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

Bookends.

Jill

obama

All the campaign hoopla has been stressful and demoralizing, but I have to admit: I am excited. Either candidate would have been historic — and I’m trilled that someone as inspiring, intelligent and passionate as Barack Obama will very possibly be President of the United States.

There’s a lot of good stuff being written today, but Liss’s post made me burst into tears.

Back in April, I posted this picture of the Obamas and noted: “Barack Obama would, if nominated and elected, be the first Illinois legislator to occupy the White House since Abraham Lincoln. That’s some fucking bookends right there.”

He’s now the presumptive Democratic nominee. The first ever person of color in his position in the history of this nation, which, upon its founding, would not have acknowledged his freedom, his citizenship, or his very personhood.

And now he stands in a position where he is very likely to be this nation’s next president.
…

Senator Barack Obama, from the Land of Lincoln.

That’s some fucking bookends right there.

Yes ma’am it is.

I know many women (and men) today are mourning the fact that the female candidate didn’t get her historic moment. I am mourning that too. And again, Melissa says it better than I could. Women are hurting, and our confidence in our “allies” and in our fellow progressives has been thoroughly challenged. Even in that thread, a whole contingent of asshole “progressive” Obama supporters feel the need to show up and put Liss in her place. So I’m grateful that despite the assholery, Liss was able to open up a space for Clinton supporters to vent and to share their frustrations. That’s important today, too.

69 thoughts on Bookends.

  1. Women are hurting, and our confidence in our “allies” and in our fellow progressives has been thoroughly challenged.

    I partially hate to say this, but…

    This sort of thinking would hold more weight if the Hillary blogosphere hasn’t been throwing around disgusting smears at Michelle Obama (at last check, a woman) the past few days. Physicians, heal thyselves. As for confidence, well…you could imagine how pro-choice Obama supporters feel when Hillary supporters say they’ll up and leave for John Freaking McCain just because they didn’t get exactly what they wanted.

    So yeah. “Misogyny!” in one hand; “OMG MICHELLE OBAMA TAPE!!!!!!” in the other. Rrrrrright.

    (this was not addressed at you, Jill)

  2. Liss is a class act, no?

    Count me in as one of the mourning Clinton supporters who’s going to haul her kid off to the Inauguration in January when President Obama takes his first oath. Historic. I’ll probably bawl the whole way through it.

  3. This sort of thinking would hold more weight if the Hillary blogosphere hasn’t been throwing around disgusting smears at Michelle Obama (at last check, a woman) the past few days. Physicians, heal thyselves.

    Have you seen any of that at Shakesville? I know I have not. Just because some Clinton supporters are hypocrites doesn’t mean all of them are, and it certainly doesn’t mean Melissa is.

  4. What I can’t believe are all the people in the thread saying “it’s time to move on”. Going by the timestamps on my computer, saying that mere hours after the news broke? Hours after Obama and Clinton’s speeches? I think a couple of hours – or hell, even a couple of days – to look back over the entire messy primary race is more than warranted. It takes time to process emotions, particularly over such a tumultuous series of events. Being told that one must immediately start waving the pompoms for Obama seems galling.

  5. I had to unsubscribe to Shakesville after the Ohio and Texas primaries. In Liss’s world, anyone who deigned to disagree with Sen. Clinton, or anyone who found Clinton abrasive, impolitic, and divisive was exhibiting misogyny.

    Is there misogyny and sexism in our media and culture? You betcha. But the disparate efforts by so many HRC supporters, Liss chief amongst them, to make feminism was a wedge issue — to divide progressives, to pit fighters for equality against each other — was shameful. It didn’t have to be that way. And it wasn’t until Obama started winning.

    This whole primary season has made me sad. Yes, for those who decided to imbue in Senator Clinton all of their hopes for gender equality, the result is disappointing. But for those of us who are weary of watching a Democratic candidate do her damnedest to divide the Democratic party, the relief is joyous.

  6. Kelly – citations, please? Because you’re living in a completely different world from me and many, many other Shakesville readers…

  7. Have you seen any of that at Shakesville? I know I have not. Just because some Clinton supporters are hypocrites doesn’t mean all of them are, and it certainly doesn’t mean Melissa is.

    Silence is quiet endorsement, I’m afraid.

  8. In Liss’s world, anyone who deigned to disagree with Sen. Clinton, or anyone who found Clinton abrasive, impolitic, and divisive was exhibiting misogyny.

    Maybe I missed something, but I really didn’t see Liss doing that. I did see her point out sexisms large and small — because that’s how sexism works. It’s not always as simple as calling someone a bitch.

    But the disparate efforts by so many HRC supporters, Liss chief amongst them, to make feminism was a wedge issue — to divide progressives, to pit fighters for equality against each other — was shameful.

