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

My Mourning Dress Is Tight

Tree hugging, maple syrup loving, beaver cuddling Cannuck that I am, I should probably refrain from commenting on American politics, but I am so irritated that I cannot stand it anymore.  All over the blogosphere, HRC supporters are declaring themselves to be in mourning for her loss of the democratic nomination.  They speak about shattered dreams, and of feeling belittled, and used by a party that has come to take for granted their support.  With an allies heart I listened to the plaintive wails and tried to sympathize. I wanted to emphasize with their feelings of grief, to feel some sort of shared solidarity in our common womanhood.  I intellectualized it over endless pots of green tea, mused about it while incense burned, blocking out the smell of one too many cigarettes. Give it time I thought, it will come to me.

Then I woke up, and just plain and simple got real about it. Was she a victim of sexist attacks by the media, no doubt, but at the end of the day when she proudly packed up her bag, and walked off the stage with a class, and a grace that was remarkable, HRC is still a woman of incredible privilege. I think the privilege aspect of it all is where the disconnect begins for me.  In the game of life that woman is a winner. Though she may not have won this particular race, she will be remembered as the first woman that had a legitimate shot of becoming POTUS. This is a positively historic moniker to own. There will be books written about her, songs attesting her strength and courage, and when her light finally fades, she will be remembered more for the positive that she has done rather than the negative; the true sign of fame, revisionist memoralization.

Let me tell you who will go unheralded, the single mother that struggles to put food on the table, and keep a roof over the head of her child, the wife that has taken so many beatings from her husband that she suffers from brain injuries, the prostitute that is raped for the 100th time, the homeless women that are suffering with mental illness, the everyday working mom doing the Herculean task of raising a family and having a career, the so-called illegal alien performing what amounts to slave labor so that Americans can have their fresh fruit and trendy clothes, and finally the WOC and the GLBT community who are rejected and silenced. (If I were to do a complete list this post would never end.) These are the women I mourn for, these are the women I hope for, this is where my solidarity lies.

Let’s be clear HRC is not just a woman, she represents the ideal of a certain class of women. Though her campaign targeted working class people, how often have the working class rallied only to be betrayed by the bourgeoisie? I submit that in a system that is corrupt from the very root, true and lasting change cannot occur from within, whether the candidate is HRC, or Barack Obama for that matter. The current leaders will always be beholden to those that granted them the power to rule, and unfortunately they will not remember their proletarian base. It is very clear that after decades of the so-called war on poverty, that it simply means eliminating the poor people, and not dismantling the system that impoverishes. There is much rhetoric about tolerance and justice, and yet there are still cases like Duanna Johnson and Sean Bell. In the wealthiest country in the world, how many children go to bed hungry, and how many will graduate high school without the basic skills to get a job, or continue their education?

It actually saddens me that feminism invested so much of its strength and energy to obtain a figure head, that could not despite her best efforts if she won achieve a substantive change in the lives of women. In pushing for the success of one individual what was forgotten were the needs of the many. We have become so disconnected from each other in the pursuit of material gain, that we have forgotten how to come together for the benefit of the least amongst us. In prioritizing our concerns, what we have forgotten is that as a movement we are only as strong as our weakest and most vulnerable members. Does anyone even still believe that the personal is political? Were they just words to mollify the legitimate rage of women that society has constructed as less than? At some point we as feminists have to declare that the bodies that the bourgeoisie have chosen to manipulate and exploit for their own enrichment matter, whether they are invisible, working, or middle class.

So while I don’t mean to offend you, or even belittle your sense of loss in any way, I will however challenge you to experience the same ferocity of emotion when a woman who is not as “accomplished” struggles to get through her day. It is not enough to state the domestic violence stats while spouting feminist theory. What we need as a movement is to feel true rage, and injustice every time a woman is marginalized, abused or exploited, whether or not we can identify with her life experience or not. It means owning our privileges, admitting we don’t have the answers, and listening closely. The next time we decide to unify, let us hope that we will be inspired from the bottom up, for in that way we assure that the needs of the many, will truly outweigh the needs of the few.


185 thoughts on My Mourning Dress Is Tight

  1. You know, I’m not even a Democrat. The differences between Clinton and Obama on policy are so narrow they’re not worth discussing. Until the media hate campaign against Clinton for being a woman who was running for President got taken up by most of the liberal blogosphere, I didn’t care much about either candidate, and repeatedly said that I didn’t care which won even after that. That Obama sweetly decided he was going to support the FISA bill because it would give him more power when he was President, is a strike against Obama: but I suspect Clinton would have done exactly the same thing.

    But I find these endless blog posts instructing Clinton supporters to “get over it” incredibly patronizing, annoying, and provocative – calculated to get my ire up rather than to calm me down. And I’m not really a Clinton supporter: I just got mad at the routine misogyny being directed at her.

    How about Obama supporters just get over it? Shut up about Clinton. She almost won, but not quite: that’s damned impressive, and people are entitled to still be discussing it and regretting. That McCain is so much worse than Obama is obvious to any mildly informed person: if you want to campaign for Obama, campaign for Obama, positively, not negatively by grouching at or about people who still regret Clinton and are shocked at the amount of open misogyny her campaign stirred up.

  2. I submit that in a system that is corrupt from the very root, true and lasting change cannot occur from within, whether the candidate is HRC, or Barack Obama for that matter.

    I have to disagree. The New Deal (for example) came from within the system and changed the rules of society dramatically. There have always been corrupt Congress members, but Congress has produced powerful legislation regardless. There may still be victims of police brutality, and hungry children, but there were more a hundred years ago.

    It’s true that the United States is moving too slowly toward an egalitarian society, falling behind many other countries, but it’s not hopeless.

  3. There will be books written about her, songs attesting her strength and courage, and when her light finally fades, she will be remembered more for the positive that she has done rather than the negative; the true sign of fame, revisionist memoralization.

    Are you sure the incense were to cover the smell of cigarettes? Sorry, but this whole post sounds like it was written by an undergrad in a dorm smoking something else.

  4. I agree that Hillary Clinton is incredibly privileged and that we need to feel rage for the injustices perpetrated against less privileged people, but it seems to me like you’re saying that anger about misogyny toward Clinton and anger about other injustices are mutually exclusive. A woman (sorta-)feminist president is important not just for the advances we hope she’d bring in terms of women’s rights, but also as role model and a symbol of what women are capable of.

    I am enraged by the treatment of illegal immigrants and LGBT folk and people of color, and I am enraged by the misogyny that Clinton faced during her campaign. I am not weeping for some maudlin image of poor poor Hillary at night, because, like you say, she’s winning in most areas of life, but the treatment she got and its contribution to her dropping out of the presidential race were quite disappointing. (In fact, in some ways her high level of privilege shows just how egregious that misogyny was; Clinton has every possible social privilege except for male privilege and she was still torn apart. If that’s how much hatred people have for a rich, white, straight, cisgendered, able-bodied woman running for president, how are they going to treat a woman with less privilege?)

    Also, I don’t really get where you’re coming from with the whole “people are going to write songs about her” angle. The title of “first woman to have a realistic chance of getting elected president but who didn’t even get her party’s nomination” has some historical and political significance, but it’s not exactly the catchiest title in the world. She may get a sentence in some history books. But I think she deserves that sentence. She did something significant on a national, even an international scale. We can recognize that and still fight for rights for poor people and LGBT people and people of color.

  5. Thanks for sticking up of women — in preference to any of these people who are named by the system as our leaders. When we do the the work, the leaders follow. HRC did well. BNO is doing well. Neither of them matter a pint of piss without us pushing them.

  6. But I find these endless blog posts instructing Clinton supporters to “get over it” incredibly patronizing, annoying, and provocative

    Well, OK, but this isn’t one of those blog posts. Renee’s not saying get over it, she’s saying that when a fixation on the Clinton campaign causes some people to lose all sense of perspective so that the concerns of those who aren’t Rich White Women become marginalised and ignored, then that is a bad thing.

  7. So while I don’t mean to offend you, or even belittle your sense of loss in any way

    And yet you just devoted an entire blog post to offending and belitting her supporters. Amazing how people think “I don’t mean to do …” changes what they have said.

  8. So “fixation” on a “campaign” during an election cycle that will decide the next President of the United States is “to lose all sense of perspective”? Oh wait, who is elected the next president is not amongst the ” concerns” for “those who aren’t Rich White women”?

    This has to be one of the most self righteous posts I have ever read although as a sci-fi fan her nod to Star Trek II at the end was a welcomed chuckle.

  9. My problem with the “just get over it mentality” in the current blogsphere is that NO ONE told the Dean supporters to “just get over it” when he withdrew last election. His supporters were allowed to rant and rave and gnash their teeth over how the Democratic party was going to hell in a hand basket because they went with a more moderate candidate. Eventually the Dean faction actually got more power by having Dean appointed to his spot on the Democratic party. But because Hillary is a woman we are supposed to see that our candidate losing is not a big deal and any reaction we to it is unreasonable. That is the sexism in this debate. I am sure that most of Hillary’s supporters will vote for if not actively work for Obama. I hate the fact that I am being told that I am an hysterical, entitled woman because right now I am angry that a boatload of mysoginy took out a candidate that I liked. Yes, she was privileged. Yes, her run was historic. And yes, I have a right to mourn for a little while .

  10. I was kind of bummed that Clinton lost but far more bummed that she wasn’t the person I really wanted to have as the nominee. But in the end, if Clinton is the only woman who could win the nomination in the next 20 or so years–or even worse the only one who could ever win it– then her nomination wouldn’t have counted for anything anyway: she would be just an anomoly, an honorary male, not a symbol of how women can break the glass ceiling and succeed even in male dominated fields.

  11. The response is predictable (and I certainly wouldn’t have advised you to write the post), but for what it’s worth, I thought it was a good post and I agree with you.

    Jesurgislac, I find it incredibly patronizing to assume that Renee’s post has anything to do with Obama (seeing as how his name came up once, and it was to say that he is also not the answer) rather than genuine and legitimate disappointment in the priorities of the mainstream feminist movement. But I don’t think that you’re alone in misconstruing the meaning of the post.

  12. How about Obama supporters just get over it? Shut up about Clinton.

    That’s funny. This post was clearly not written from the perspective of an Obama partisan, and yet you felt the need to lash out in that direction. I think that says something about who needs to “get over it”.

  13. I’m with Jesirgislac and the others.

    What, then, was the point of this post – other than to say “oh quit whining and get over it!” – sounds a little like, er, sexist men?

    HRC can’t help being white or priveleged, what was she supposed to do, deliberately fail at school and work as a cleaner to empathise with the oppressed?

    Yes, poverty sucks, racism sucks – as you say Renee, it’s an institutional problem that pervades the whole of society. You think Obama is going to solve it, or anyone else? So why is it somehow all HIllary Clinton’s fault when – again – she could not help being born into a priveleged family (any more than someone can help being born to poor immigrant parents)?

    I am getting a bit freaking tired of hearing “awww feminists are all white and middle / upper class” because you know – we’re not. We DO care about the problems faced by poorer women and WOC. Equal pay, choice, etc. etc. etc. help them too – more, arguably, than women who have money and privelege that can in fact circumvent sexism to some extent.

    A woman President would be awesome – but you’re never going to be happy if you expect her to be some perfect saint who can magically solve the problems of all women.

  14. Renee’s not saying get over it, she’s

    creating a straw woman and knocking it down.

    Hillary Clinton is privileged and white and rich; therefore stop whining about her having lost the nomination for the presidency? Oh…kay.

  15. I like the post. Also, I think HRC lost the primary, but not necessarily the race. Obama has been hiring and meeting with members of HRC’s team since she suspended her campaign. She will have sway within that White House. My guess is that the HRC team helped convince Obama to support the FISA law.

  16. Hi Renee,

    I often think it’s difficult for us in Canada to really comment effectively on what’s going on Down South (the same way I don’t think people Down South can effectively comment on what’s going on up here) because of the different cultures. What I see in women who are angry over Senator Clinton’s loss is a lot of talk about how Roe vs Wade is being held over their heads, and talk about how reproductive rights are being strongly curtailed, at the same time as we’re getting Plan B over the counter (and Bill C-484 looks like it’s going to go nowhere – although the fact that it went anywhere to begin with is pretty damned disturbing).

    That aside:

    What we need as a movement is to feel true rage, and injustice every time a woman is marginalized, abused or exploited, whether or not we can identify with her life experience or not.

    Yes, we do. Do you have any suggestions on how to chanel that rage into something effective?

    I like what WoC PhD has done – explaining things, calls for action. (I see Feministe doing this as well – this is more of a general thing.)

    I think it’s easy to say “You all are wrong in how you are dealing with this” (I know, because I’ve done that). It’s harder to give firm examples of what you’d like to see instead.

  17. creating a straw woman and knocking it down.

    Hillary Clinton is privileged and white and rich; therefore stop whining about her having lost the nomination for the presidency? Oh…kay.

    And her supporters are all privileged and white and rich…not.

    My favorite line?

    “In the game of life that woman is a winner”. “That woman”….isn’t that what they called her on Fox?

    or maybe..

    “So while I don’t mean to offend you, or even belittle your sense of loss in any way, I will however challenge you to experience the same ferocity of emotion when a woman who is not as “accomplished” struggles to get through her day.”

    Who is this YOU? WE ARE the women who are not as accomplished, WE ARE the women who struggle to get through our day. WE ARE women in various tough places, of all races and backgrounds. Who is this mysterious YOU? AH, yes, YOU is the stereotypical Clinton supporter you’ve concocted to fuel your self righteous indignation….the supporter who is obviously white, rich and privileged and self absorbed…only a whole lot of us Clinton supporters are NONE of those things.

    Straw man indeed.

  18. Awesomes–a feminist blog that decides to tell me what I can and can’t feel, and even what it is that I am feeling! Usually I have to go to the MSM for that.

    To reiterate Lauren O’s post, which I think is also basic Feminism 101, caring about X doesn’t mean not caring about Y. In fact, since feminist/social justice theories are usually about interconnectivity, part of the frakking REASON you care about X is because it also implies/involves/implicates Y.

    And for me at least, the rage I feel on Hillary’s behalf isn’t about her per se, or her loss in the primary. I voted for Obama, didn’t really care which of them got it, liked ’em both but also knew that they were politicians deep down. I think he ran a better campaign and is a better natural pol than she is. (I’ve always thought she’s more temperamentally and intellectually suited to the Supreme Court than the Oval Office.) My rage isn’t that she lost, but at the extraordinary levels of misogyny that came to the surface like a boil on this country’s ass. (For what it’s worth, I’m equally enraged by misogynistic/transphobic attacks on Ann Coulter and the like, whom I despise.) And the patronizing, condescending, “You’ve got nowhere else to go, babe” attitude of both Obama and the fauxgressive media in the wake of the hatchet job done on her.

