” line has been used for years, even when the candidate is a man.

    Before the election Bush also said “they’re up there in Washington, picking out their offices and measuring the drapes” when referring to Democrat’s confidence in the outcome of the election.

    Unless you believe that Bush thought that only women were running for the Dems, I don’t see how this could be seen as a sexist statement.

  11. While I still think the drapes joke was tacky, apparently Pelosi remarked about doing that herself (though my sources, which I can’t find now, were unclear as to whether she said that soon after the election results, or months ago). And I think others – men, even – have made the same sort of remark, as a way to say, “We’re going to be making some changes around here.” However, the Preznit has yet to learn the secret of comedy.

    Other than the wholly depressing same-sex marriage bans, and Lieberman still hanging around, I’m still kind of stunned and pleased about what happened: I mean, even in states with those rotten bans on the ballot, people got elected who are openly queer, or openly in favor of same-sex marriage. Plus – the House! And the Senate!

  12. well, except to help pass homophobic ballot initiatives in six states

    I agree that many who oppose gay marriage do so for homophobic reasons. They are generally the same ones who oppose civil unions and equal benefits, too.

    I think that if only the homophobes voted for the bans, they would have failed. There are many people who, for whatever reason, have a problem with the word “marriage”, but support civil unions and equal benefits.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think the majority of Americans support gay marriage yet, and it would be a political mistake for the Dems to try to push for it in the next two years.

  13. Raging Moderate, how do you classify voters in Virginia and Colorado, then?

    Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban went so far as to also deny any possibility of anything like a civil union, domestic partnership, or simple legal arrangement between two adults that might in any way confer any of the protections or benefits of marriage. That’s not just a worry about the semantics of “marriage”–that’s a scorched-earth strategy so desperate to even give gay couples alternatives to marriage or legal benefits that it will not only nullify heterosexual common-law marriages, it’ll make simple legal contracts difficult.

    And Colorado had two votes–one on the question of “marriage”, one on a referendum opening up the possibility of separate-and-unequal domestic partnerships, offering some of the legal protections and benefits of marriage while making it explicit in law that these were still not marriages, which could only be between one man and one woman. The referendum was shot down, too. They weren’t just content to close off “marriage”–even with “marriage” “protected” in state law for only heterosexual couples, they still voted to deny any kind of similar legal arrangement for same-sex couples.

    What is that motivated by, if not basic homophobia? I say this as the daughter of people who’re pro-gay-rights but were, initially, very edgy about “marriage” coming into it–I get that perspective. How do you explain this election?

  14. I just reread my last comment (the one right now in moderation) and realized I wasn’t clear enough in my argument with RM. Raging Moderate, you do acknowledge the existence of voters who made their votes for homophobic reasons, but claim they’re not the majority doing the voting for marriage bans, if I read you right. I think that’s possible, but I’m interested in your explanations for statewide voting patterns that do appear to be homophobically motivated on the large and majority scale.

  15. RM, a question for you: If people oppose allowing couples of different races to use the word “marriage” for their unions, but still support them having similar benefits under the term “civil unions,” are they racist? After all, they just want to preserve the term as it’s traditionally stood, right? And if they allow interracial couples the same benefits as same-race couples, but just don’t want to give up their word, do they believe in equality? Are they racist?

  16. Raging Moderate, how do you classify voters in Virginia and Colorado, then?

    Perhaps there are more homophobes in those states than in others? I was referring to the US as a whole. Polls show that the number of people who oppose same sex marriage is always higher than the numbers who oppose civil unions.

    From a NY Times / CBS News poll in October of 2006:

    Which comes closest to your view?

    Gay marriage – 28%

    Civil unions – 29%

    No legal recognotion – 38%

    Not sure – 5%

    Now if this is accurate, it seems to back up my contention that not all those who oppose same sex marriage are homophobes. Wouldn’t the homophobes be in the “no legal recognition” camp, instead of the “civil union” camp?

    I have firsthand knowledge of this. My Mother has a gay brother who she loves and supports. He and his husband are welcome in her home anytime, and she went to his wedding. She is a devout Catholic, does not think being gay is a sin or a disease, and supports gays having all the rights of married couples. She just balks at the term “marriage” for some reason (but not enough to skip his wedding).

    I don’t find it useful to paint all those who disagree with us on this issue as bigots. Many are not bigots, and can be convinced to change their minds with the right arguments (I’ve converted a few). Insulting them will not help the cause. You can tell people you think they are wrong without telling them they are bad people.

    It seems no different to me than the right wingers who claim that those who voted for the Democrats are “terrorist lovers”.

    If people oppose allowing couples of different races to use the word “marriage” for their unions, but still support them having similar benefits under the term “civil unions,” are they racist?

    Yes. But I don’t think the two issues are similar.

    I used to use that same argument, too. But, as I was informed, marriage has not been defined as “a union between a man and a woman of the same race”, just as “a union between a man and a woman” (in the history of my country, anyway). To inject racial qualifications into something that previously had none is racist.