    I don’t think Liss was using feminism as a “wedge issue.” She writes a feminist blog — are you really surprised that she points out sexism in the election? Come on now. It’s not feminists who are making sexism an issue by pointing it out — it’s the sexists who are creating the problem. We’re just responding to it. I think it’s a little unfair to pin the divisiveness on us.

    I see this argument a lot: Someone says something sexist or racist or homophobic, but it’s not explicitly bigoted — no one uses the n-word or the c-word. But the bigotry is still apparent. A person in the insulted class calls it out, and then we’re accused of being the one who caused the problem — after all, if we didn’t say anything, the “problem” wouldn’t exist. I think that’s crap.

  9. Silence is quiet endorsement, I’m afraid.

    No it’s not.

    I haven’t written about the crap Clinton supporters have thrown at Michelle Obama because I haven’t seen it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist — but it does mean that there are only so many hours in the day, and there are only so many blogs we can read. I don’t read any of the big Hillary blogs (or any of the big Obama blogs, for that matter). So I’m pretty ignorant as to what online Hillary supporters do. That doesn’t mean that I’m endorsing actions that I didn’t even know existed.

    And even beyond that, I have about 15 tabs open in Firefox and more than 100 emails in my inbox marked for posting. There is no way I am going to get around to writing about all of them. The ones I do pick I select based on what strikes my interest at that second, not based on what’s the most important. Am I tacitly endorsing the bad things that happened in all the stories I don’t cover?

    I know your comment wasn’t directed at me, but the whole “silence is endorsement” thing is crap. Yes, there is a line where silence is deafening, when an issue is so huge that it must take willful ignorance to not see it. I’m not sure that the things some random online Hillary supporters have said about Michelle Obama make the cut.

  10. Yes, there is a line where silence is deafening, when an issue is so huge that it must take willful ignorance to not see it. I’m not sure that the things some random online Hillary supporters have said about Michelle Obama make the cut.

    It would be useful to take a fieldtrip over to No Quarter, or Hillaryis44, or Taylor Marsh, and see that 1) “some random online supporters” is an understatement and 2) I only included the Michelle Obama smear as an exampleamong many many many many. I know we’re busy, yes, so I’m not trying to smack you over the head with this…but unless all these people are ratfuckers, there is some serious well-seeded bigotry throughout the Hillary blogosphere that various pity parties by design do not confront.

  11. but unless all these people are ratfuckers, there is some serious well-seeded bigotry throughout the Hillary blogosphere that various pity parties by design do not confront

    Oh I don’t disagree with you there. And I’m sure there are many, many people who purposely don’t confront racism because it’s inconvenient in this particular context. And I didn’t mean that the racism only comes from random internet wackjobs with no real power (hello, Geraldine Ferraro!). I just take issue with the argument that silence = approval.

  13. I am very glad you CAN take issue with teh fact that silence= approval . I understand busy . but you said it yourself it’s about interest no. SO no it’s not crap just because you say it is so and frankly it’s pretty damned insulting considering what’s gone down this primary in terms of silence not jsut on racism but sexism in many forms .

  14. BA-

    I’m not saying that silence is ok, or that I only write about things I’m interested in. I’m just saying that silence on a particular issue does not de facto equal not caring. Perhaps I’m overly-sensitive to this, but I get at least one trackback/link a week from a blog asserting that “feminists don’t care about X” because I haven’t written about it. So that’s the perspective I’m coming from here — of being constantly told that I don’t care about x,y or z because I haven’t written about that one article or because I’ve only covered a particular issue five times instead of 10.

    You’re right that there have been a lot of issues of racism and sexism in many forms in this primary that have not been adequately covered, here and elsewhere. I’m not trying to justify the silence on those issues. And I do think that in many instances, silence is complicity or support. I just don’t think that’s all that’s going on here (“here” being at Feministe) or at Shakesville.

  15. There’s a lot of good stuff being written today, but Liss’s post made me burst into tears.

    I’m not really one for Shakesville, usually. I don’t completely agree with the politics, but it’s the style more than anything that puts me off a lot of the time. That aside, she did a very admirable thing there; it took some gumption to stand up and say that, after the strong stand she took for Clinton. Kudos to her.

  16. A person in the insulted class calls it out, and then we’re accused of being the one who caused the problem — after all, if we didn’t say anything, the “problem” wouldn’t exist. I think that’s crap.

    It IS crap. It’s not divisive to call people out on sexism or racism. It’s divisive to BE a sexist or racist.

    Btw, I am a Hillary supporter, and I had never even heard of No Quarter, Hillaryis44, or Taylor Marsh before reading this comment thread.

  17. Citations — goodness, just about every other comment by that betty boondogle person!

    Seriously, Liss’s sexism watch itself made a mockery of misogyny.