    That is what I’m pissed about, and I seriously do not care to be told that Obama is the savior, women’s concerns aren’t important, white women’s concerns aren’t important, Hillary isn’t a real feminist, my feelings are misplaced, suck it up. Whether it’s from the radical womanist left or the male-dominated so-called liberal blogosphere, TELLING WOMEN WHAT TO FEEL IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

    Jesus. Of all the places I didn’t think I’d have had to explain that.

  19. Guess it is time that I chime in. Let me clarify my position for those of you in doubt. I am not an Obama supporter, in actuality I am a fan of his wife not him. I am not telling Clinton supporters to get over it, what I am suggesting is that in the next big push of feminist organizing I am hoping that it will come from the bottom up rather than the top down. There are more people occupying the lower economic tier, and therefore a movement that begins there will have the possibility of effecting more women. I am for whatever will improve the lives of the multitude. Finally just as a HRC win would not have solved the problems of sexism a BHS win will not solve the problems of racism. These are large issues and as such need to be compartmentalized and dealt with systematically rather than seeking to place a figure head in power and declaring the problem solved.

  20. Renee says she is a fan of Michelle Obama, not Barack Obama. Isn’t Michelle Obama also a woman of incredible privilege? She is a graduate of top ivy league shcools, she makes over 300K/year, is married to a graduate of top ivy league shcools who is also a US senator and probably president? What makes her any different from Hillary Clinton in any substantial way?

    Michelle Obama was raised in a modest home and rose to the top in a classic American way, through hard work, education, and motivation. Hillary Clinton was raised in a home with more money than Michelle Obama but she took the same path to success. When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas he maide 35K/year. She was the their main financial supporter in those years and she was a working mother. I really am at a loss to see how Michelle and Hillary are so different except in the color of their skin.

    If you are a fan of Michelle Obama and a feminist, how do you fell about her recent “makeover” and appearance on The View? I find it repellent that the spouse of a presidential candidate has to make herself into a non-threatening traditional wife in order to further the candidacy of her husband? I lost respect for her when she agree to do it.

  21. I am not a democrat or a Hillary supporter but to me the lesson was that if someone as powerful and priviledged as Hillary can get disrespected and dehumanizeed the way she was what happens to many women who do not have her power or privilege.

    Just like I know racism is really bad since Condolezza Rice has also been accused of driving while black.

  22. Renee, I support, and agree with, what you have written here.

    I’m a (white) trans woman. None of the candidates, including HRC or Obama, will do fuck-all to positively impact trans* people. It’s not just “oh, poor thing, you’ll still have to pay for surgury”, it’s our ability to get and keep our jobs and roofs over our head and to keep from being beaten by police. What did HRC offer to marginalized communities (not just trans)? “Working people, white people” statements?

    I’m really disappointed in the reactions that I’m seeing in the comments. I could hope that some of it is “how dare a Canadian come in here and tell us what to do”, which by itself is kind of narrowminded and xenophobic, but I am smelling more than a few whiffs of racism and defense-of-privilege in these comments.

    People, is it not possible to *both* be angered by the misogyny that HRC faced *and* acknowledge that her candidacy was focused largely on the more privileged in society? You know, two things at once? Intersections?

  23. Yes I am a fan of Michelle. When one considers that positive role models for WOC are few and far between, how can I not embrace one that represents us publicly so well. You may prefer to see black women with gold teeth and shaking their asses on BET, however I will take one that shows the world that we are articulate, engaging, and beautiful. I don’t necessarily agree with all of her political positions but that in no way minimizes her potential to transcend the image of WOC in our social discourse, who in case you have forgotten are always presented as angry, licentious, or mammies…

  24. Finally just as a HRC win would not have solved the problems of sexism a BHS win will not solve the problems of racism. These are large issues and as such need to be compartmentalized and dealt with systematically rather than seeking to place a figure head in power and declaring the problem solved.

    I assume you mean BHO … but who the hell ever said that getting a female, or black, president would eliminate sexism or racism? (For that matter, I don’t think ageism will be eliminated if McCain won, either.)

    Seriously, you’re fighting strawpeople here.

  25. Renee: what I am suggesting is that in the next big push of feminist organizing I am hoping that it will come from the bottom up rather than the top down.

    Then why tie this into Hillary Clinton? It would have been a much more effective post if you’d written about what you say you want to talk about, rather than going on about Clinton.

    On the other hand:
    When one considers that positive role models for WOC are few and far between, how can I not embrace one that represents us publicly so well.

    I sympathise with this, completely, but it utterly contradicts what you were saying about Clinton.

  26. I am not a democrat or a Hillary supporter but to me the lesson was that if someone as powerful and priviledged as Hillary can get disrespected and dehumanizeed the way she was what happens to many women who do not have her power or privilege.

    Many women have already been disrespected or dehumanized, in ways that Clinton never has and never will be.

    Maybe feminism wouldn’t seem like a distant object to many women if its members didn’t use the experiences or what they perceive the experiences of its most privileged members to be to learn or to relate with what many other women are or have been experiencing, in part because of the privilege of women like Clinton.

    And people act as if she’s the only woman running. Geez.

  27. Renee, you simply aren’t going to get anywheres on this topic. As a poster, I think, I made a similar argument, that Clinton is a powerful personage in her own right, capable of dealing with the small stuff thrown from the bleachers, as it were, and that the feminist movement would do well to stop having Clinton burn up so much of the oxygen that fuels the movement. I’m sorry, but the opportunity costs, which Renee outlines, ARE REAL, and people talking needing to weigh what gets our attention needs to be accorded respect rather than being accused of telling people to “get over it”.

    I see nothing in Renee’s post that said anything but that this was an honestly held opinion and offered in good faith. It is a matter of decorum and spiritual generosity to refute what she said–AS IF SHE SAID THEM IN GOOD FAITH. Attacking her as a mean, controlling idiot is not an indicator of the value of your opinion. Let’s all have respect for each other, and not treat certain ideas as obviously idiotic without more indications of trollhood.

    Tinfoil Hattie, a strawman argument is when someone makes a highly artificial and distorted stand-in personality, such that, as you have said, it is easy to knock down. Now, my question. Where is the strawman? Does Renee distort Clinton or anyone else? Did Renee talk about feminism as a discete movement. Did Renee make up some wild-eyed woman who’s hormonal about Clinton or something? I read her post again, just to check. I did not find anything or anyone actually being knocked down.

  28. I interpreted tenacitus’s comment the other way: that a lot of us think there’s a safe place somewhere–some level of income or social attainment or career success–that will finally make us exempt from sexism, and that Hillary’s campaign confirmed that just wasn’t true.

  29. You may prefer to see black women with gold teeth and shaking their asses on BET, however I will take one that shows the world that we are articulate, engaging, and beautiful

    Oh, no you didn’t.

    So, it’s that YOU again…now YOU prefer to see women “with gold teeth and shaking their asses on BET” RIght. This on a feminist site no less. Ridiculous.

    WOC in our social discourse, who in case you have forgotten are always presented as angry, licentious, or mammies…

    Always? And of course you’ve forgotten because you’re YOU, again. Puleese.

  30. I interpreted tenacitus’s comment the other way: that a lot of us think there’s a safe place somewhere–some level of income or social attainment or career success–that will finally make us exempt from sexism, and that Hillary’s campaign confirmed that just wasn’t true.

    And race. And for the most part, it does make women in these positions exempt from many bad things that happen to women due to sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, classism, ableism and such.

    That’s one of my concerns about feminism is what will happen when some level of income, skin color, career success will “finally make us exempt from sexism”. Will women’s issues continue to be a concern for feminists who will have liberated themselves from this form of sexism or will these feminists just simply be propping up the patriarchy?

    I don’t consider for example, Clinton to be a champion for women as a gender. A certain class of women perhaps, but women in general, no. I thought the media was sexist and misogynist against her, but I didn’t much in here that’s different than most White male conservative Democrats particularly in terms of waging wars that kill many women and girls in part purportedly to “liberate” them.

    But then again, I wish more feminists would give a damn about young women getting tased in the face by police officers or hit with batons, treated as if they were animals but I think among “mainstream” feminists, I’ll probably see a female president first before any concern about that.

    If you are a fan of Michelle Obama and a feminist, how do you fell about her recent “makeover” and appearance on The View? I find it repellent that the spouse of a presidential candidate has to make herself into a non-threatening traditional wife in order to further the candidacy of her husband? I lost respect for her when she agree to do it.

    I lost respect for many feminists when they decried the misogyny faced by Clinton and were amazingly silent (let’s bring the crickets out) when Michelle Obama faced it herself. It’s amazing how her “makeover” (as if she’s the first and isn’t that too reflective of a sexist society in terms of how it views first lady’s roles including during campaigns?) and the urban legend about her screaming “Whitey” on video tape get more concern than her being called “baby mama” by the same network that feminists rightly criticize for how it treats Clinton and other racist sexism she’s faced?

  31. I think Renee brings up a lot of critical points in her post and if women are bristling it, perhaps that’s a sign of how far feminism still has to go.

  32. My problem with the “just get over it mentality” in the current blogsphere is that NO ONE told the Dean supporters to “just get over it” when he withdrew last election.

    I guess you weren’t a Dean supporter, because we were told that over and over again in 2004. And, yes, we got all of the same warnings about Roe v Wade when we complained about how unfairly our “angry” candidate had been treated by the media.

    You can certainly be upset that your candidate lost, but please don’t rewrite history. There was a lot of triumph in the media about how the Dirty Fucking Hippies had been defeated by the Sensible Democrats.

  33. Wow. Some of the responses here are completely ridiculous. Renee talks about why she can’t connect with the sense of mourning, in part because of a recognition of Clinton’s tremendous privilege in just about every area except her womanhood. Renee never once told anyone else to “get over it,” explicitly saying that she doesn’t wish to “belittle your sense of loss in any way” and instead challenging people to focus more on the struggles of less privileged women.

    It seems to me like some people came to this thread looking for a fight, looking for someone telling them to “get over it,” and are now ranting about stuff that’s not there. So much for allowing the perspectives of many different women and many different feminists to come to the fore.

    For my part, Renee, I really appreciated and agree with this post. And not because I’m an “Obama partisan.” I support him considerably more than I did Clinton, but I also recognize how he is tremendously privileged in just about every way except his race; he will also be working within a corrupt system, as you point out, and therefore will be considerably limited in his ability to make change; and therefore, he should not be the end-all-be-all of the anti-racist movement. His victory or defeat will not really be exemplary of the situation of Black people or people of color in this country, despite his story’s important symbolic, cultural, and pride-generating value – just like Hillary’s.

  34. I find it repellent that the spouse of a presidential candidate has to make herself into a non-threatening traditional wife in order to further the candidacy of her husband? I lost respect for her when she agree to do it.

    Hillary Clinton did exactly the same thing in 1992 — did she lose your respect then for doing the same thing Michelle Obama did on “The View”?

  35. but I think among “mainstream” feminists…

    Who do you consider “mainstream” feminists? Not in the past but now? Because everyone I read is mad as hell over Michelle’s treatment (I love her btw) so I must be missing some major current in the mainstream.

    As for the tenor of this post, I think that while I admire idealism and believe to my core that very important issues are overlooked (especially those related to WOC) talking down to an imaginary audience that you’ve taken upon yourself to school from a high horse sure ain’t the way to go about it.

    We are still in the election cycle. We haven’t even had our convention yet. It’s not like women are going on about this five years later.

  36. HRC has more white privilege than Barack Obama does, this is true. And she has 100% more white privilege than Michelle Obama does.

    But all three come from roughly similar economic and class backgrounds. So it seems like special pleading to single out Clinton as an exemplar of “the bourgeoisie.”

  37. What we need as a movement is to feel true rage, and injustice every time a woman is marginalized, abused or exploited, whether or not we can identify with her life experience or not.

    Unless it is Clinton because she is a rich white woman who has the power to potentially implement marginal but critical change (e.g., paid maternity leave). She has also devoted her life to improving the legal status of women and children. But wait, we need to assert that she deserves all the sexism/hate/marginalization/abuse she gets, because, well did I mention she is white and rich? And so I cannot identify with her as a woman?

    Was this entire article satire or were you hit in the head?

  38. JupiterPluvius…

    That is completly wrong.

    None of them came from similar families. The only real commonality is that all went to elite schools. That does not make for common background as a whole.

  39. Radfem: I think Renee brings up a lot of critical points in her post and if women are bristling it, perhaps that’s a sign of how far feminism still has to go.

    Yeah. because feminists need to learn to “just get over” the misogyny directed at any woman who succeeds.

    I think the fact that so many people are going “yeah right” in the comments is a sign of how far feminism has to go.

    Michelle Robinson and Hillary Rodham both achieved great things: Ms Rodham had white privilege, but neither of them had male privilege – both of them had to change their own name to their husband’s name, just as the most obvious example. The notion that we can’t admire these women who’ve succeeded, that we shouldn’t, as Renee advocates in her post but contradicts herself further downthread – that because Hillary Clinton ran for President and nearly won, no feminist should admire her and feel regret that we won’t have a woman POTUS for another 8 years at least – hell, I think that’s as classic an example of “Success is bad! Women who over-achieve aren’t good role-models!” as ever I heard.

    Which is odd, since Renee acknowledges the importance of role-models further downthread.

  40. You may prefer to see black women with gold teeth and shaking their asses on BET, however I will take one that shows the world that we are articulate, engaging, and beautiful. I don’t necessarily agree with all of her political positions but that in no way minimizes her potential to transcend the image of WOC in our social discourse, who in case you have forgotten are always presented as angry, licentious, or mammies…

    And this is not classist … how? Should we not be striving, according to Renee’s logic, to un-marginalize and de-other the ass-shakers? Why is the image of class-oppressed women of color something that needs to be “transcended”? So you like Michelle and don’t like Hillary. Fine, you’re entitled, but I don’t think there’s really much of a political argument to be made here.

  41. But wait, we need to assert that she deserves all the sexism/hate/marginalization/abuse she gets, because, well did I mention she is white and rich? And so I cannot identify with her as a woman?

    No one said that. Renee certainly didn’t. Red Wagon, can you point out where Renee said that Hillary Clinton deserves sexism, hate, or abuse?

  42. Renee – “You may prefer to see black women with gold teeth and shaking their asses on BET, however I will take one that shows the world that we are articulate, engaging, and beautiful.”

    Omg, did you really just go there? On a feminist website?

  43. find it repellent that the spouse of a presidential candidate has to make herself into a non-threatening traditional wife in order to further the candidacy of her husband? I lost respect for her when she agree to do it.

    Hillary Clinton did exactly the same thing in 1992 — did she lose your respect then for doing the same thing Michelle Obama did on “The View”?

    I did lose respect for Hillary Clinton when she did the same thing. She has earned it back for me when she became a senator in her own right and ran for president. It’s 15 years later, though, and I had hoped we had made progress in those years. Unfortunately we haven’t.

  44. MizDarwin: I’ll admit that something in Renee’s “Black women with gold teeth and shaking their asses on BET” vs “articulate, engaging, and beautiful” made me feel a little weird. So I sat with it and thought about it, and I’m guessing that what Renee is saying is this: Black women are so often limited to that kind of sexist, demeaning portrayal in the public sphere that it is refreshing and exciting to see a Black woman like Michelle Obama in the public spotlight. It’s not about the image of “class-oppressed women of color” itself being wrong; it’s that there’s a problem when that’s the only image out there.