    Personally, I believe that Americans are not yet ready for gay marriage. You should fight for civil unions now. Once that is accomplished and the nation does not descend into choas, then push for marriage.

    Retreat from this battle now, in order to win the war later.

  17. Aghhhh Lassi: There naiant any problems here. Us highlanders had no concept of sin untill them popes arrived. When we wanted a partner we just winked at them, offered some barley and a lambs leg and made sure there was peat moss on the hearth and a lambs skin on the floor then we joyfully intertwined like our famous drawings and lo and behold we found out it naiant matter if the guys wore quilts after all. Now wheres my scotch Laddy. Rene Varma.

  18. Personally, I believe that Americans are not yet ready for gay marriage. You should fight for civil unions now. Once that is accomplished and the nation does not descend into chaos, then push for marriage

    Just consider the similar statement, “Americans aren’t ready for desegregation. You should fight for separate, equal facilities now. Once that is accomplished and the nation does not descend into chaos, then push for desegregation”.
    Come on. Why coddle the sensibilities of those who are willing to deny to others benefits that they themselves receive, for no other reason but squickiness? Bigotry isn’t just something that other people do. It’s what anyone does when they decide to treat people differently, not for any rational reason but because it makes them feel weird. It may not be useful to refer to those who oppose gay marriage as bigots, but I don’t see any reason not to make it clear to them that they’re engaging in bigotry.
    Excuse lack of coherence. Sleepless and irritated.

  19. But, as I was informed, marriage has not been defined as “a union between a man and a woman of the same race”, just as “a union between a man and a woman” (in the history of my country, anyway).

    Which is of course the history of every country.

  20. And by the way, RM, I’d like you to meet a few members of my family and try to tell them them that marriage isn’t defined strictly as “a union between a man and a woman of the same race.”

    The analogy is useful. You just don’t want to think of yourself as a bigot. That’s fine. Stop entertaining bigoted ideas like saying “oh, you people can deal with this. Separate, but equal is just and fair, after all.”

  21. Homophobes might not have been the entire party who voted for the ban initiatives…but the ban initiatives themselves are homophobic.

    The meaning of the term marriage is so in flux, and everyone has their own opinion regarding what it ‘really’ is.

  22. I used to use that same argument, too. But, as I was informed, marriage has not been defined as “a union between a man and a woman of the same race”, just as “a union between a man and a woman” (in the history of my country, anyway). To inject racial qualifications into something that previously had none is racist.

    Except that in the US, many states did have anti-miscegenation laws (laws which banned interracial marriages). Perhaps that was never the case in Canada, but in the US this is hardly a case of injecting racial qualifications into something that previously had none. So sorry, the analogy is not racist. It shouldn’t surprise you to learn that South Africa also had such laws. Just because Canada didn’t doesn’t mean the analogy isn’t apt.

    FYI, said anti-miscegenation laws in the US were also based on scriptural interpretations.

  23. Oh, and also, for millennia, Jewish law has considered marriages between Jews and non-Jews to be invalid. They are not legally recognized, and any children born into such a union are considered illegitimate. A Kohan cannot marry the daughter of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father without relinquishing his status as a Kohan.

    So, you know, there’s that. In the US, however, the state does recognize the legal validity of such marriages and children born into them are not considered illegitimate. Despite the religious beliefs of Jews.

  24. But, as I was informed, marriage has not been defined as “a union between a man and a woman of the same race”, just as “a union between a man and a woman” (in the history of my country, anyway). To inject racial qualifications into something that previously had none is racist.

    Perhaps you’ve never heard of anti-miscegenation laws, or Loving v. Virginia.

  25. It shouldn’t surprise you to learn that South Africa also had such laws.

    On the other hand, South Africa is now legalizing same sex marriage, according to the NYT. Maybe the recent example of racism made them think twice about continuing other sorts of prejudice, such as homophobia and sexism, as well.

  26. If for some reason there were only two women left on earth on some island somewhere and no men anywhere on earth. Now speaking as a—-(mabey guy or gal) I certainly would want to cuddle up to that last woman, soothe her fears, keep her warm and in general love her regardless if I was a woman too. And the same applies if I was a guy and there was only one other guy left on earth! Rene Varma.

  27. And by the way, RM, I’d like you to meet a few members of my family and try to tell them them that marriage isn’t defined strictly as “a union between a man and a woman of the same race.”

    That’s unfortunate for you. I hope you’re trying to convince them otherwise.

    Stop entertaining bigoted ideas like saying “oh, you people can deal with this. Separate, but equal is just and fair, after all.”

    I never said that.

    I don’t think it’s just and fair. One day America will accept gay marriage. I just don’t think it will happen in the next two years. I believe that if the Dems push for gay marriage, they will lose the gains they made last week How many of the newly elected Dems supported gay marriage in their campaigns?

    For me, it’s a matter of idealism vs realism. What should be vs what is currently possible.

    But thanx for helping me make my point, Jack. I disagree with you so therefore I’m a bigot.