    Misogyny isn’t just being mean to a woman. It isn’t merely insulting a woman.

    Politics ain’t beanbag. Do we all hope it could be more civil? You bet.

    But the rough and tumble world of politics doesn’t become misogyny just because a woman has stepped in to the ring.

    Insulting, even mocking Clinton in and of itself ain’t misogyny folks. Insulting, mocking, diminishing, threatening and villafying her because of her gender, her appearance, her status as a wife, mother and adovacate for women and children most certainly is. And everytime Liss overreached, well . . .

    I don’t care for violent imagery. It is coarse and dehumanizes all of us. But in so many of Liss’s sexism watch examples, if one inserted a male figure in lieu of Clinton, the example is equally insulting or coarse.

    I realize my complaint — that Liss was over-inclusive, thus diluting the power of bona fide charges — can be considered by some classic concern troll fodder.

    But that doesn’t deflate the truth.

    I started out this primary season with this blog, Pandagon, Shakesville and about ten other feminist blogs in my reader. All are still there except for Liss’s.

  18. IT may not equal de facto not caring but it does mean that for whatever reason something else to you to me to the writer at the time WAS MORE IMPORTANT. that we cared less about x than y

    That’s just facts I have gotten it myself.

    And you know what , if someone living through this where it is a pen ultimate concern is pissed cause they feel my words or my attention could actually change things , To call their anger crap is an insult.

    I as are you am human and make choices, and if peopel see those choices as not caring they have that right. The fact you don’t think that’s whats going on does not change that.

    We make decisions we deal with both ramifications and others feelings having to do iwth them.

    And considering exactly how much went down that CAN”t be reconciled by as liss wnat assert the so much pain BUT to insinuate that somehow the nomination is a consolation prize and then to say people feeling teh way they feel is crap ( especially since no one really seems t notice many of teh peopel hurt WOC ,POC, young women of certain classes, older women NOT with HP memberships ETC ECT refuse in many ways to even be involved in thsi dialogue anymore )

    to me really does supercede what you think or even I think is going on right now

  19. IT may not equal de facto not caring but it does mean that for whatever reason something else to you to me to the writer at the time WAS MORE IMPORTANT. that we cared less about x than y

    That’s just facts I have gotten it myself.

    Well… yes and no. Yeah, whatever we choose to write about is more interesting to us in that moment, but I’m not sure it’s more important. For example: I’ve had this article open for three days now, waiting to be written about. It’s a lot more important than the other posts I’ve dashed off in the past couple of days. But because I want to actually spend time writing about it, it’s lingered, unwritten about. I’m not sure I’m going to get to it anytime soon. So it’s not about what I value or don’t value, or think is important or not — it’s what strikes me in the five minute break I have between doing other things, or what I can get up quickly and respond to briefly. It’s not an ideal blogging situation, and had I more time or energy, I’d like to think I’d be a better blogger. But that’s my reality right now.

    Of course, all that said, that’s not a great excuse. And your right that all writers make choices, and we’re all human — but our choices have consequences. I need to get better about owning that, and I need to start making more responsible choices.

    And you know what , if someone living through this where it is a pen ultimate concern is pissed cause they feel my words or my attention could actually change things , To call their anger crap is an insult.

    That’s fair. I was trying to criticize the argument, but you’re right that the argument can’t be separated from the anger and frustration behind it. I’m confused about this though:

    BUT to insinuate that somehow the nomination is a consolation prize and then to say people feeling teh way they feel is crap

    I might be misunderstanding, but are you saying that I insinuated that the nomination is a consolation prize? To who would it be a consolation prize? Hillary supporters? American voters? If the post comes across that way, I certainly didn’t intend it to.

  20. sorry i miss typed teh last apragraph of Shkesville says what to me is utter crap that part of what we have to understand is that hillary supporters

    the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don’t have a “despite it all.” They don’t have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it.

    Because yes what we dream about is the power teh glory or the history not supporting a candidate that will maybe hopefully deal with the mess were iin right now .

    That right there to me is real crap, it’s a crappy way of chracterizing peple’s motives and defining a dialogue that some how unbeknownst to many has been quietly shriveling as many peopel have become more and more fed up and ACTUALLY HURT as some kind of power grap

  21. I do think this is fantastic. I am very curious about who Obama will be choosing as his VP and I think he should be VERY careful.

    Also, I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but I cannot fathom why any Democrat who supported Hilary would say that they would vote for McCain over Obama…except for racism. I mean are they democrats or aren’t they?

    NO upper-level politician in this country is completely honest. Let’s be real, this is just the way it is. So my way of voting has ALWAYS been to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” Quite frankly, that is the reality. Obama seems decent to me, but of course there are things about him that raise red flags for me. But compared to McCain? That man has lost every shred of integrity and veracity since he has been running for president.