    Additionally – I don’t think that images of booty-shaking women in music videos are the same thing as images of “class-oppressed women of color.” I think those are sexist, hypersexualized images of women of color. There are plenty of possibilities for images of class-oppressed women of color that don’t involve criminalization, condemnation, or hypersexualization; unfortunately, you don’t see those alternatives very often.

  45. Radfem: “I lost respect for many feminists when they decried the misogyny faced by Clinton and were amazingly silent (let’s bring the crickets out) when Michelle Obama faced it herself.”

    Okay, I keep hearing this around the blogosphere, that feminists have been silent on the sexism and racism directed at Michelle Obama. But I am just wondering, what feminist blogs have been silent?

    Maybe I don’t get around to as many blogs as other people but…Shakesville talks about it (it has a Michelle Obama sexism/racism watch). I’ve seen it written about here….over at feministing….and on the f-word. Those are 4 pretty big feminist blogs right there who regularly call it out. There is also the Michelle Obama Media Watch, which has been heavily linked to.

    So, what am I missing here? And I mean this genuinely, because if I am displaying white privilege with my obliviousness to Michelle Obama sexism/racism coverage I really, really want to know.

  46. Where are people getting this idea that Renee doesn’t like Hillary Clinton? Not only, as Jack points out, did Renee not say that Hilary deserved sexism, hate or abuse, she also didn’t in any way express a dislike for Hillary, either. The fact that she is critical of the way that her candidacy has been shaped by certain feminists dosen’t mean that she doesn’t like Hillary Clinton.

    Some of you are taking this all too personally and getting too personal as well. Now, I’m sure that Renee is perfectly capable of defending herself, and no one said that you had to agree with her. But while I don’t know the feelings of the other Feministers, I personally would really prefer if you would all keep things civil when talking to our guest-bloggers. (And I think that the majority of you have been, so unless you fit the description I’m not talking about you.) Unless I’ve somehow missed it, Renee has yet to be rude to anyone here, and saying things like she’s writing as though she’s been “hit over the head” isn’t okay with me. Renee isn’t some random asshole, she deserves to be taken in good faith, and I think highly enough of all of you to expect that you’ll act like adults and disagree respectfully.

  47. Because everyone I read is mad as hell over Michelle’s treatment

    Now that Clinton is out of the race, yeah, I’ve been seeing outrage over Michelle Obama’s treatment. When Clinton was still in the race, I saw a lot of focus on sexism directed toward her, very little on sexism directed toward Michelle Obama. (It could be partly because the press didn’t really start in on Obama until they’d finished with Clinton, but I don’t think that’s the whole story).

    The problem with this post as I see it is Clinton supporters have been told to get over it so many times by so many people that they’re kind of on the defensive. I’ll admit I made a face when I first read: “I am so irritated that I cannot stand it anymore”. But I think Renee brought up a legitimate question – is the feminist movement spending a disproportionate amount of time and energy on the struggles of white middle class women? I think the answer is generally yes but I do think the example she used is off the mark because this isn’t just about Clinton. No, Hillary Clinton doesn’t need our sympathy or our outrage. Yes, she is still better off than the majority of women. But that’s not what this is about – this is about the symbolism of having (or, not having) a woman president, and about the way the media and democratic party treated her – the sexism they levelled at her showed how little they care about women at all.

    So I guess what I’m saying is – Renee, I agree with your larger point and certainly don’t think you deserve the vitriol levelled at you in this comment section, but I think you’re misunderstanding why it is that some feminists and women are mourning.

  48. “It actually saddens me that feminism invested so much of its strength and energy to obtain a figure head, that could not despite her best efforts if she won achieve a substantive change in the lives of women.”

    Great post, Renee. It’s frustrating but I guess it’s not really surprising how others choose to focus instead on things you didn’t say (like “get over it”). Especially since you’ve made very powerful points about the need for substantive changes in the lives of marginalized women. We’re going to need way more than a change in leadership for that.

  49. Radfem: I think Renee brings up a lot of critical points in her post and if women are bristling it, perhaps that’s a sign of how far feminism still has to go.

    I didn’t realize that consensus was the sign of a healthy movement. While I agree that she does bring up critical points they are lost in the morass of a trite, judgmental and self-indulgent monologue. “plaintive wails”? “songs attesting her strength and courage”? That completely gratuitous third paragraph? All from her green tea sipping perch in Canada? Ack.

    When she says,”In pushing for the success of one individual what was forgotten were the needs of the many.” Really? By campaigning for a candidate? For president? In an election year?

    Well, I won’t go into “spouting feminist theory” but let me reiterate what others have said…you can do both.

  50. Unless I’ve somehow missed it, Renee has yet to be rude to anyone here…

    “You may prefer to see black women with gold teeth and shaking their asses on BET, however I will take one that shows the world that we are articulate, engaging, and beautiful.”

    Others have mentioned it, but that is damn rude.

  51. Folks keep mentioning the BET comment. I’m inclined to wait to hear from Renee instead of continuing to talk for her about that. But some folks are just saying “OMG” or calling it “damn rude” without elucidating why. Until Renee explains what she meant, it’s all a matter of interpretation, so I’d like to hear how folks who are upset are interpreting the comment.

  52. Okay, I keep hearing this around the blogosphere, that feminists have been silent on the sexism and racism directed at Michelle Obama. But I am just wondering, what feminist blogs have been silent?

    Maybe I don’t get around to as many blogs as other people but…Shakesville talks about it (it has a Michelle Obama sexism/racism watch). I’ve seen it written about here….over at feministing….and on the f-word. Those are 4 pretty big feminist blogs right there who regularly call it out. There is also the Michelle Obama Media Watch, which has been heavily linked to.

    So, what am I missing here? And I mean this genuinely, because if I am displaying white privilege with my obliviousness to Michelle Obama sexism/racism coverage I really, really want to know.

    Shakesville is one blog and I’m glad that they’re speaking out on it. But I wasn’t strictly defining it to blogs. Feminists exist in other online spaces and IRL. Feminist leaders exist coast to coast and too many of them that blasted the sexism faced by Clinton including women that I admire as I’m sure others have, have been well, awfully quiet about Michelle Obama. Most of the feminists who’ve criticized how she’s been treated have been women of color.

    But that’s not what this is about – this is about the symbolism of having (or, not having) a woman president, and about the way the media and democratic party treated her – the sexism they levelled at her showed how little they care about women at all.

    Well yeah, it’s about symbolism but even when it comes to female candidates being shown misogyny by parties and by media and others, what about Cynthia McKinney and the atrocious treatment afforded her? Or doesn’t she count at all?

    How does how they treated McKinney in her political career shown how little they care about women at all? If you need any reminders of how little “they” care about women at all, you don’t need to use the Clinton campaign as proof positive of that unless you are fairly oblivious to how women are being treated.

    Was the sexism and misogyny against her wrong? Yes it was and it is. But to hear it said that this is any sort of validation (i.e. if this is how she’s treated, then how can other women expect to be threated, etc.), is just disturbing.

    Yeah. because feminists need to learn to “just get over” the misogyny directed at any woman who succeeds.

    I think the fact that so many people are going “yeah right” in the comments is a sign of how far feminism has to go.

    Hmmm, where did I say that feminists need to “just get over” the misogyny or “yeah right”. No where and that’s part of what I’m talking about.

    This was the concern I did raise:

    That’s one of my concerns about feminism is what will happen when some level of income, skin color, career success will “finally make us exempt from sexism”. Will women’s issues continue to be a concern for feminists who will have liberated themselves from this form of sexism or will these feminists just simply be propping up the patriarchy?

    Oh and if I had a dime for every time I’ve heard women who weren’t being told to get over it or wait their turn. Or their issues are “men’s issues”. And so forth.

    The fact that Renee is being inundated by strawmen or excuse me, strawwomen shows that too. I didn’t think she’d have a smooth entrance here, but I’m looking forward to reading her postings.

  53. I stand by what I said. As Cara pointed out I did not express an opinion in any way on Hilliary Clinton, my commentary is about where feminism needs to focus its energies. Some may want to read more into more words than what I have spoken, but I can only say that is based in your desire to push an argument that I did not present.
    As far as my BET commentary, those women are not a reflection of class. The women portrayed on BET are to support the image of black women as licentious. Michelle challenges that stereotype, and it is a refreshing change. Once again, Michelle as a single individual just as Clinton as a single individual cannot change the overall perception that is dominant in our social discourse.
    I have spoken out time and time again, for a more inclusive feminism and the commentary in this thread proves my point. It seems that unless one is worshiping Hillary somehow you have betrayed feminism. For feminism to be reduced to the success of one woman blinds us to the struggles that millions of women go through on a daily basis. I am simply asking, now that it is clear that she is not going to be POTUS where is our attention going to turn?

  54. Renee: For feminism to be reduced to the success of one woman blinds us to the struggles that millions of women go through on a daily basis.

    This contradicts this: Yes I am a fan of Michelle. When one considers that positive role models for WOC are few and far between, how can I not embrace one that represents us publicly so well.

    If it’s not okay to make a role model of one woman because this “blinds us to the struggle”, are you struggling to give up your “embrace” of Michelle Obama?

    (Not that I’m saying you should! I agree with you where you’re saying positive role models are important, it’s just that you seem to be simultaneously arguing that positive role models are bad, and blinding.)

    So which view do you really hold?

  55. Are you sure the incense were to cover the smell of cigarettes? Sorry, but this whole post sounds like it was written by an undergrad in a dorm smoking something else.

    And amazingly enough Kiki, you were really damn rude first. So how about we stop pointing fingers and start treating people how we’d like to be treated? I can’t believe that I’m even having this conversation.

  56. I also don’t see any signs of disrespect toward HRC in Renee’s post and not a shred of “get over it” toward Clinton’s mourning supporters. I interpreted this entire piece as reminding us that even though we may be mourning Clinton’s loss, there are still many, many women who need our outrage, our strength, and our support much more than she does, so we should not lose ourselves or our fight beneath our grief.

    That being said, this Clinton/Obama sniping has made me feel disconnected from feminism. I’ve seen, all over the blogosphere, women being branded by others as “bad feminists” for not voting Clinton. I respect, and am proud of and awed by her, of course. Who wouldn’t be? But I resent and am incredibly disaffected by the fact that any woman’s political choices, regardless of what those choices may be, would somehow cause another to feel entitled to shame, disregard or generalize that woman as a brainwashed/stupid/invaluable person. It’s entirely contradictory to what feminism is supposed to stand for and frankly, it makes me ill.

    Aren’t we all, at the end of the day, fighting for the same things? Isn’t the basic, simplified goal of feminism to empower women so that they can make ANY choice they’d like to concerning their lives, without opposition or ridicule? Can’t we have an intelligent discussion about Clinton’s priviledge and what it means to all different shades of women without being disrespectful towards each other? I’m so disappointed.

  57. I agree with what Roses said regarding the validity of the larger point here about the need to focus on bottom-up change. In my view, that and top-down are important.

    I’m a little confused about the post because in acknowledging the importance of Michelle Obama as a role model, why can’t HRC (who was after all running for president) be a role model too, and why can’t we mourn that loss, and regret the media treatment? Why is doing that mutually excusive with also supporting a bottom-up approach? Do we know that HRC supporters aren’t involved in activism involving helping to empower the less fortunate? That seems like a pretty big assumption.

    It does seem as if there is a double standard here. Renee, you say in the post: “a figure head, that could not despite her best efforts if she won achieve a substantive change in the lives of women”. For one thing, HRC’s wiki profile makes quite apparent what changes she’s made in the lives of women and children (also see third comment here). Michelle is a rich and successful woman who grew up in a 2-parent middle class home and went to a prestigious high school. Why can one woman’s ascension be important while another’s cannot? As has been said above, it’s important that Michelle’s ascension has special meaning for WOC, but I don’t think that invalidates HRC’s success or its meaning for women.

    The bottom line for me is this. We mourn successful men’s losses all day long. We get why it’s tough when their team loses, when they lose out on a promotion, when they lose a political election. We don’t feel that their success, even if it’s at a level that will evade us, invalidates our disappointment at their failures.

    Why should we muzzle ourselves when it’s women? Now, if writing and speaking about this disappointment prevented us from also working in whatever way we can on the critical issue Renee identified of ” In the wealthiest country in the world, how many children go to bed hungry, and how many will graduate high school without the basic skills to get a job, or continue their education?” that would indeed be a valid problem. But the two aren’t conflicting. A substantial amount of activist work to combat unequal educational advantages and poverty is done offline. And some of it, I know, is being done by HRC supporters.

  58. Of course, I agree that oppressed women everywhere should be supported and their struggles recognized. My only problem is… what does that have to do with Clinton losing the election? It just seems like this is comparing apples with laundry.

    I have to admit I am fairly apathetic to the idea that moderate politicians or liberal politicians cannot change The System because they are from The System. History doesn’t agree. What history has taught us is that when we are dismissive about the differences between candidates, we pay for it. Personally, I have grown to feel that the power of radical politics to truly change lives is over-rated. True vision can come in the form of many avatars.

  59. I didn’t realize that consensus was the sign of a healthy movement.

    I didn’t say this either. Whether or not consensus is a sigh of a healthy movement depends on the circumstances. It’s not uniform, but fluid.

    I didn’t realize that consensus was the sign of a healthy movement. While I agree that she does bring up critical points they are lost in the morass of a trite, judgmental and self-indulgent monologue. “plaintive wails”? “songs attesting her strength and courage”? That completely gratuitous third paragraph? All from her green tea sipping perch in Canada? Ack.

    Well, at least you’ve moved up (some might say) for her sipping green tea from a perch and not being in a college dorm smoking something. There are parts of her posting I didn’t agree with but she raised some strong points that feminism movements should be taking a closer look at, and in fact says that they are, but then the first response to statements where this point is made, does seem more defensive than anything else.

    These were some of the points I thought were good for discussion.

    Let me tell you who will go unheralded, the single mother that struggles to put food on the table, and keep a roof over the head of her child, the wife that has taken so many beatings from her husband that she suffers from brain injuries, the prostitute that is raped for the 100th time, the homeless women that are suffering with mental illness, the everyday working mom doing the Herculean task of raising a family and having a career, the so-called illegal alien performing what amounts to slave labor so that Americans can have their fresh fruit and trendy clothes, and finally the WOC and the GLBT community who are rejected and silenced. (If I were to do a complete list this post would never end.) These are the women I mourn for, these are the women I hope for, this is where my solidarity lies.

    How much of a disconnect does lie between the symbolism of a female president or presidental candidate and the lives of many women that this office and whoever holds it might impact through decision making women in this country and women in other countries? Immigrant women for example? Women living with violence including state violence?

    And this one.

    It actually saddens me that feminism invested so much of its strength and energy to obtain a figure head, that could not despite her best efforts if she won achieve a substantive change in the lives of women. In pushing for the success of one individual what was forgotten were the needs of the many.