    A bigot who supports gay marriage, and has been to three gay weddings (two of them legally recognized by our government).

    But nice try anyway.

  28. You’ve spent most of this thread arguing that people who support civil-unions but not marriage for gay couples aren’t exactly bigoted. That implies a pretty lazy standard of dignity for gay people and gay relationships, and understandably leads people to think that you are bigoted.

  29. and understandably leads people to think that you are bigoted.

    I support the same goals, but I disagree on the tactics, so you think I’m a bigot.

    I think this shows why the US is so polarized these days. Those who disagree with you can’t just be wrong, they must be immoral too, and therefore must be demonized.

  30. I’m not sure the tactics of “moderation”, and “let society get used to it first” and all that stuff actually work… especially not when it comes to the civil and equal rights of segments of the population.

    I usually am not described as a radical anything, but I absolutely do not believe that civil rights and such should be put up for a vote, or left to society to decide. When has that ever worked? In the US, anyway. There are still people in the US… and not a marginal number, either – “nice, kindly, well-meaning people, who are not ‘bigots, they just don’t want to be forced into anything” – who bemoan the desegregation of schools, the ending of the Jim Crow laws, the striking down of laws forbidding marriage between people of different races, and so on.

    I’m all for codifying equal rights into the law, and then letting “society” just deal. All this tiptoe-ing around about civil unions, partnerships, everything but “marriage”… while marriage is the default for the rest of society (I think it all should be standardized and de-religionized, but that’s a different story), just allows people to put off dealing with their bigotry (or “well-meaning” desires to subjugate other’s lives to their own beliefs), and to feel good about the control they have over others, holding the whip hand as they do, at the same time.

  31. Such is the life of a (slightly left of centre) moderate. The extreme right thinks I’m a commie, and the extreme left thinks I’m a bigot.

    But I’m used to it. I take consolation in the fact the the volume may be louder at the extremes, but elections are decided by those of us in the centre.

  32. But I’m used to it. I take consolation in the fact the the volume may be louder at the extremes, but elections are decided by those of us in the centre.

    A person’s humanity, of course, isn’t something that can be voted upon. It’s inherent.

    So I don’t know why you think “go slow” is a sensibly moderate position here. You can maybe make the case that slamming a Mountain Dew and carving “It’s unequivocally wrong to deny an entire class of human beings the legal rights and protections the rest of us enjoy” with your snowboard into a ski slope is totally extreme. In all other cases it’s just a plain ol’ vanilla statement of basic human rights.

  33. Amricans like to envision themselves as getting very famous in order to arrive at the level of personality worship which should really be left to the likes of people like Abdul Gammal Nasser, Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Charles De Gaul, Nelson Mandela and Mira Alfassa aka Mother. Of course their wives had everything to do with their greatness If you know something about what they stood for you will see it was for Love. Please and okay Amrica let us spend our time loving other people instead of trying to change them, please. Rene Varma

  34. My last comment refers to side stepping issues. What has sexuality got to do with the present times when Amricans are bombing the heaven out of Afghanistan and Iraq. The people there certainly cannot enjoy an evening of love straight or gay. and here we are complaining about our sexual rights. Can you imagine if we had to fuck on the run. That literally means night after night being scared to make love because you might be caught with your skirt down if the front of your house is blown off not to mention your lover not making it back home from the bazaar where she went for milk and bread. Those gals in the white house and pentgon better stop servicing their men cause they are in the service of big oil. Bring our troops home now. Us gals want our men and we want to tell the white house to tell the pentagon to take a cold shower then a warm shower and make more love. Arabs are lovers. Rene Varma

  35. Rene Varma, you’ve dropped a lot of non-sequitur or off-topic comments in this discussion, and I’m having a hard time deciphering them. Are you accidentally posting to the wrong threads, or confused, or is this strategic on your part?

  36. Well, It’s not accidental and sometimes people think I wear the wrong threads and yes I get confused sometimes (with mathematics) As for strategics, well, I’m kinda making it up as I go along though I am quite familiar with he issues I hope and have traveled to three corners of the world to make the observation that generally people prefer cooperation. Heres a song for you little light-such a pretty name::….blue skys….green trees, fluffy white clouds…. riding my bicycle in the park one fine summer day…. oh blue skys, green trees fluffy white clouds. And along comes a butterfly, fluttering, fluttering at my heart, oh how wonderful , how beautiful, butterfly fluttering at my heart. Riding, oh, travelling in the wake of a butterfly…..blue skys. Love from Rene

  37. Please, please keep me going I just got my injection of clopixol this morning ( 150cc’s once every three weeks) and feel much more aligned. I would really love to continue contributing to our society. Rene.

  38. So I don’t know why you think “go slow” is a sensibly moderate position here.

    Unfortunately, it’s because I believe it’s a choice between “go slow”, and “go backwards”. The recent gay marriage bans, and the low level of support for gay marriage compared to the higher level of support for civil unions leads me to this conclusion.

Comments are currently closed.