    Quite frankly, anyone so-called Democrat or progressive that says that they would vote for McCain rather than Obama is a fucking idiot.

  22. Ah ok, that makes sense — sorry for the confusion. And yeah, that is an unfair characterization of peoples’ motives.

  23. Reading much of this stuff, I can only say — the only way I’d vote for Obama is if Hillary is his VP.

    Our entire culture is misogynistic, and totally pro-male.

    Right after our strongly supported candidate loses — the guys, and their surrogates, start with “get over it”.

    They first told us Obama was “different”, wanted “change” — now, it’s “just politics”. Guys, you are very strange, and your attitudes convince me it was ALL about thwarting a woman.

    Iron your own damn shirts. Forget all about “Bros before Hos”.

    For me the initial dealbreaker was McClurkin. Obama’s response to that idiocy was even worse. Next came the homoerotic manlove for Obama from most of the “pundits”.

    Can you say “closet cases”?

    Now, all y’all say we should “get over it”.

    Wrong!

    No respect = no vote

  24. I am amazed at the mourning that is occuring. The fact is, that she ran a crappy campaign and assumed waaay too much that this nomination was hers. While it would be great to have a woman president, it would be BETTER to have the right woman as president. I’m not convinced that Hillary was the right person this time. Not because of her policy stances, but for the leadership (or lack thereof) that she displayed in this campaign, her inability to come up with a message that was authentic, and her silence (which I take as consent) throughout the racism that was evident throughout this campaign. For me, it was her silence that was the breaking point. For a woman, hell a political couple, who had such *close* ties to the African-American community to remain silent as racism reared it’s ugly head and USED IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, is absolutely spineless and inexcuseable.

    So no, I don’t mourn that SHE didn’t get the nomination…not at all.

  25. Next came the homoerotic manlove for Obama from most of the “pundits”.

    Can you say “closet cases”?

    Um… did you really just make the “Obama supporters are teh GAY!” argument?

  26. Tina: Seriously?
    Do you not see the damage that Hillary would cause to Obama and how distracting having her (and Bill) on the ticket (and in the White House) would be?
    You think he would trust someone who has essentially shit on him to share power?
    You would seriously not vote for Obama and risk McCain getting in. I’m assuming you are pro-choice…you would take that risk?

    Wow…I’m amazed that your goal to have a woman in the White House, by any means necessary, is removing any sense of reason.

  27. Kelly-

    I guess I should out myself and say that I am most likely one of the “asshole “progressive” Obama supporters” Jill refers to above. so be it.

    Your words echo my experience re: “Shakesville” and the inhabitants of its comments sections. They see misogyny under every rock and behind every tree. They see support for Obama as de facto misogyny against Hillary. The comments to Melissa’s post “For the Record” are completely insane. I just wanted to say thank you for your comments.

  28. Jill-

    I think you deserve some credit for actually responding to comments made on this post. Few bloggers on the “big name” sites take the time to do that anymore, and the result is that it often feels as though they hide behind other commenters as proxies. Kudos.

  29. Thanks Nikkos. But, re: your first comment, I’m an Obama supporter too — so I don’t think that Obama supporters are de facto misogynist. I do think that the Obama supporters who launch sexist attacks on Clinton are misogynists. That’s who I was calling assholes and “progressives” in quotes.

  31. Well in the coming days, weeks, and months we’re going to have to work toward reconciling the differences between Obama and Clinton supporters. I voted for Obama in my state’s primary, but I would have voted for Clinton happily in the general election if she had secured the nomination. I’ve seen a lot of sexism leveled at Clinton from the media, but I honestly don’t recall the Obama campaign using sexism to its advantage to quite the degree that the Clinton campaign used racism to its advantage. But ultimately what soured me on Clinton was when she said that she would bring experience to the presidency, and McCain would bring experience to the presidency, but Obama would bring “a speech he wrote in 2002.”

  32. I’ve seen a lot of sexism leveled at Clinton from the media, but I honestly don’t recall the Obama campaign using sexism to its advantage to quite the degree that the Clinton campaign used racism to its advantage.

    For me, THIS is the key point right here, and why I don’t understand the anger at Obama. Sure, be angry at the media – yes, by all means. But, to treat the media as a proxy for the Obama campaign in this instance is a big reach…

  33. Jill, to clarify, I didn’t mean to suggest that you equated a lack of support for Hillary with misogyny; rather, that comment was aimed at the commenters over at Shakesville.

  34. Okay, I call bullshit. Melissa McCewan broke her ass this primary to highlight both the sexism and racism that reared it ugly head and continuously called out people who were bastardizing the word progressive with that garbage. She is the only blogger that I know of to step up to the plate in that regard and she hit a godamn home run nearly every time. She deserves better than this garbage I’m reading, especially from those who call themselves feminists or progressives. Shame on you. And Jill, how the hell would you feel if Melissa allowed a thread to derail into trashing your blog and its regulars? Again, shame on you. And Nikkos if you have something to say to the commenters at shakesville you know where to say it, at Shakesville. This is junior high school bullshit. Grow up.