    What is expected from the symbolism of a political candidate? What is expected from the reality? How responsive to the needs and wants of women will this woman be? And which women?

  60. @octogalore I am not saying that she Hillary should not be a role model. Women should use however them deem positive as a source of encouragement. As a WOC I choose Michelle. As I have repeatedly stated no matter who we choose one person cannot and should not signify a movement.It seems that so many are busy defending my so-called attack on Hillary no one has acknowledged the question of what now? Can we all just step outside of our political polarities for a moment and think about the future?

  61. I have spoken out time and time again, for a more inclusive feminism and the commentary in this thread proves my point. It seems that unless one is worshiping Hillary somehow you have betrayed feminism. For feminism to be reduced to the success of one woman blinds us to the struggles that millions of women go through on a daily basis.

    I think maybe the commentary on this thread, including Jack’s efforts at explanation, might reflect some fuzzy thinking/writing in the original post. No one has said that worshipping Hillary is the sine qua non of feminism. Most of us have been far more angered at the misogyny directed at her than we are enamored of her. And again, caring about the success of one woman does not mean one is blinded to the struggles etc. etc. It is possible to care about BOTH, just as it is possible to be encouraged by Michelle Obama and outraged by the suffering of undocumented workers.

    Also, what Octagalore said.

  62. I just cannot relate to that stream of consciousness crap. Lo siento. I find it highly ironic that those that indulge in it are always spouting off about the struggles of the common woman while sipping tea. Must be nice. Guess it’s a regional thing…or class thing. *shrug*

  63. Radfem: These were some of the points I thought were good for discussion.

    Me too. I just wish Renee hadn’t dressed it up and obscured the point with a lot of crap about how Hillary Clinton is somehow bad for feminism.

  64. There is a pretty easy answer to that, Renee.

    Living vicariously is always easier than living real, with real issues and real messes that requires mental and physical dexterity. I mean, too many people refuse to comprehend that race and gender are deeply intertwined and cannot be solved independently of each other since it’s based on the linkage between sex and death. It’s the Kyriarchy…malleable, shifting…really hard to get a grip on.

    Aside from that, I have always viewed people like octogalore as believing that civil rights and civic virtues should have a division of labor in which each issue is handled by representatives of the most affected group. That is, gender issues should be handled by women, race issues handled by minority groups, gender bending issues handled by gays, trans, whomever. Among women like octogalore, I’ve always got that “what about the womenz!!!” entitled vibe in their comments whenever the topic drifts into race, without any real comprehension that anti-racism, even if you didn’t believe it would help on anti-mysogyny, is a civic virtue that all people should pursue. So is anti-sexism, or anti-homophobia.

    Thus, given the issues with intersectionality, whenever we *do* start talking about the marginal issues, some people will always have a topicality derail ready.

  65. Renee hadn’t dressed it up and obscured the point with a lot of crap about how Hillary Clinton is somehow bad for feminism.

    And where exactly did I say that? What I said focusing on her as a symbol of feminism is problematic.

  66. My very personal opinion is that Hillary Clinton was indeed bad for feminism, and she has taken advantage of many women’s support. I’m not going to press the issue though. Time will prove me right or wrong, and I don’t really need to say “I told you so” enough to plant more evidence here for later consumption.

  67. Sonia — I agree with: “I am fairly apathetic to the idea that moderate politicians or liberal politicians cannot change The System because they are from The System. History doesn’t agree. What history has taught us is that when we are dismissive about the differences between candidates, we pay for it.”

    I think the most successful movements have combined grassroots activism and mobilizing top-down support from those with the ability to greenlight and those with the ability to influence the latter. I think anyone who discounts either the former or latter is going to limit the ability to create change.

    I agree with Renee’s challenge: “I will however challenge you to experience the same ferocity of emotion when a woman who is not as “accomplished” struggles to get through her day.” The challenge with this challenge, though, is that often it’s one marked by action rather than voice. In my life, these women — women in my family or community or public interest activities — aren’t visible like Clinton. Their struggles are often very prosaic. Sharing info about them in a blog post would not really help them. That does not mean that I do not feel ferocity of emotion about their strugges, just that this does not take the form of an internet discussion.

    The thing about celebrities is — they are celebrities. Whether it’s R. Kelly or HRC or Michelle Obama or Oprah or Madonna — they will get blog posts where as or more deserving people don’t.

    I don’t think that’s right, necessarily, and I agree that there should be ways feminism, the movement, allows women to organize around more bottom-up issues (La Lubu and I have discussed this on our respective blogs). But I think we can work on this simultaneously with debating the news-y issues, and that our doing the latter shouldn’t be equated with our not doing the former.

  68. I’m really annoyed by this mess of bad faith generalizations.

    Renee uses a typical right wing red herring / straw woman fallacy – claiming feminists are not dealing with some other “more important” issue in order to dismiss the topic at hand. As if discussing one idea proves the person is ignoring all others. As if feminists can only be taken seriously if they are mentioning all causes at all times.

    “So while I don’t mean to offend you, or even belittle your sense of loss in any way, I will however challenge you to experience the same ferocity of emotion when a woman who is not as “accomplished” struggles to get through her day.”

    I see that ferocity expressed on feminist blogs every damn day – often more than in more general interest leftist blogs. Since entire Seal Press confrontation a lot of activist are trying even harder to be inclusive.

    It’s also worth noting Renee also fails to provide any concrete examples of her overindulgent strawfeminist in mourning. Not one link or quote. Which again, is exactly like right wing attacks on straw feminists.

    This post also belongs to the larger trope of “how dare you make a big deal about x when y is going on”. I’ve indulged in this trope myself. It can be true when dealing with the pack mentality of the mainstream press, but with bloggers it’s often relies on a dishonest selective reading – omitting all the posts which don’t support your thesis.

    To read Renee, you’d think that feminist blogs and columnists are talking of nothing but Clinton’s loss. Meanwhile in reality, it mostly comes up now is in discussions of the incredibly condescending, exaggerated portrayal of angry ex-Clinton supporters.

    “It actually saddens me that feminism invested so much of its strength and energy to obtain a figure head, that could not despite her best efforts if she won achieve a substantive change in the lives of women. In pushing for the success of one individual what was forgotten were the needs of the many.”

    Again this is a generalization so broad as to be insubstantial and one which plays right into sexism and other isms – implying women – most particularly mean old white women – are incapable of holding more than one thought, enthusiasm or goal in their head at a time. Which simply is not true.

    Outside the blogs, women of all types are activists in every type of issue, unlike the white, old selfish strawfeminist who does nothing but weep for Clinton. In real life, a lot of women had bigger priorities whether they supported her or not. Few put the rest of their work on hold because she was there. In my hometown of Chicago, for example, Women and Children First is one of the more active bookstores when it comes to economic and social justice books as well as independent business, anti-racist, anti-homophobe, etc. etc. and didn’t abandon their other books and causes just because they put tomes about the election on the front table.

    Frankly, you could substitute the phrase “Cancellation of Jericho” for “Clinton” in this post and it would make as much sense – and be as relevant and condescending.

    If the posts which mourn Clinton offend you so much, I suggest you go read the majority of the feminist blogosphere which has and will be talking about every other subject you could want.

  69. Okay, this post really makes little sense to me. Especially this line:
    “It actually saddens me that feminism invested so much of its strength and energy to obtain a figure head”
    Huh? Not all feminists supported Hillary Clinton. Clinton was not, to my knowledge, pushed to run for the nomination by feminists; it was a decision she made all on her own. And what were feminsits, as a whole, supposed to do – just ignore the fact that we had the first viable female candidate for a presidential nomination? I don’t see how feminism tried to “obtain a figure head” in Clinton.
    And I have to agree with the many other commenters who have asked – does supporting Clinton or being unhappy at her treatment mean you don’t like poor people? Or oppressed people? What if you are poor? Or a POC?
    And as for this: “I will however challenge you to experience the same ferocity of emotion when a woman who is not as “accomplished” struggles to get through her day”
    Wow. If you didn’t mean to offend, you’re doing a really bad job of it. This seems to be another piece that decides Clinton, who won nearly half of the primary votes, was in fact supported only by rich white women.

  70. Renee: What I said focusing on her as a symbol of feminism is problematic.

    In the same way as focusing on Michelle Obama as a symbol of feminism is problematic? Okay. In that case, I think it would probably have come across more clearly if you’d written this post about Michelle Obama, since you can both understand why people do see her as a symbol – as you do – and that focusing on her is problematic.

  71. In the same way as focusing on Michelle Obama as a symbol of feminism is problematic? Okay. In that case, I think it would probably have come across more clearly if you’d written this post about Michelle Obama, since you can both understand why people do see her as a symbol – as you do – and that focusing on her is problematic.

    I never said that she is a symbol of feminism, you are reaching. I said that she is a positive role model for women of color. Do you have a problem with positive representation for WOC? Enough already…read what you want to read and twist in the direction that makes you comfortable. Just because I did not prostrate myself in worship of Hillary does not mean that I am against her.

  72. What I said focusing on her as a symbol of feminism is problematic.

    I could not agree with this more. (Well, focusing on any one person to represent something as dynamic as feminism is silly/self-defeating). But Clinton’s rise as the Symbol of Woman Fighting Against Sexism is actually offensive to me. For the record, not because she did not fight against sexism. The awesome Ta-Nehisi Coates nails it far more eloquently than I can, so I will borrow his words. And I think it is related to this post.

    Money Quote (from the post)

    I think this reflects how gender interacts with privilege–and arguably white privilege. No black woman who has to walk down Lenox Ave. and endure the cat-calls, who has to deal with the latest ho-slapping Snoop single, who has to function in a culture where “pimp” is now a postive word, is “shocked” by sexism. Indeed, Essence magazine has been on this shit for years. In fact, I’d argue that no white woman who spends her days, say, as a waitress in a diner would be shocked. That is how you know Hillary is an elite–she has the right, indeed the privilege, to be shocked by sexism. If she’s shocked by what she saw running for president, let me submit that a day as black woman, a Latina, or working white woman would send her into cardiac arrest.

  73. talking down to an imaginary audience that you’ve taken upon yourself to school from a high horse sure ain’t the way to go about it.

    Amen. I think if the tone of this post hadn’t been so patronizing a lot of people here wouldn’t have responded so angrily.

    Finally just as a HRC win would not have solved the problems of sexism a BHS win will not solve the problems of racism. These are large issues and as such need to be compartmentalized and dealt with systematically rather than seeking to place a figure head in power and declaring the problem solved.

    No shit, Renee? Really? Thanks for the further education of us slack-jawed yokels here “Down South.” I don’t think anyone who reads this site would ever think this. Learn your audience.

  74. And, before anyone gets offended by my use of “slack-jawed yokel” (thanks, Simpsons), of course I do not believe in such a stereotype. It was used simply to make my point.

  75. Do you have a problem with positive representation for WOC?

    Talk about reaching. Are serious?

  76. I never said that she is a symbol of feminism, you are reaching. I said that she is a positive role model for women of color.

    Ah. So this is one of those irregular nouns? You judge that your feelings for Michelle Obama make her a “positive role model”, but that other women’s feelings for Hillary Clinton make her a “symbol of feminism”.

    Do you have a problem with positive representation for WOC?

    Do you have a problem with reading my repeated comments in which I repeatedly say otherwise? I’m now getting remarkably uncomfortable with this post, but I don’t see any particular difference between Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton other than their race – which is an enormous difference, I acknowledge, but I don’t see what relevance it has to judge one highly successful woman as a “symbol” and thus “bad and blinding” for women to admire, and another highly successful woman as a “positive role model”, merely because of their race, any more than I think either of them should be dismissed as “symbols” merely because of their sexual orientation.

    Michelle Obama is a terrific role model. But what on earth is so wrong with Hillary Clinton that you feel she’s not a terrific role model – that women who admire what she’s accomplished should be criticised and told they’re admiring the wrong woman? Neither Michele nor Hillary are good examples of the single mother that struggles to put food on the table, and keep a roof over the head of her child, the wife that has taken so many beatings from her husband that she suffers from brain injuries, the prostitute that is raped for the 100th time, the homeless women that are suffering with mental illness, the everyday working mom doing the Herculean task of raising a family and having a career, the so-called illegal alien performing what amounts to slave labor so that Americans can have their fresh fruit and trendy clothes, and finally the WOC and the GLBT community who are rejected and silenced – and I speak as a lesbian.

  77. Zofia, I am getting increasingly uncomfortable with this whole thread.

    I apologize to everyone I offended with past comments, especially Renee, and depart the thread.

  78. Oh no, I wasn’t talking to you Jesurgislac! I was asking Renee. Sheesh what a screwed up thread. I should bow out too and stop reading it. As a WoC who voted for Clinton (like many others) I probably have nothing to add at this point.

  79. Well, I never looked at drinking tea as a class issue, because I know a lot of poor women particularly immigrant women who drink tea as a staple. So I’m a bit confused at the drinking tea reference, admittedly. It’s true that college students drink tea just like it’s true they drink coffee, alcohol, caffeine, etc.

    Thus, given the issues with intersectionality, whenever we *do* start talking about the marginal issues, some people will always have a topicality derail ready.

    Unfortunately, this is true. But it’s not always like this. Some of us are fortunate to be able to discuss these issues though not always online in certain places.

    Mourning is an important part of coping with a setback or loss including in activism but it’s also something a lot of women don’t have the opportunity to do either.

    I think the most successful movements have combined grassroots activism and mobilizing top-down support from those with the ability to greenlight and those with the ability to influence the latter. I think anyone who discounts either the former or latter is going to limit the ability to create change.

    Some good points but I’ve found the top-down support factor to be very disappointing. Too few actually reach down as it’s called once they’ve gotten in position to do anything. The more successful movements are those with grassroots activism who’ve been able to stir up the discomfort level of those who are in positions to do anything, enough to act in a way that’s not counter. Most people who are in positions of power do need to be pushed to do the right thing.

  80. Renee — I strongly agree with your assessment that there does need to be a focus on a bottom-up structure for feminism, but I think that this approach needs to complement, rather than replace, the top-down approach.

    Just to pull a very timely (although totally OT) example from my San Franciscan heart: in 2004 a newly-elected, highly privaleged white-straight-handsome-rich-male San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom went to listen to our Dear Leader talk about how every state should work on putting a “one man – one woman” clause into their state constitution. Gavin said, “fuck that”, and, since he as mayor had the power to tell city hall who to give licenses to, was in a position to actually change something. Fast forward 4 years, and now I’m going to be a bridesmaid in a gay marriage next week. (what? this isn’t all about me? :))

    My point: big change catalyzed by the right leader in the right place. He didn’t start the movement, and he certainly won’t end it, but he was able to play a role because he was in a position to do so.

    How this relates to this particular post. You said:

    “could not despite her best efforts if she won achieve a substantive change in the lives of women.”