  35. SH:

    I shared my thoughts at Shakesville and was basically told to fuck off. When I saw this post, and the comments which I agreed with, I chimed in. I guess there’s no safe place to disagree with Shakers.

  36. P.S.: I have been on the receiving end of many comments today, from SH here and from the commenters at Shakesville, which revolve around the theme of infantilization: “grow up,” “this isn’t high school,” “are you 12?” and so forth. I don’t know quite what to make of it, but it seems to be a common rejoinder.

  37. I shared my thoughts at Shakesville and was basically told to fuck off. When I saw this post, and the comments which I agreed with, I chimed in. I guess there’s no safe place to disagree with Shakers.

    Nikkos, if I get told off here or elsewhere I don’t go to another blog and bitch about what assholes people here are, it’s just tacky and juvenile. That’s where those comments are coming from (are you 12?). For the record, I didn’t much like it when there was talk about Pandagon over at Shakes either, but what’s happening here is a direct smear of Melissa, and that shit’s just not right or fair. I’m sorry if you got a bad reception over at shakesville, I’ve found it to be one of the most open. But I know the thread you were talking about and I think referring to Hillary as “your queen” set alot of people off, especially given the original intent of the post and the fact that people were raw to begin with. I’m not trying to be an ambassador for Shakesville and I’m not speaking for Melissa or anyone else for that matter, that’s just my take on what went down. I also want to correct my butchering of Melissa’s name, its McEwan. I just think there should be a little better etiquette among blogs, especially one’s from so-called allies.

  38. Pingback: Understanding Clinton supporters « Cellar Door

  39. Obama and Lincoln, quite the pair. Two men who have no respect for women. Lincoln sat idly by while his soldiers raped and tortured Southern women. His own wife went mad. And Obama treats women like dirt.

  40. They see misogyny under every rock and behind every tree.

    Aahhh, Nikkos, this is where your privilege is oozing and spilling out so viscously that we’re all slipping and sliding in it.

    One doesn’t have to hunt for misogyny under “rock(s)” and “tree(s)”. It’s always here. So is racism. We just pretend they’re not, because we are, after all, “progressives.”

  41. S.H., you are extremely in the wrong.

    Jill writes a post complementing Melissa, and yet you still slam her? Why? Because she’s not screening every single comment?

    I honestly don’t understand this idea of yours. I mean, there’s plenty of hateful anti-Obama comments on Shakesville, but I do my best not to hold Melissa or the other bloggers responsible. The fact that you’re so rude to Jill speaks more of you than of anyone else.

  42. Anne @ 39:

    How does Obama treat women like dirt? I think he had some bonehead moments (“hold on sweetie”, “you’re likeable enough Hillary”) but I think that was blindness due to his male privilege, not out and out malice.

    John McCain, on the other hand, would be a good example of treating women like dirt.

  43. I heard a male pundit today on the radio crack a joke saying that it will take five divorce lawyers to get rid of Hillary. Bastards. Am I missing something here? Where is the support from the democratic party for a great NY senator?

  44. Lincoln sat idly by while his soldiers raped and tortured Southern women. His own wife went mad.

    If you’re going to bring up Lincoln’s wrongdoings considering the historical context, one should at least be intellectually honest to acknowledge that not only was this a common practice not particular to Lincoln during this period….but also Southern Whites …including Southern White Women as a group were arguably far worse in this department for fighting/acting to maintain slavery as a way of life which subjugated African-Americans to bondage with its brutalities, degradations, murders, denials of personhood, and more. In addition to suffering all of that, African-American women were also subjected to misogynistic brutalities such as rapes and forced breeding at the behest of their “White masters”.

    Although Southern White women did suffer from sexism and misogyny, they were just as part of the oppressive class and thus, complicit against African-American slaves during the antebellum period.

    Reading this one would think you were channeling Margaret Mitchell and Geraldine Ferraro or something.

  45. let me get this straight: Are you trying to say that southern white women deserved to be raped because they participated in slavery?

  46. the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don’t have a “despite it all.” They don’t have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it.

    Huh???? A woman came thisclose to getting the nomination (in spite of having WJC piss off many likely voters), and there’s no “ZOMG!” celebration? Perhaps it’s because she hasn’t presented it (yet — there’s hope for Friday). There’s been no “No, we didn’t make it, but look at what we accomplished! The next woman to run will be taken much more seriously because of your support.”

    I don’t think HRC cares about “the next woman”, but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.

  47. exholt,

    I did not say Southern white women, I said Southern women. Lincoln’s and his kind were equal opportunity offenders.

    And by the way. African-American is part of my ethnic background. However I refuse to put either Lincoln or Obama on a pedestal. Neither one is deserving.

  48. Abby,

    I do think it is out and out malice. But he says everything so calm that no one wants to believe he has a mean bone in his body.

  49. Okay Anne wso can i use the irish and scottish in my background to make nasty freewheeling staements with no backup about white people or white women cause it’s part of my background

  50. Anne,

    The very sentence you used above is the exact same spiel I’ve heard from countless Pro-Confederate Southern Whites online and a few at my grad institution to continue to justify their support for the “Lost Cause” including the supposed fact that “Slavery was never a factor in causing the Civil War” and it was all “States Rights”…..arguments every credible historian I’ve read on this period have dissected and concluded to be quite specious.

  51. Anne, are you suggesting Lincoln drove his wife into madness? Her family had a history of mental instability in both the women and the men and she lost two children while in the White House, Tad and Willie, not to mention her husband. All of that on top of the stress of being the President’s wife and a war. I think anyone would go little crazy in those circumstances (personal opinion, I think most people at the time were, considering many of the atrocities that happened both during and after the war).

    If you want to vilify one of the Lincoln men, vilify Robert, her oldest and only surviving son, who left his mother in an insane asylum (think cold, dark, misogynistic, little better than hell on earth) instead of getting her treatment.

    As for the rape of southern women, point me to a war, conflict, squabble or alley fight that could not eventually lead to rape. Blaming Lincoln for that is like blaming him for making it rain. Unless he signed a directive telling his generals to encourage such behavior, he shares equally in the blame as well as the helplessness of the senseless horror that is war.

  52. And Jill, how the hell would you feel if Melissa allowed a thread to derail into trashing your blog and its regulars? Again, shame on you.

    I “allowed” the thread to get de-railed because I left the library and went out to dinner with my boyfriend, meaning that I couldn’t respond to every comment. Sorry.

    That said, cut the Liss/Shakesville bashing. That’s not the purpose of this thread. I’m going to bed and so I’m not going to be moderating comments any more tonight, and I honestly haven’t even read through all of these, but I spent the first half of this thread arguing with people about why calling out sexism is important (and the great job Shakesville does in that regard). I’m not going to spend all day tomorrow doing the same thing. Off-topic comments about her personal opinion about Shakesville or Liss will be deleted. Thanks.

  53. That said, cut the Liss/Shakesville bashing.

    Thank you, Jill. Sorry I came off so sharply, I just knew there was shit being said around the internet about Liss, and then I came here as I normally do only to find it here of all places. So I basically just lost it because I respect her, her blog, and the effort she’s made so immensely. But I also know you’re usually very fair about this kind of thing so I should’ve probrably waited before I blew up. Anyway, I apologize for my tone and thanks again.

  54. No, I did not equate Obama supporters with “teh gays”. Heck, I think most of us in the various “communities” supported Hillary.

    It just made me sick to see all the “pundits” twist Hillary’s words, while being all atwitter about Obama. With all the “pundits” so breathless about Obama, and the vile way Hillary’s words were twisted, it became clear that the guys latched on to anyone who had a chance to beat Hillary. Her work, her record, were all ignored, even denied.

    Our various CNN and MSNBC “pundits” then really did act like a bunch of teenage girls over the latest “heart-throb”. The SNL skit was spot on — and now, we women are told to “get over it”, or be branded racist, by people who lied about Hillary, her record, her platform. Hillary was “fair game” but any criticism of Obama was “racism”. The basic premises were, woman = lesser, and the prevailing argument really was “Bros before Hos”. That’s misogyny, pure and simple.

    No respect = no vote

  55. I must have missed where I was supporting slavery. Not liking Lincoln is not a love of slavery. But there you go with the “if you don’t like Obama, Lincoln, whoever you must be racist” garbage.

    I fault Lincoln for not seeming to care that she went mad. The way I fault all politicians for putting their ambitions ahead of their family. Just like if something horrible comes out now about Michelle Obama. Which there has been talk of for a few days. I consider that his fault for thrusting his family into the spotlight. It is very clear the man has no loyalty, he will drop anyone like a hot potato if they make him look back for second.

  56. Um, I’m a woman, and I’m not hurting at all. Hillary Clinton’s assumption that I would vote for her regardless of what she did or said was unfounded and insulting. I’m not happy that Chris Mathews and a lot of other right wingers went after her based on her gender, but I’m equally unhappy that Clinton (or her surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro) went after Obama based on his race. Most of all, I am furious that Clinton insisted on dragging out her race for the White House long after it was mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination. She’s made it that much harder for Obama this November, and sexism didn’t have a damn thing to do with it.