    Some of us who supported Clinton so vehemently (erm…at least me, specifically) don’t actually think this is true. Certainly we can debate whether or not this is the case, but I think stating it as a fact was where you lost me in your argument. As a wee young teenager, I was personally fascinated by Hillary in her first lady role, and I followed her closely, not only because she was a strong woman who could do no right in the eyes of the press, but because of what she did for marginalized women and children. She made a point of travelling throughout the world (80 countries if I remember correctly) for the express purpose of talking with women and advocating for their rights. She basically dedicated her life to helping women and their families. Now, it’s not the same as actually being part of a marginalized group, but can a white rich woman actually come any closer?

    That she did these things, and because of her record, her support for universal health care, etc, I do think she could have made a difference for those of us women down here on the ground. While I’m not worried about her personal sadness per se, the loss of the changes I think could have been made is why I mourn the end of her campaign.

  81. MizDarwin, why bother?

    The issue is the topic, not the tone, lack of rhectorical skills, or the lack of evidence. Every time a topic that challenges feminists in the non-womanist blogosphere gets this reaction. Which is why there is a womanist movement.

    This is what I hated most about the Amanda pile on back when…Ultimately, Amanda works and speaks for herself. All the mouth stuffing is going to be with her own twinkling toes. All the hits to her reputation affects her, and all the lost of potential money was caused by herself and Seal Press. They *got* what was coming to them, au naturelle. But I knew then, as I know now, that all those cries for making space for women of color does not apply if said woman wants to state something that is uncomfortable in a feminist space. Beyond that, we don’t go to (let alone link to)their websites, we don’t participate in their conversations on said websites, when a minority issue is frontpaged on a major blog, it gets few comments, unless it’s a veritable foodfight going on, with bruised egos and all.

    So when MizDarwin sez that it’s time for a fail, abort, and retry…I think she means just a bit different from her surface intentions might scribble.

  82. If lack of “rhectorical” skills and evidence don’t bother you, carry on. Any post that’s so vague and contradictory and requiring of explication by others has already had far more of my time than it deserves, and clearly a lot of other commenters feel the same. Off to more fertile fields. And “All the mouth stuffing is going to be with her own twinkling toes”–yeah, I don’t exactly understand that either, and don’t plan to sit with it too long to figure it out.

  83. Well, I never looked at drinking tea as a class issue, because I know a lot of poor women particularly immigrant women who drink tea as a staple. So I’m a bit confused at the drinking tea reference, admittedly.

    Ah, well then it must be regional. Where I grew up the privileged ladies sip their tea, chat and naval gaze while others do the real work. They’re always quick to criticize and then explain the “right” way to do things..since .you know we couldn’t possibly figure it out for ourselves. Of course you couldn’t question them or disagree even if what they said made little sense. It was still nice of them to explain your life to you, bless their hearts. I’m sure tea is very satisfying and egalitarian beverage and I am truly sorry to have suggested otherwise.

  84. Renee said in the comments: “These are large issues and as such need to be compartmentalized and dealt with systematically rather than seeking to place a figure head in power and declaring the problem solved.”

    What feminist group was proposing to “declare the problem solved”? Feminist activism – even the part which was ignorant about race – is about not settling to for tokenism. I think you are using simplistic assertions and claiming a false dichotomy.

    As others have said: ” basic Feminism 101, caring about X doesn’t mean not caring about Y. In fact, since feminist/social justice theories are usually about interconnectivity, part of the frakking REASON you care about X is because it also implies/involves/implicates Y.” and “I am enraged by the treatment of illegal immigrants and LGBT folk and people of color, and I am enraged by the misogyny that Clinton faced during her campaign. I am not weeping for some maudlin image of poor poor Hillary…but the treatment she got and its contribution to her dropping out of the presidential race were quite disappointing…We can recognize that and still fight for rights for poor people and LGBT people and people of color.”

    I think you need to address this flaw in your argument, because it’s this dubious idea of mutually exclusive goals which has angered so many.

  85. find it repellent that the spouse of a presidential candidate has to make herself into a non-threatening traditional wife in order to further the candidacy of her husband? I lost respect for her when she agree to do it.

    Hillary Clinton did exactly the same thing in 1992 — did she lose your respect then for doing the same thing Michelle Obama did on “The View”?

    That’s not what I recall happening in 1992. I remember Hillary Clinton getting mocked for saying things like she didn’t stay home, baking cookies, she wasn’t Tammy Wynette, standing by her man, and 2 for the price of 1.
    The national health care plan, which sadly couldn’t get through Congress, was largely her work.
    A lot of the flack thrown at the Clintons over the years has been due to Hillary Clinton not being a traditional wife.

    I hope Michelle Obama doesn’t knuckle under. I was one who loved her fist-bump with her husband. Maybe I read too much into things, but I thought it was a gesture of joy/congrats between two powerful equals, teammates. What I didn’t like was her husband immediately following that up with a little tap to her rear as she walked off. Seemed dismissive to me.

  86. Renee: if you wanted to create a post about the positive influence of Michelle Obama and her role as a figurehead, why didn’t you just do that? Seems pretty simple to me. You chose instead to alienate a section of feminists because you personally believe that they are too blinded by their own skin color to think critically about presidential politics. How does your post further race dialogue?

    [and for that matter, why even compare HRC and Michelle Obama? Because they’re both women? MO is not even close to being on the same political platform as HRC, so I don’t get why you’re disparaging some women’s displeasure with the primaries and then holding up MO as what? An alternative to HRC? You do realize that she’s not, right?]

  87. Shah8, I know you likely didn’t mean this in a bad way, but it might be a good idea to reread the occasional comment. I mean, on a feminist blog, saying “I need to ram this in” and then providing a math lesson could have been a bit better thought out, no?

    Obviously we’re all familiar with the idea that there are 24 hours in a day, which is basically where you’re going with opportunity cost. If you do x for 12 hours and y for 12 hours, then adding more time to x is going to take time away from y.

    But the flaw in your argument is this. Many of us do things other than discuss Hillary OR feminist bottom-up activism. We may eat, sleep, work, watch TV, get laid, etc. So how do you know that we’re taking the additional discussion of female politicians out of our worthwhile-activism time and not out of our watching-TV or responding-to-Feministe-posts or getting-laid time?

    You don’t. So enough with the lectures, please. Women can do math. End of story.

  88. The issue is the topic, not the tone, lack of rhectorical skills, or the lack of evidence. Every time a topic that challenges feminists in the non-womanist blogosphere gets this reaction. Which is why there is a womanist movement

    Yeah, that.

  89. A little general, but related: how about an end to the driving theme of a lot of these feminisms flare-ups, that there are rich, white, elite, hetero feminists, and then everyone else, presumably some rainbow coalition of women of color, disabled women, trans women, lgbt folks, lower-income or working class women with perfectly pure politics, who are always fully aware of an supportive of eachother’s issues, and who never prioritize issues closer to their hearts or experience over those of other women. And as though there’s no cross over though those categories. That sort of ideologically pure and demographically representative coalition doesn’t exist anywhere, save, perhaps, a woman’s studies program with a handful of members. In the rest of the world, prejudices and preconceptions overlap over all these categories, so that there’s plenty of animosity inside and between groups that are not rich white women as well. And coalitions are still possible. But they take work and determination. Clearly there’s a legitimate need to broaden the focus of mainstream feminism — though I’d argue that a lot more mainstream “white feminist” groups are already and have long been tackling issues of domestic violence and labor justice, and other diverse issues, than lately get credit for it, and also that more women of color feminists are passionate about reproductive justice than are acknowledged in these with us or against us battles — but setting up a dichotomy between “good” feminists concerned with “real” women versus bougie white women who think black women are best represented by objectifying music videos does little service to anyone but those anxious to prove their righteousness.

  90. Hasn’t Shah8 been banned on Shakesville for general condescending, syntactically challenged concern trolling? (Apologies if not; I just remember a recent and extremely unpleasant series of posts over there that ended with at the very least serious shape-up-or-ship-outs.)

  91. That’s not what I recall happening in 1992. I remember Hillary Clinton getting mocked for saying things like she didn’t stay home, baking cookies, she wasn’t Tammy Wynette, standing by her man, and 2 for the price of 1.

    She said all of those in close succession and got so much heat that she pretty much kept her mouth shut for the rest of the campaign. Don’t forget, she didn’t even change her name until partway through the campaign — up until then, she had always been Hillary Rodham, not Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was the heat brought on her by the media that got her to change her last name.

    I’m not saying anything bad about Clinton for having done it, because that’s the game you have to play in American politics. She had to do it to win the election, so she did it, and I don’t blame her one bit. Does it suck that Michelle Obama has to play the same media game 16 years later? Of course. But complaining that Obama’s knuckling under when Clinton did the exact same thing for the exact same reasons when she was in the same position as potential First Lady is not playing fair.

  92. Clearly there’s a legitimate need to broaden the focus of mainstream feminism — though I’d argue that a lot more mainstream “white feminist” groups are already and have long been tackling issues of domestic violence and labor justice, and other diverse issues, than lately get credit for it, and also that more women of color feminists are passionate about reproductive justice than are acknowledged in these with us or against us battles — but setting up a dichotomy between “good” feminists concerned with “real” women versus bougie white women who think black women are best represented by objectifying music videos does little service to anyone but those anxious to prove their righteousness.

    Ouch, that strawman about “good” feminists and “real” women hurt! I shouldn’t have left my headgear at home.

    Who here said Black women are best represented by objectifying music videos? And who said if this was indeed said, that it doesn’t do any service except to those anxious to prove their righteousness (omigod, agenda alert!)

    Seriously…

    Well, there’s “setting up a dichotomy” as some might call it and then there’s pointing out a dichotomy or two which already exist, as others might say. It’s almost like over and over, it’s all about White women being called “racist” even when they’re clearly not that overrides the intersections of race and gender that other people have blogged about and discussed a lot. And it’s the inequalities built into mainstream feminism as it’s called that allow this to happen over and over. That’s one reason why many women who don’t feel that feminism speaks to them let alone for them have their own spaces, own movements. That’s noticable from working in movements were mainstream feminism is absent. It’s even more clear when you listen or read what women are saying. When they feel excluded or even unsafe in mainstream feminism, they are told, then why are you here? That’s not the first thing that should be said when women express this but often it is.

    Does mainstream feminism need to broaden its focus to be more representative of the women it purportedly liberates or represents? That might help or at least if it’s aimed at the liberation of certain classes of women, then it should just say that this is its goal instead of saying that it’s there for women.

    As for domestic violence and labor justice, other women besides mainstream feminists fought for these issuse long before mainstream feminists did and these women deserve the credit, not to be rendered invisible by revisionist history. And reproductive issues, there’s so many factors which go into how they impact women, that it’s been a constant challenge for mainstream feminists to actually come up with platforms that aren’t harmful to poor women, women of color and/or disabled women. Eugenics has factored into many early reproductive rights movements as it has in other political movements.

  93. but setting up a dichotomy between “good” feminists concerned with “real” women versus bougie white women who think black women are best represented by objectifying music videos does little service to anyone but those anxious to prove their righteousness.

    I think you summed up my issues with the post. The post basically repeated right wing memes about how left/Dems are elite so they don’t care about you. This also repeats how you might as well vote for Bush or Gore because all those politicians are the same.

    renee, I found your post condescending. Your response that anyone who did not love your post must embrace the corporate music sexualization of all non-white women is beyond rude and in fact bizarre. You pretty much repeated the only racist women support HRC crap here. And that is frankly beneath any standard I have ever seen on this blog.

  94. if you wanted to create a post about the positive influence of Michelle Obama and her role as a figurehead, why didn’t you just do that? Seems pretty simple to me. You chose instead to alienate a section of feminists because you personally believe that they are too blinded by their own skin color to think critically about presidential politics. How does your post further race dialogue?

    Twist, twist and more twist. Michelle Obama entered this conversation when I stated that I was a fan of her and not her husband in response to someones claim that I was a closet Obama fan. This post is a very simple post and does not need all the heart wrenching drama that has been attached to it. For the last time, go ahead and mourn, no one is begrudging you that, all I am simply asking is what comes next.

  95. Every time a topic that challenges feminists in the non-womanist blogosphere gets this reaction. Which is why there is a womanist movement.

    And every time, men like shah8 are there to condescend to women / feminists / womanists, and lecture us, and “enlighten” us. What a fucking surprise. i don’t know if he’s been banned elsewhere, but his forays here from pandagon for his own amusement and self-gratification are not appreciated by this particular commenter.

  96. If I’m right, Kiki was around during the last guestblogger period throwing the same stones.

    As for:

    “You may prefer to see black women with gold teeth and shaking their asses on BET, however I will take one that shows the world that we are articulate, engaging, and beautiful.”

    You know, apart from Grey’s Anatomy (I apologize) there haven’t been many mainstream black women on prime time TV I can recall that are articulate, engaging, and beautiful since Clair Huxtable, not in the way that Michelle Obama is: successful in her own right, poised, classy, well-dressed, superbly educated, I could keep going, fuck all that “privileged” noise. Bristle all you want at Renee’s statement or her explanation, but she’s got this right. The representations of black women in most mainstream media are fucking deplorable.

    This is a feminist blog, folks, and hopefully we’ve picked up by now that Representation is important. Just as Hillary was a First, just as Hillary is respected for being successful, poised, well-dressed, and well educated, so is Michelle Obama, except that the positive attention that is due to Michelle Obama fills a void of negative representation that continues to plague black women after centuries of moral abuse. Others have covered this better and I totally defer to them, but I cannot believe that we will allow ourselves to get derailed over these side comments to play righteousness games over our feelings.

    Lose your respect for Michelle Obama over appearing on THE FUCKING VIEW if it makes you feel better in the short term, but recognize that she’s being molded by the same media that forced Clinton to release a goddamned cookie recipe like she was some 1950’s housewife fantasy instead of a successful lawyer and working mother beset with shoulder pads up to her ears. This is not an example of Obama’s defiance against feminism, but the anti-feminist media forcing Obama into a role she’s expressed she doesn’t expressly want, one that forces her to subjugate her personal beliefs about her own decorum in order to get her partner into a place of power that is far better than anything offered by the other guy. It’s a symptom of cultural sexism, nothing less, and something feminists ought to be pissed off about. Clutch your pearls about Clinton, and do it tightly, she deserved nothing of the misogyny that she got. Neither does Michelle Obama. She needs the support of political women.

    For the record, I voted for Clinton in the primary, but I fully throw my bones in with Obama for the presidency. I too love Michelle Obama because she represents the future for so many kinds of women. Fucking love her.

  97. I’m not sure what I said in my last post that was so offensive so maybe it’s the wrong place to discuss intersections?

    Oh well. That’s cool.

  98. I can’t speak for the commenters who have taken issue with the BET comment, but I am wondering if they were reacting to the “you may prefer” that prefaced the description, not in fact disagreeing with the point about deplorable representations of black women on mainstream TV. Just a question?

  99. Oh god the pearl clutching here is too much.

    Has anyone *watched* BET? Like maybe the Ludicrous video for “Booty Popping”? It’s neither racist nor classist nor anti-feminist to call that crap the dreck that it is.