    So no, I’m not hurting. I’m relieved that Clinton finally decided to put her party above her ego. I only hope that she did it in time for a united Democratic party to take back the White House and save the Supreme Court.

  57. And unlike the people (including many of these women) who are feeling the same way with regard to racism in this campaign, who are licking wounds of racist attacks even as preparations begin for the breathtakingly awesome celebration of the first ever presumptive nominee of color, ZOMG, these women do not have an equivalent wonder to celebrate. They don’t have a “despite it all.” They don’t have a step forward to point to, to say the pain was worth it.

    Its too bad that these women don’t think that a black man getting the nomination is a wonder to celebrate.

  58. Its too bad that these women don’t think that a black man getting the nomination is a wonder to celebrate.

    That’s not the impression that I get from reading the post and comments by Melissa. She elaborates in comments:

    My point was that after a primary in which a female candidate was attacked with misogyny and a black candidate was attacked with racism, people who care about misogyny and racism (of which there is huge overlap, of course, and among both candidates’ supporters), especially people who care about the misogyny and racism expressed by presumed allies, are smarting like hell.

    And for those of us who care about institutional racism, there is consolation (not to be confused with “a consolation prize,” which is of little value) in seeing that, despite the racism, Obama nonetheless has secured the Demcratic nomination. That doesn’t erase the pain, and it certainly doesn’t erase the racism that caused it, but there is at least something to celebrate in that we are seeing a barrier being broken.

    Those of us who care about institutional misogyny (and, again, I don’t think these are mutually exclusive groups) don’t have that consolation, as regards a barrier being broken with regard to misogyny. There was no transcendence; only a loss.

    That’s not about Clinton supporters or non-Clinton supporters; that’s about people who give a shit about real, practical equality at every level. We’ve got one thing to celebrate; and one thing to mourn.

    And then there’s this post celebrating Obama’s nomination.

  60. I must have missed where I was supporting slavery. Not liking Lincoln is not a love of slavery. But there you go with the “if you don’t like Obama, Lincoln, whoever you must be racist” garbage.

    Not liking Lincoln is one thing. Singling him out for something that was commonplace practice among nearly all political leaders of this period, including the Confederate leadership like you did here:

    Lincoln sat idly by while his soldiers raped and tortured Southern women.

    is the mark of too many Pro-Confederate sympathizers whose one-sided hatred of Lincoln and the Union in the name of “The Lost Cause” and non-Whites is such that they neglected their own leaders were worse in many regards. Slavery, atrocities against Union POWs, forcible kidnappings and enslavement of African-Americans in the North during and after the Battle of Gettysburg, etc.

    By constructing that sentence quoted above the way you did by not including the disclaimer

    The way I fault all politicians for putting their ambitions ahead of their family.

    in that very sentence, you sure sound like the Pro-Confederate sympathizers I’ve encountered who want to demonize the Union while omitting the same/worse sins committed by the Confederacy during the war. This specious one-sided argument is one I’ve heard too many times from Southern Whites who seem to feel the only true history of that period are in fictional pollyannish portrayals of the Antebellum such as Gone With The Wind….though I have heard a few idiots argue that even that was too harsh a portrayal of that period and that African-American slaves were genuinely happy, almost never mistreated, and well treated by their White “masters”. Yeah…and I’ve got 200 Brooklyn Bridges to sell ya….

    Lincoln, as with many other political leaders of his time were flawed and caused sufferings through the implementation/non-implementation of policies. He is, however, far from the only….or even the nearly worst one in this regard. The Confederate leadership won that prize hands down.

  61. Yeah… that whole last paragraph there. That’s why I’m completely demoralized and not at all caring who the f*** wins at all. It could be Satan on a Harley… I’m already looking forward to the next 4-8 years being OVER. I just want to go hibernate somewhere until it’s all over and people stop acting like such stupid jerks to one another.

  62. Tina, you’re incredible. You blast Obama for his association with Donnie McClurkin, then turn right around and direct homophobic epithets at the supposed “closet cases” who sent “homoerotic manlove” Obama’s way on the political gab shows. You lay into Obama supporters for being misogynistic and disrespectful of women, but then you rip a page right out of the misogynist playbook by saying that the TV commentators “act[ed] like a bunch of teenage girls” over Obama.

    I’m not going to tell you how you should or shouldn’t feel about Senator Clinton suspending her campaign, but you’re certainly being a terrible spokesperson for her cause.

  63. It just made me sick to see all the “pundits” twist Hillary’s words, while being all atwitter about Obama. With all the “pundits” so breathless about Obama, and the vile way Hillary’s words were twisted, it became clear that the guys latched on to anyone who had a chance to beat Hillary. Her work, her record, were all ignored, even denied.

    So you’re basing your decision about who to vote for in the presidential election not on the candidates themselves, not what the candidates said or did, not on the candidates’ actual stands, but on what people in the media said about them?

    And you’re assuming that pundits in the media — people who have been shown over and over and over again to be dedicated to a conservative agenda — did all of this because they just can’t help loving Obama and not because they wanted to sow as much dissension between Democrats as possible?

    I guess we should put Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw up for election since apparently what they think and feel about Barack Obama and John McCain is much more significant than what the actual candidates say and do.

  64. Am I the only one who thinks Tina is a right-wing troll? What kind of feminist uses “Closet-case” and “teenage girl” pejoratively?

  65. Count me in as one of the mourning Clinton supporters who’s going to haul her kid off to the Inauguration in January when President Obama takes his first oath. Historic. I’ll probably bawl the whole way through it.

    To be very clear – I meant bawl with joy.

  66. Just like if something horrible comes out now about Michelle Obama. Which there has been talk of for a few days. I consider that his fault for thrusting his family into the spotlight. It is very clear the man has no loyalty, he will drop anyone like a hot potato if they make him look back for second.

    Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I think that comment is incredibly sexist (and patronizing). It implies that Michelle Obama has no agency, no say in what goes on in her own marriage, and that Barack Obama’s run for the Presidency must inevitably mean that he shoved the decision down her throat, instead of that they just might possibly have an equal partnership, with a give and take between partners.

    It’s also interesting that you seem to blame only Obama for “thrusting his family into the spotlight.” Unless you blame all politicians equally.

    In which case, you must not ever vote.

  67. “I fault Lincoln for not seeming to care that she went mad. The way I fault all politicians for putting their ambitions ahead of their family”

    Several points:
    1) Lincoln is one of the very few presidents (along with FDR, Truman, etc) who truly had a greater cause than himself or his family, the man kept America whole, and with the Emancipation Proclamation did more for Freedom than virtually any American ever.

    2) The state of mental healthcare at the time was such that criticizing Lincoln on these grounds smacks of trolling.

  68. Its too bad that these women don’t think that a black man getting the nomination is a wonder to celebrate.

    The two sentiments are in no way incompatible. Humans are capable of feeling many emotions, sometimes seemingly inconsistent, at the same time.

    Most decent people, most Clinton supporters, most Obama supporters, are concerned about both misogyny and racism. This results in mixed feelings that come from watching this year’s primary process.

    You can be outraged by both the racism and the misogyny. You can be enraged that both polluted the political process as much as they did.

    You can be pleased that Obama won the nomination, and has wide popularity, in spite of the racism.

    You can be sorrowful that this year will not be the year when a woman wins the US presidency, and that this sign of equality for women is postponed.

    You could, watching the process, know that many feminists have longed for the day when a woman would be president, and know that many people who care about racial equality have longed for the day when a black person would be president, and yourself have spent many years longing for both goals, and felt torn that only one of these two milestones could be met.

    You could be pleased that every single citizen in the US had the opportunity to vote for a woman as a presidential candidate in the primary/caucus process.

    You could be pleased to see that pretty much (excepting Florida and Michigan) every citizen in the US had an opportunity to vote for a black person as presidential candidate in the primary/caucus process.

    You could be pleased to see that both inspired great enthusiasm from many, many people, all over the country – enthusiasm that would have been difficult to imagine a decade or two ago.

    You could feel joy for the people who joined the civil rights movement in the 1950s-1960s, that so many have lived to see the day when a black person is a serious presidential candidate, and mourn that so many did not live to see this day.

    You could feel sorrow for the people who joined the women’s rights movement in the 1960s-1970s, and for those in their 80s or 90s, born before women could even vote, who, because of the 4 year election cycle, might not live to see the dream of a woman as US President, and mourn for those who did not live to see that a woman became such a serious contender.

    “Anyone can be president” is a standard trope about how equality functions in the US – yet we know that this hasn’t really been the case, for most of US history. Looking for the day when a black person would be president has been a dream of the civil rights movement, looking for the day when a woman would be president has been a dream of the women’s rights movement.

    Many people have held both dreams close. Knowing that one, and only one, of those dreams could be met this year, and the other would be postponed for eight years, perhaps longer (assuming the Democratic candidate wins this year, and runs for reelection in four years) occasions both joy for meeting one and sorrow for postponing the other.

    One needs to take time to both celebrate the victory and mourn the delay. Both emotions are real, and need to be processed and felt.

    Equality, and equal rights, are things to be greedy about. We want both, for everyone, now. Until we have both, for everyone, there will be both joy, for victories on either front, and sorrow and postponed victories for either front.

  69. Nothing to add but this: I have no say in how the 2008 American presidential election will turn out, but I’m fervently hoping lifelong Dems bury the hatchet and unite. The White House definitely needs a group of adults in it. We’re counting on you.

Comments are currently closed.