    Something that really annoys me is the fake paraphrase. The only people in this thread saying “get over it” are Clinton partisans mangling the words of other people. Similar to “why won’t the bitch quit?”, which 99% of the time came out of the mouths of Clinton supporters rather than detractors. It’s a cheap and dishonest way to score points, to take something someone said and twist it into something much more insulting. Don’t use quotes when you are making shit up. That’s how conversations turn to shit, when people feel free to shove words in each other’s mouths.

    Can I also say that the notion of “privilege” has jumped the shark? It has no meaning these days, it’s just a hammer to beat people with. Talk of privilege is no longer interesting or educational, it’s just a weapon.

    If you live in North America you are privileged. Period. Compared to many people on earth Sean Bell was privileged.

  100. I think you summed up my issues with the post. The post basically repeated right wing memes about how left/Dems are elite so they don’t care about you. This also repeats how you might as well vote for Bush or Gore because all those politicians are the same.

    On some critical issues impacting women, there isn’t much difference. I don’t believe the higher echalon of either major political party really cares much about anyone beyond themselves and their power and I think that’s a huge problem with this whole process in ways already mentioned here. As mentioned in the things women have to do to fit certain roles for example.

    If you want to paint any one who’s cynical about being represented by the Democrats, it might behoove you to remember it’s not all “right-wing memes” unless you’re really not paying attention.

    And Republican including Republican women feel the same way about McCain for example who buzzed in for a $1,000-$50,000/plate luncheon in town today with the power brokers.

  101. quick scroll back the bet commentary was aimed at carolH and not meant to be representative of all commentators. Sorry that I did not address the comment.

  102. And Carol H deserved that why, exactly? For pointing out the similarities between Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama? Mmm, yes, clearly if you see something in common between two Chicago women from middle-class backgrounds, Ivy-League educated and accomplished, in love with charismatic men, subordinating their authentic, angry selves in order to help their husbands get to the top … you believe all black women are gold-toothed hootchie mamas on BET. I see the logic now.

  103. you believe all black women are gold-toothed hootchie mamas on BET. I see the logic now.

    Oh, get off it. She was saying exactly the opposite.

  104. Renee, I agree with much of your article but I’m going to ignore most of it as I’m finding the resulting conversation rather depressing.

    The next time we decide to unify, let us hope that we will be inspired from the bottom up, for in that way we assure that the needs of the many, will truly outweigh the needs of the few.

    I don’t know about the first part… one of my favorite quotes is the one by Lilla Watson: -“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time… But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.“- because it sort of reflects my feelings on viewing something as a need for unity and solidarity or even ally um… ness? as opposed to seeing some action as a necessity, not only for others but for myself. Ourselves.

    Well, I had more to say, on organizing and being inspired from the bottom up and such, but I can’t seem to find the words to say it. I’ve been offline for a while and am not used to commenting anymore, apparently.

    Anyway, thanks for the great food for thought.

  105. Renee, thank you for putting this post out here. As far as I’m concerned, this post and its comments are a part of feminist consciousness-raising, and that’s one old-school format I’d like to see a return to. I especially liked that you’re thinking of us single mothers (took my daughter to see Cowboy Crush, a female country band even though I generally dislike country music. it was free, downtown, a beautiful evening, so what the hell. they performed a new song, and introduced it with “this is for all the single mothers out there….the ones getting up in the morning, packing the lunches, getting the kids off to school, putting in a day’s work and barely getting a chance to catch their breath—this one’s called “Tougher Than A Man”. damn. I thought I didn’t like country but I liked that song! wonder if they’ll get the same shit from the music critics that Fantasia got for putting out “Baby Mama”.)

    Now, where was I? Oh yeah, agreeing with Renee. See, we bring our pasts with us to our feminism, for better or for worse. When I saw all the egregious sexism directed at Hillary, the same sexism that was called “shocking”—I thought it was just run-of-the-mill, everyday sexism. Because I’m Some Tough Broad? No, because I entered the building trades twenty years ago, and experienced some hellacious sexism there. But not to get into a your-blues-ain’t-like-mine…..I’ll bet Hillary experienced worse sexism in high school and college, law school, her early working years. Not as public as with her presidential candidacy, but jeez louise, she experienced bona-fide public sexism during her husband’s presidency on an intimate level.

    She expected it, and we all expected it. There hasn’t been one sexist or racist surprise yet. Shit, Don Imus is back on the air and up to his same old tricks, so that ought to put to rest any “but this type of stuff wouldn’t happen to black people!!” Bah. Joe Hill said, “Don’t mourn, organize!” That’s been apropos for more than one election.

  106. @ Margalis: “pearl-clutching?”… umm..that was unnecessary. And sexist. I have no idea what your issue is, but phrases like “privilege is like a hammer” does not help your cause. Nobody was defending BET, it seems like you should be taking your own advice.

    I am at a loss as to why people are up in arms about Renee’s post.

    Firstly, there is little doubt that Clinton has become some sort of symbol for feminism. To me, Clinton broke barriers and paved roads for American female politicians in un-precedented ways. But does she represent me? No. And has a lot of different kinds of women been pushed to the side when people say, “women prefer Clinton”? Yes.

    Secondly, Everyone here agrees that the media were horrible to Clinton. Nobody is begrudging that outrage. But do I share Renee’s growing annoyance at HRC supporters who are still in mourning? Yes. It would make a whole lot of sense to me if Obama wasn’t Clinton’s legislative twin, or if he had been sexist and demeaning to her. Or if she had completely disappeared of the political discourse as a result of the loss. None of this is true. She is still a strong, political leader who will have a larger influence over policies and legislation than ever before. Renee’s absolutely right, Doesn’t sound like such a terrible deal to me.

  107. “The you may prefer was directed at someone specific and I should have addressed the comment to her specifically.”

    I’m not sure but I believe the comment was directed at me. I was insulted by it but have not had the opportunity to reply until now. I have never watched BET and am completely clueless about the women you were referring to in your post. Why would you think that I would prefer the image of women you are telling me they depict to that of Michelle Obama, an educated, successful woman?

    As the mother of a 21 year daughter currently in a college majoring in engineering, a field in which she is pretty much guaranteed to encounter sexual discrimination, I can think of few better role models than Michelle Obama.

    Also, while I am a middle aged white female and supported Clinton in the primary I am also the mother of a son who is not white.

  108. Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama? Mmm, yes, clearly if you see something in common between two Chicago women from middle-class backgrounds

    ok seriously, if you think michelle obama who was from the south side of chicago whos father was a city laborer and who had to sleep in a living room with her brother as a child and hillary clinton who is from the upper middle class suburb of park ridge whose father was a small business owner share the same background, you fail.

    also, hearts to renee for a fantastic post.

  109. If I’m right, Kiki was around during the last guestblogger period throwing the same stones.

    You are wrong. The last time I was really involved in a debate here it concerned the total lack of acknowledgment of the blatant racism in Amanda’s book and the lame attempts at justifying that followed. I argued endlessly that the white blog sphere marginalizes voices and that too many white bloggers speak for WoC instead of letting us speak for ourselves. (Shah 8 was there defending Amanda) Ironic, huh? I read this piece and and despite wanting to like it…couldn’t for many,many reasons. I suppose my answer should have been more “constructive” but I felt the tone of the piece did not elicit that. I work on the ground day in and day out and so her contemplative foray into the lives of “so-called illegal aliens” rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe she should stick to writing what she knows. I will go back to just reading. I truly didn’t mean to start such a stink. I think the juvenile nature of her writing brought out my worst juvenile and for that I apologize.

    And In the future please provide some kind of support if you are going to toss around accusations. Gracias.

  110. Beautiful post, Renee.

    And beautiful of you to write it. I don’t understand the word twisting and horrible things being said here, and I am relieved to see Jack, Cara, and former guest blogger La Lubu come to your defense (not that you needed it), b/c this was something that needed to be said. I really can’t believe some of the things said here to a guest blogger on a feminist blog. Just…WOW!

    Shit, I was/am a Clinton supporter, and I saw the point straight and true.

  111. But do I share Renee’s growing annoyance at HRC supporters who are still in mourning? Yes. It would make a whole lot of sense to me if Obama wasn’t Clinton’s legislative twin, or if he had been sexist and demeaning to her.

    … Yeah, that would have sucked. Good thing that didn’t happen, so I guess we should all just get over it and hop on the Obamabus.

  112. @kiki:

    I work on the ground day in and day out and so her contemplative foray into the lives of “so-called illegal aliens” rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe she should stick to writing what she knows. I will go back to just reading. I truly didn’t mean to start such a stink. I think the juvenile nature of her writing brought out my worst juvenile and for that I apologize.

    OK, kiki – can we chill out about the non-stop assumptions about who Renee is, what she knows or doesn’t know, and insults about Renee’s writing? If you have a problem with what she wrote, stick to the substance of it.

  113. @ MizDarwin:

    so I guess we should all just get over it and hop on the Obamabus.

    Give me a freakin’ break. I am tremendously tired of people throwing around terms like “Obamabus” as if anyone who supports Obama to any degree must have drank some Kool-Aid/is hopping on the bandwagon/is blind/is stupid/is a sheep. How thoroughly condescending to millions of people.

  114. Now that I have confirmed that Renee directed her BET comment to me I am even more mystified. She made assumptions about me simply because I compared Michelle Obama to Hillary Clinton. She assumed that I am white, which I am, and that led to her assumption that I prefer WOC use women performers on BET as role models rather than professional women like Michelle Obama.

    Although I am white I grew up in Harvey, an industrial city smacked up against the south side of Chicago. Harvey was integrated when I lived there and is now 90+ black. My father grew up on the south side about 2 miles from where Trinity UCC is now located and my grandparents lived there throughout my childhood.

    My daughter is white and attends a state university on scholarship. Our middle class income precluded much financial aid from private universities and we can’t afford 50K a year in school expenses. She’s not interested in big college loans since she wants to work with water rescources in developing countries and doesn’t want a small non-profit salary to preclude that choice.

    My son, who is not white, is currently in the Army and has served one 15 month deployment in Iraq and will return in January for another 12 months.

    Is my white daughter with her state school BS more or less privileged that Michelle Obama with her Ivy league degrees and senator husband? Is my non white soldier son more or less privileged than Barack Obama, the senator and presidential candidate?

  115. Renee: sorry for misinterpreting your intent.

    Question for others: where are you seeing this mourning? where are you seeing white middle aged, middle class women beating their breasts and clenching their hair? And if you are legitimately seeing it, why do you think it’s about Hillary Clinton, the person, rather than the overwhelming showering of misogyny that sprung forth in the USA over the last 8 months?

    [if anything, this primary season showed exactly how well class and race privilege work against a society wide, publically supported, media defined onslaught of misogyny, and maybe that’s why some of us older women are a bit peeved — we’re peeved that no matter what a woman’s accomplishments may be, no matter the relative ease of her life, or the opportunities handed her, she is and will continue to be beneath the lowliest and most base of men. In fact, she will be compared to an animal. Personally? I think that sucks.]

  116. @Q Grrl:

    [if anything, this primary season showed exactly how well class and race privilege work against a society wide, publically supported, media defined onslaught of misogyny, and maybe that’s why some of us older women are a bit peeved — we’re peeved that no matter what a woman’s accomplishments may be, no matter the relative ease of her life, or the opportunities handed her, she is and will continue to be beneath the lowliest and most base of men. In fact, she will be compared to an animal. Personally? I think that sucks.]

    I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that Clinton’s loss demonstrates that sexism trumps racism and classism? And that women, as a whole, are beneath Black men or whoever you meant by “the lowliest and most base of men” as a whole?

  117. @carolH : “If you are a fan of Michelle Obama and a feminist, how do you fell about her recent “makeover” and appearance on The View? I find it repellent that the spouse of a presidential candidate has to make herself into a non-threatening traditional wife in order to further the candidacy of her husband? I lost respect for her when she agree to do it.”

    When you say things like this, you are going to get commentary similar to what I said about BET.

    Kikki I am done being polite, you don’t know shit about me. You cannot stay on point and make yourself absolutely irrelevant with your commentary.

  118. I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Are you saying that Clinton’s loss demonstrates that sexism trumps racism and classism? And that women, as a whole, are beneath Black men or whoever you meant by “the lowliest and most base of men” as a whole?

    None of the above. One oppression does not trump another oppression. I’m saying that oppression can and does trump privilege. I’m also saying that when the press and other candidates openly call a US Senator and presidential hopeful a “bitch” and no one calls them on it (certainly not the DNC), then that woman, despite any and all privilege, is being compared to an animal, and in that instance she, and all women, are beneath men. You could literally take the most base man, with no accomlishments, with a history of antisocial and violent behavior, and when you compare a woman, any woman, but particularly a US Senator, to an animal, No! when you call her that animal, you are saying she is subhuman, and that her collective worth is based, not on her accomplishements, but on how much closer she is to the animal state, a Bitch in fact, than the lowest of men (presumabely because a man’s penis raises him above the level of beast).

    Women “as a whole” are neither above nor below Black men. This isn’t about women as a whole.

    This is about misogyny as a whole.

    And some of us are horrified that in 2008 misogyny is still virulent, hungry, and destructive.

  119. @ Q Grrl: I don’t believe that sexism trumped Clinton’s privilege any more than I think racism trumps Obama’s privilege. To say “trump” seems to imply “cancel out.” Indeed, Clinton being white, educated, and class-privileged doesn’t mean she hasn’t been the target of viciously misogynistic attacks; likewise, Obama being male, educated, and class-privileged doesn’t mean he hasn’t been the target of viciously racist attacks. Neither’s privilege canceled out their oppression because it doesn’t work like that. It’s not like you can just add and subtract and then see if there’s more oppression or more privilege in the end. These things intersect and coexist.

    And some of us are horrified that in 2008 misogyny is still virulent, hungry, and destructive.

    Me too. One doesn’t have to take your tack in order to be equally angered by sexism and committed to ending it. One also doesn’t have to foreground the ills of sexism as they affected the primaries to the detriment of acknowledging the ills of racism in order to sufficiently demonstrate their condemnation.

    I’m also saying that when the press and other candidates openly call a US Senator and presidential hopeful a “bitch” and no one calls them on it

    As far as I’ve heard, a McCain supporter called Clinton a “bitch” and was not reprimanded by McCain. Some elements of the media definitely seemed gleeful that they then got to say “bitch” and “Clinton” in the same sentence without catching flack. But even if McCain’s silence was a tacit approval of the term, “candidates,” plural, did not call Clinton a “bitch.” Just didn’t happen, at least not in public.

  120. @Jack

    Maybe Q Grrl is referring to that CNN discussion of whether it was appropriate to call Clinton a “white bitch”. I’m not sure about that “other candidates” reference though. Did McCain, Obama, McKinney, Edwards, or one of the others say this in public?

  121. One doesn’t have to take your tack in order to be equally angered by sexism and committed to ending it. One also doesn’t have to foreground the ills of sexism as they affected the primaries to the detriment of acknowledging the ills of racism in order to sufficiently demonstrate their condemnation.

    Good thing I haven’t done that then.

    To say “trump” seems to imply “cancel out.”

    You introduced the term, so it seems strange for you to attack me for using it. That being said, I firmly believe that on a case by case instance privilege can be trumped by bigotry, whether that be racism or sexism, etc.

    It’s not like you can just add and subtract and then see if there’s more oppression or more privilege in the end.

    No doubt. However, I’m not the one doing the adding and subtracting to see the end result. Renee posited that a certain segment of the US voting populace, mainly (in her eyes) middle aged, middle class white women shouldn’t be so upset because in the long run HRC has a certain quantitative level of privilege. Yet strangely enough you didn’t level your particular criticism at her.

    Just didn’t happen, at least not in public.

    What’s your intrest in protecting those that did call her a bitch? Do you think we’re so naive to think just because it wasn’t reported in the media it didn’t happen? Please. Men let their guard down to the level that we say; you can be sure that that was only the tip of the iceberg. But that’s neither here nor there. You seem to have missed my comments about how reducing HRC to subhuman categories has a ripple effect amongst all women.

    If she can be treated that way, what does that mean for the rest of us?

  122. Renee posited that a certain segment of the US voting populace, mainly (in her eyes) middle aged, middle class white women shouldn’t be so upset because in the long run HRC has a certain quantitative level of privilege.

    No I most certainly did not say that you should not be upset, you are interpreting my words rather than taking them at face value.

  123. You introduced the term, so it seems strange for you to attack me for using it. That being said, I firmly believe that on a case by case instance privilege can be trumped by bigotry, whether that be racism or sexism, etc.

    I’m not attacking you for using the term. I’m questioning the idea that one’s privilege can be canceled out by one’s oppression. I was asking you if you were using “trumped” as a synonym for “canceled out.”

    No doubt. However, I’m not the one doing the adding and subtracting to see the end result. Renee posited that a certain segment of the US voting populace, mainly (in her eyes) middle aged, middle class white women shouldn’t be so upset because in the long run HRC has a certain quantitative level of privilege. Yet strangely enough you didn’t level your particular criticism at her.

    I think the reverse of what I said is true as well: one’s oppression doesn’t cancel out one’s privilege. As far as I understand it, Renee was making the point that, relative to most women, Hillary Clinton is uniquely privileged, and that we can’t make the mistake of making the most privileged women such a central focus to feminism.

    What’s your intrest in protecting those that did call her a bitch? Do you think we’re so naive to think just because it wasn’t reported in the media it didn’t happen? Please. Men let their guard down to the level that we say; you can be sure that that was only the tip of the iceberg.

    You seem to have missed my comments about how reducing HRC to subhuman categories has a ripple effect amongst all women.

    I agree that the sexism leveled against Clinton during the campaign does have a ripple effect; it was highly public, high-profile sexism that demonstrates that no matter what a woman’s accomplishments in life, she’s still subjected to sexist bullshit – there’s no way for any woman to completely transcend sexism in our society, even if a woman may have privilege and resources otherwise that allow her to avoid some of the more materially damaging and limiting affects of sexism and oppression in her life.

    If she can be treated that way, what does that mean for the rest of us?

    I agree that this is a good question – if a woman as accomplished, powerful, and privileged as HRC can be the target of sexism, then imagine what woman who lack those privileges and resources can be subjected to. However, that still doesn’t mean that Renee’s point – that for feminists to overly-focus on the trials of one of the most powerful and privileged women in the nation at the expense of other, far less privileged women’s struggles would be shameful.

  124. The issue is the topic, not the tone, lack of rhectorical skills, or the lack of evidence.

    I disagree. Having a good or challenging topic does not give a free pass to questionable rhetoric, a condscending tone and overly broad unsubstantiated generalizations. Merely claiming to stand for the right things is not enough – as shown by those white reactionary comments made by feminist icons during the primary.

    Again the issue is real, but this doesn’t make the strawfeminist rhetoric used here correct or real as well.

  125. Having a good or challenging topic does not give a free pass to questionable rhetoric, a condscending tone and overly broad unsubstantiated generalizations.

    Right because you are the voice of authority and I have over stepped my bounds. Typical policing behavior that has become far to dominant in feminist circles. Got some news for you, you may not like my truth, but it is my truth and your silencing behavior is recognized for exactly what it is. For a matter of fact those you that took the same tone as this poster guess what, you are also guilty of silencing.
    I am sick and tired of certain feminists believing that only their truth matters. I am sick of watching words twisted to validate the privilege you refuse to own. Deal with it. You have no more claim to feminism than any other woman.

  126. I should have elaborated. In this context, that’s a totally bullying accusation to make, Renee. I’m sorry if this is a hostile environment for a guest poster, but you’re really not owning and taking responsibility for your own words, and for the implications of your argument. And considering it’s an argument being made on the shoulders of about a year and half (and more) of conflict on these sorts of issues, obviously people are going to have strong reactions to it. Your response has been to dig in and start accusing people of deeper, more intentional racism than the racism by omission that you’ve been writing about in your posts here: a pretty straightforward charge that certain women, the ones who go to Niagara Falls or are pissed about HRC, have enough equality, and its time to focus on other issues. And before we go there, this is not a criticism of “tone” or your right to be angry about these issues — and even less about the validity of the larger issues — but of your arguments and the pointedly accusatory examples you’re using to make them, creating a caricature of your opponents –saying that they don’t want to see positive black role models — while holding yourself up as an exemplar of someone who’s got all of her priorities straight.

    But my deeper issue is that you don’t seem to acknowledge the implication of your argument. You’re essentially making a communitarian argument, that the goods of the many should outweigh individual rights. But you’re doing so by creating a false “many”: a many of everyone but the enemy of the moment, bourgeois white feminists. Not only is this an argument that’s traditionally been made against women’s rights, writing demands for equality off as the whim of self-indulgent middle class women without real cause for complaining, as compared to the broader spectrum of women having trouble feeding their kids, but it’s an argument that would well trample on the rights of the women you’ve listed as the ones you’re concerned with. Communitarianism almost always tends towards traditional morality, and I worry to keep hearing this as a recurrent theme in feminist debate: the focus on excoriating self-indulgent white women concerned with abortion rights versus “real women” — what an alarm it should be that this and similar terms keep cropping up in these debates — who want to have children. But this “many” only exists in any case by lumping together a number of different and often non-allied groups into one non-mainstream camp. But within that actual group, I doubt the “many” of traditional stay-at-home moms are particularly organized to defend less mainstream lifestyle choices. Trans women are certainly a minority. As are sex workers. Fighting for their rights is fighting for individual rights. A collective can be organized to fight for broad individual rights, but only if it recognizes that’s what it’s fighting for: a broad standard of freedom and autonomy, and not a “good of the many” morality that comes to the recurring conclusion that certain women have enough already.

  127. Maybe I’m not getting it then.

    I don’t think you wrote this for face value:

    but I am so irritated that I cannot stand it anymore. All over the blogosphere, HRC supporters are declaring themselves to be in mourning for her loss of the democratic nomination. They speak about shattered dreams, and of feeling belittled, and used by a party that has come to take for granted their support. With an allies heart I listened to the plaintive wails and tried to sympathize. I wanted to emphasize with their feelings of grief, to feel some sort of shared solidarity in our common womanhood.

    Not unless your value is that of condescencion. And small quibble still: where is this happening?

    Further, the reason you state that you can’t find solidarity is because HRC, the woman, is privileged:

    Was she a victim of sexist attacks by the media, no doubt, but at the end of the day when she proudly packed up her bag, and walked off the stage with a class, and a grace that was remarkable, HRC is still a woman of incredible privilege. I think the privilege aspect of it all is where the disconnect begins for me.

    So, you deign to admit that Clinton faced sexist attacks, but then you imply that it really wasn’t such a biggie because of her privilege, a privilege that forces you, another individual, to feel a disconnect. I’m with you up to this point, although I think you were rather cavalier in your admittance that Clinton faced sexism. Where you lose me is that you try to link your personal disconnect with what a large bloc of US voters are feeling right now. You claim that there is a definable segment of women, feminists even, who are in mouring (plaintiff wailing, etc.) but you don’t provide any concrete proof. You then go on to an even more outrageous claim: that because there is supposed mouring over Clinton’s loss (as opposed to mourning over blatent misogyny) that those women/feminists mourning must *obviously* be ignoring all those women who have less privilege than HRC. Yet you give no proof, no quotes, no blog entries, no statements of feminist theory that will back up your personal belief that the big picture is being ignored.

    You pass your opinion off as fact. Call me dubious.

  128. Question for others: where are you seeing this mourning? where are you seeing white middle aged, middle class women beating their breasts and clenching their hair?

    I really object to that imagery, I must say. But if you are looking for mourning, it isn’t hard to find. Incidentally, not all mourners are “white middle-aged, middle class women.”

    And if you are legitimately seeing it

    I love, by the way, that this post’s author must first prove that she sees what she says she saw. I’m going to suggest Feministe be opened up Wikipedia-style so we can all flag posts for their abysmal lack of citation. If posts by some authors earn that flag more than others, that will of course be strictly their problem, and nothing to do with any white habit of demanding more citations from authors of color than whites ever do from other white authors.

    why do you think it’s about Hillary Clinton, the person, rather than the overwhelming showering of misogyny that sprung forth in the USA over the last 8 months?

    Because that outrage has not transferred over to the misogyny Michelle Obama has been facing, nor was it present during the race, when Senator Clinton was not the only woman to face it. In this thread right now, there are people desperately searching for a Privilege Exemption for Ms. Obama–she’s too elite to really suffer! She grew up just as privileged as Senator Clinton! Since when, I’d like to know, does a woman’s background and experience EVER negate sexism? It doesn’t count because she wasn’t uneducated, it doesn’t count because she wasn’t a dirt farmer, it doesn’t count because she went on the (bless you, Lauren) FUCKING VIEW?–What the fuck is this kind of asininity doing on a feminist blog?

  129. Because that outrage has not transferred over to the misogyny Michelle Obama has been facing, nor was it present during the race, when Senator Clinton was not the only woman to face it. In this thread right now, there are people desperately searching for a Privilege Exemption for Ms. Obama–she’s too elite to really suffer! She grew up just as privileged as Senator Clinton! Since when, I’d like to know, does a woman’s background and experience EVER negate sexism? It doesn’t count because she wasn’t uneducated, it doesn’t count because she wasn’t a dirt farmer, it doesn’t count because she went on the (bless you, Lauren) FUCKING VIEW?–What the fuck is this kind of asininity doing on a feminist blog?

    Yeah. And then some. I thought misogyny was outrageous in any form.

    Maybe it’s because the assertion that oppression (racism, sexism) trumps privilege (classism, social status)doesn’t apply to her. She’s got too many factors working against her during that criteria process. After all, she’s probably not included among those who make up these rules.

    I ran into some Clinton supporters at a demonstration near where McCain was attending a $1,000/plate lunch and they weren’t mourning or if they were, they didn’t show it. They were protesting McCain alongside Obama supporters and even Ron Paul supporters. I don’t knock mourning at all. It’s just that for a lot of us, there’s no time to mourn anything especially racism and misogyny. You just pick yourself up and keep going. That’s all you can really do.

  130. I love, by the way, that this post’s author must first prove that she sees what she says she saw.

    That’s a pretty general practice, I don’t see why that might be outrageous.

    All the links that you posted, Ilkya, show that voters are disallusioned and are not convinced that Obama has what it takes. I don’t see mourning, so either that’s a gross and negligent overgeneralization, or a bunch of you are being provocative and intellectually lazy at the same time. Please don’t let the mainstream media frame your references, as they are the same institution that churned out the misogyny against Clinton at will and with little repurcussion.

    I find it interesting that you included Kate Harding’s post as some evidence of mourning. Did you read that thread? People are pissed and feel that they’ve been screwed over by the DNC. Is it now as inappropriate to call this to task as it apparently is inappropriate to ask that a blog writer be able to support the claims the she is making? Is critical thinking dead?

    Because that outrage has not transferred over to the misogyny Michelle Obama has been facing, nor was it present during the race, when Senator Clinton was not the only woman to face it.

    This is not factual. Maybe the MSM hasn’t jumped on this particular train, but feminist blogs and message boards have. But I have to ask: why even bring in the misogyny against Michelle Obama, and responses to it, as evidence that voters are mouring the loss of their candidate?. What office is Michelle Obama running for? What office does she now hold? Is she really supposed to placate our concerns because she too is a Vagina-American? You seem totally unaware that feminists have been saying for months that with Hillary Clinton out of the picture, the wrath of misogyny will come down on Michelle Obama. And you know which feminists are saying that? The one’s you apparently think are foolishly mourning Hillary Clinton’s loss.

  131. Because that outrage has not transferred over to the misogyny Michelle Obama has been facing, nor was it present during the race,

    Yes it has, and yes it was, at least on feminist blogs. You’re really saying there was no outrage about sexism toward Clinton during the race? Seriously?

    And as far as the Michelle Obama comments… it was Renee who brought up Clinton’s privilege as a reason not to get so worked up over the sexism toward her. People were pointing out that Obama is also privileged – if Clinton doesn’t need our outrage because she is a very privileged person, neither does Obama.

    As I said before… I am quite horrified with how this thread turned out, I did not agree with a lot of what Renee said in her post but I certainly don’t think she deserved to be jumped on the way she was. But I think you’re mischarcterising people’s positions.

  132. Hostile kat, You have nerve. Seriously read the commentary on this thread and think again about hostile. Heaven forbid we look beyond the rich and privileged in this world. This is what my post challenges people to do. Instead what did I get but a bunch of whining about how I hate Hillary, and how I don’t want to acknowledge the sexism she faced, or Obama is just as privileged. Enough of the the fucking shit seriously.
    Listen up people, threads like this are exactly why women don’t want to be called feminist anymore. Whenever someone voices an opinion that is contrary to the women who claim to control feminism, there is a hive and swarm mentality. Over and over again I asked one simple question, which not a single one of you bothered to address. You were to busy feeling slighted. One of you even had the nerve to tell me to learn who my audience is. Well this mammy speaks her own God damn mind. You don’t actually want to have a conversation and exchange ideas…oh no you want to be able to set the agenda at all times. Conversations only work when people listen as well as talk.

  133. In rereading Renee’s post, it’s hard to match up some of the interpretations with what is on the page. I’m not seeing where Renee down plays the sexism that Clinton faced, nor am I seeing where she says that the issues particular to wealthy white women are unimportant. What I got out of that post is that the issues of many, many other women are also important, and that the respond to the injustice faced by this multitude should also be passionate.

  134. What I got out of that post is that the issues of many, many other women are also important, and that the respond to the injustice faced by this multitude should also be passionate.

    That’s what I saw in it too. But for many of us women who realize that Obama, Clinton, McCain, there might be some differences but for many fundamental issues impacting women, including those often seen as “men’s issues”, today will be the same as yesterday and tomorrow will be today. Come election day, there will be celebration, there will no doubt be mourning depending on the outcome. But in many ways, very little will change.

  135. Renee, try rereading what you’re responding to before posting. I said sorry if this is a hostile environment for you, the guest poster, since that’s what a lot of your comments seemed to indicate. I didn’t call you hostile. That’s actually a reconciliatory statement. And good god, take a look in the mirror when it comes to demanding that people recognize that we all have our truths to share.

  136. And by the way, I didn’t say a thing about Clinton here and I didn’t support Clinton in the primary. And I still have serious issues with where you’re coming from. But it’s a lot easier to write all criticism off as coming from rich whiners or racists than address our complaints about your lump-em-all-together accusations. If that’s what’s passing as activism work these days — backing up a shoddy argument by pretending somebody has called you “mammy” — we’re SOL as a thinking movement.

  137. Hey Renee,

    So while I don’t mean to offend you, or even belittle your sense of loss in any way, I will however challenge you to experience the same ferocity of emotion when a woman who is not as “accomplished” struggles to get through her day.

    I just wanted to say I quite liked that piece of your post. It’s one of the reasons why I started a politics check on my site – people just see the spectacle (like Kai said way back at the beginning of this process) and don’t pay attention to the follow through. Or forget (in a sense) that the government, like the media, is made up of thousands upon thousands of people who all have the power to create change but choose not to. These individual stories are important because they have the power to shape policy and ideas – but only if we hear them.

    As an aside, I’m just going to show you some love. And remind you that this space isn’t exactly safe. Please be careful what part of yourself you give and show.

  138. In rereading Renee’s post, it’s hard to match up some of the interpretations with what is on the page. I’m not seeing where Renee down plays the sexism that Clinton faced, nor am I seeing where she says that the issues particular to wealthy white women are unimportant.

    It’s not there, period. But it’s interesting how it becomes the most important thing that she said except she didn’t say it.

    And who here was called a racist again?

  139. Wow. Renee, thanks for your post.

    I cannot believe that the very second comment on here instructed Renee to “Shut up”. Right out of the gate this has been a hostile thread, and I’m really appalled that so many commentors can’t see how the several commentors responding to this post have made it that way.

  140. You seem to have missed my comments about how reducing HRC to subhuman categories has a ripple effect amongst all women.

    If she can be treated that way, what does that mean for the rest of us?

    I’d like to revisit that particular phrase, because it illustrates for me a part of the disconnect I felt with the whole mourning meme. I don’t believe that if Hillary were treated with the same soft-pedaled treatment reserved for white male candidates, that it would mean anything for the common, average, everyday woman. She occupies an elite position, and for women similarly situated, it might be a boost—but for the rest of us? I don’t think so.

    I do believe that some Hillary supporters thought that HRC being treated like the rest of us was a demotion for her.

  141. I certainly don’t want to set the agenda at all times (that’s way too much responsibility for me), and I’d shoot myself in my own foot before I would EVER refer to any woman as “mammy,” or think of her that way either. When I said to learn your audience, I meant that you were making some assumptions (which aren’t always bad) about the readers of this site that I didn’t think were true. Specifically, that in working hard to get a female nominee on the ballot we were forgetting about working women, beaten women, homeless women, women of color, LGBT women, etc. That’s problematic here because a) many people here have mentioned the work they do with/for these communities, oftentimes as their profession; and b) many people here belong to these communities, as someone above pointed out. (I know I do.) But instead of recognizing that, your post admonished us as if it would be the first anyone here ever thought about these issues – even though lots of folks here are living them. (I know I am.) That’s patronizing, Renee, and I’m surprised that you’re surprised by the negative response. Using a phrase like “plaintive wails” doesn’t help, either.

    The “learn your audience” also referred to how you graciously explained that simply electing a figure head wouldn’t solve racism or sexism. As I stated in that comment, it’s safe to say that the audience here knows that.

    Also? You mention that you believe that even if HRC were elected to president, she wouldn’t be able to make any substansive changes in women’s lives anyway. Well. Number one, I don’t think this is true – lots of bills that would get vetoed now wouldn’t if she were president. Number two, by extrapolation, you’re pissing on all the work that people did to try and get her nominated, by saying it had no value; nothing would change anyway. Of course they’re going to respond angrily. Wouldn’t you? (FWIW, I voted for Obama for both my senator and in the primary. So please don’t think I’m coming at this from an angle that I’m not.)

    What we need as a movement is to feel true rage, and injustice every time a woman is marginalized, abused or exploited, whether or not we can identify with her life experience or not.

    HRC is still a woman of incredible privilege. I think the privilege aspect of it all is where the disconnect begins for me.

    As evidenced by the above two quotes, straight from your pen, this was a confusing post. Not only did you fail to heed your own advice (above), but there was much to your words that, as kat said, you’re refusing to own and be aware of, implication-wise. From reading this website for the last few years, I have learned that it’s a rough and tumble place where you better be aware of exactly what comes out of your mouth. Every damn time I come here I think of the cantina scene in Star Wars, for fuck’s sake. But I’m a just a racist who only wants you to shut up, right? (That must be why I’ve taken so much time to address this. Because I DON’T care!)

  142. backing up a shoddy argument by pretending somebody has called you “mammy” — we’re SOL as a thinking movement.

    WHat I am suggesting is that this is the typical silencing behavior that womanist receive in the blogosphere, and this is why the womanist movement continue to grow. But don’t acknowledge it as bullying, tear down my argument, throw stones, deny your privilege, do you feel empowered now?

  143. When I said to learn your audience, I meant that you were making some assumptions (which aren’t always bad) about the readers of this site that I didn’t think were true.

    Wow not all self involved eh? Actually I was expressing my truth. But don’t worry I sho nuff knows my place now missus.

  144. And I find it bullying that instead of responding to thoughtful critiques — I wouldn’t blame you for ignoring or shutting down nasty posts, but a number of people have written long, multi-point arguments here that you have completely ignored — you call “silencing” and imply that the people who disagree with you are calling you or treating you as a “mammy” — something I’m sure almost everyone here would find deeply abhorrent — or other negative stereotypes of black women. That, to me, feels like an effort to shame critics into shutting up. And when language like this (mammy, gold teeth, ass shaking) is being thrown around, to respond to Radfem, the accusation of racism is very well implied and understood, whether or not it’s said out loud. So it’s pretty unfair to keep accusing the critical commentors on this post of derailing when they’re responding to an implicit charge.

  145. Oh, honestly. I checked out your blog, Renee, and I rather liked it. But after those two last comments I won’t bother reading your posts here anymore.

  146. that, to me, feels like an effort to shame critics into shutting up.

    Right now it is shaming to speak my truth, any more twists to the journey you want to add? Bottom line I am sick of commentary being attributed to me that I did not say. No one bothered to deal with the question in the post which is where do we go from here.

    And when language like this (mammy, gold teeth, ass shaking) is being thrown around, to respond to Radfem, the accusation of racism is very well implied and understood, whether or not it’s said out loud. So it’s pretty unfair to keep accusing the critical commentors on this post of derailing when they’re responding to an implicit charge.

    No I didn’t throw ass shaking at Radfem, perhaps it is time you use the scroll button. I have yet to see critical commentary. All I can see are HRC supporters complaining because I might have ripped the band aid off a little to quickly for their comfort.

    I wrote that post with great respect. Was she a victim of sexist attacks by the media, no doubt, but at the end of the day when she proudly packed up her bag, and walked off the stage with a class, and a grace that was remarkable, HRC is still a woman of incredible privilege. But I am not here to parrot your thoughts, I am here to state my own. My issue is with the under privileged of this world and I think feminism spends too much of its limited energy on the elite and like it or not Hillary is elite. Many of the comments on this thread where overly aggressive and silencing, plain and simple. There was no discussion what this was is a swarm. I felt like chum in a sea of shark. Take a scroll to refresh your memory. This is a tactic as a WOC of color that I am very experienced with, so guess what you don’t get to tell me how to feel about it, or how to react to it. I am ones ‘unwoman’.

  147. You misunderstood me, let me rephrase:

    I am responding to Radfem: when language like this (mammy, gold teeth, ass shaking) is being thrown around, the accusation of racism is very well implied and understood, whether or not it’s said out loud. So it’s pretty unfair to keep accusing the critical commentors on this post of derailing when they’re responding to an implicit charge.

    But beyond that correction, I’m done. There’s nothing constructive happening here.

  148. @carolH : “If you are a fan of Michelle Obama and a feminist, how do you fell about her recent “makeover” and appearance on The View? I find it repellent that the spouse of a presidential candidate has to make herself into a non-threatening traditional wife in order to further the candidacy of her husband? I lost respect for her when she agree to do it.”

    When you say things like this, you are going to get commentary similar to what I said about BET.

    Why? I also lost respect for Hillary Rodham when she changed her name to Clinton and gave out cookie recipes to help her husband win his election. She got it back when she won election to the senate and ran for president.

    My loss of respect for Michelle Obama has nothing to do with her color and everything to do with my feminism. I don’t like educated, professional, successful women pretending to be something they aren’t and that goes for a white woman like Hillary Clinton and a black one like Michelle Obama.

    In my ideal world if Barack Obama won the presidency Michelle Obama would get a great job at a DC hospital similar to the one she had in Chicago. She would have a career of her own other than “first lady”, an offensive title in 2008. I know it won’t happen, though, and she’ll plan state dinners and preside over the Easter egg roll like all the other presidential wives.

  149. Renee, I’m sorry that you were attacked for perfectly honest feelings. Let’s hope people can put this behind them in the future, and please let me extend to you a public hand in thanking you for your contributions to Feministe despite your nasty responses from commenters.

    Being a Clinton supporter, I’m obviously aware that there are legitimate reasons that the Obama win was an affront, but it also makes clear in retrospect that many Clinton supporters are not pissed off at Obama per se, but at the sexism and misogyny that Clinton faced in the primary, via Howard Dean and the DRC, etc.

    The “Clinton voters won’t back Obama” meme is a pervasive but largely ineffective win over the racist, anti-feminist media, and yes, I’m pissed about Olbermann (my love) and others who pushed this “Clinton didn’t get nothing coming to her” myth, but I know Obama isn’t alone in his feminist voters. Partly because of Michelle’s shining representation of a feminist future. She’s a goddamned shining personification for the future of feminism, and I’m proud to see her backing a viable candidate regardless of her relationship to him.

    Let’s not forget that.

    Michelle Obama is badass, and it only does us good to see more of her in the mainstream media. Period.

  150. I’d like to revisit that particular phrase, because it illustrates for me a part of the disconnect I felt with the whole mourning meme. I don’t believe that if Hillary were treated with the same soft-pedaled treatment reserved for white male candidates, that it would mean anything for the common, average, everyday woman. She occupies an elite position, and for women similarly situated, it might be a boost—but for the rest of us? I don’t think so.

    I agree. I don’t agree at all with the sexism and misogyny she faced but I didn’t really see her as being all that great for women. Oh maybe relatively few but there’s so much crap going on with women and girls in this country right now that she’s not protesting or saying that she’ll anything differently than what the others are doing.

    What is next for feminists? Interesting feminist not that I really care much about that, because in many movements involving women, White feminists in particular aren’t really there anyway and maybe after seeing how they conduct themselves when confronted on racial privilege on some of these sites, it’s for the best. God forbid they get their feelings hurt.

  151. @ carolH..I understand your position. I will however point out to you that though you may see it as unnecessary conforming to patriarchal impulses Michelle Obama is well aware of what she represents to WOC, which is change. We have historically had only negative portrayal by the media and so even if it is the view (a program I deplore) it is a welcome change for us.

  152. LaLubu:

    “I don’t believe that if Hillary were treated with the same soft-pedaled treatment reserved for white male candidates, that it would mean anything for the common, average, everyday woman.”

    I’ll bore you with this again from Pastor Martin Niemöller (I know you recently saw it here)

    “First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.”

    So basically if it’s not important that Hillary be treated like similarly situated men because she’s luckier than most of us, is it not important that I be treated like similarly situated male partners in recruiting firms, or that you be treated like similarly situated union employees, because both of us are better off than women who do cleaning work? Is it unimportant that women who do manual labor be treated like similarly situated men because they are better off than homeless women in this country? Is it unimportant that homeless women in this country be treated like similarly situated men because they are better off than homeless women in other countries? Get where this is going?

  153. And in case what I wrote gets interpreted as being an apologist for trickle down, obviously change needs to happen at both ends. However, it’s indisputable to me that what happens to our visible representatives, whether that’s HRC or Michelle Obama or Brandi Chastain or Lisa Leslie or Janet Jackson, or to a lesser degree the plotlines on Sex and the City or Girlfriends, does matter. People see it, hear it, talk about it. Media shapes if not controls opinion, and actions.

    This country has a ton of flaws, but it’s easier to jump wealth classes here than in many other places, and role models play a role, so to speak, in that. (The lack of institutions for gathering of women of all classes, and the absence of effective mentoring channels, as we’ve discussed elsewhere, are key drawbacks to this working optimally, of course).

  154. So basically if it’s not important that Hillary be treated like similarly situated men because she’s luckier than most of us, is it not important that I be treated like similarly situated male partners in recruiting firms, or that you be treated like similarly situated union employees, because both of us are better off than women who do cleaning work? Is it unimportant that women who do manual labor be treated like similarly situated men because they are better off than homeless women in this country? Is it unimportant that homeless women in this country be treated like similarly situated men because they are better off than homeless women in other countries? Get where this is going?

    The problem with the analogy that you gave (and I didn’t read it as being an apologist for trickle down) was that it’s being addressed to the women further down on the heirarchy and used to admonish women in the middle or women who don’t embrace Clinton, Hilllary Clinton when in actuality it should be addressed to and used to admonish and remind Clinton and others in her position. First they come for Clinton (because if she’s treated badly then what about other women) the anology reads but first in actuality, the higher in economic class and social status a woman is, the further down in the future (not the sooner) it is that it will come to them. They are more protected, even when bad things happen to them. They still have access to resources and tools that many women don’t. They have a national audience for their treatment when many women don’t for their.

    The “Jews” in this case aren’t Clinton and other women in her relatively privileged positions. They are the undocument immigrant women, they are the homeless women, they are the sex workers forced to do this to survive, They are the women whose status as grandmothers (usually a revered position in a community)doesn’t protect them from being shot to death in their own homes by those who are supposed to protect and serve them. It’s the most vulnerable women in our society who are the “Jews” or the “Communists” and a lot of the times, many of us haven’t stood for or with them. I think it’s this that would produce if anything more of a trickle up than a trickle down. By the time, anything negative happens to Clinton, it’s already happened much worse over and over to many women.

    I think I see the “me” at the end as Clinton and again, others of her stature more than other women. Because many women have been the “Jews”, the “Communists” (both literally and from the viewpoint of comparative analogy) way even before Clinton was born.

    And a lot of the women I know, I’m sorry but there’s just this huge disconnect between them and their experiences and Clinton and hers. And that in ways is a sad thing because it should be different in my opinion but it’s just not.

  155. So basically if it’s not important that Hillary be treated like similarly situated men because she’s luckier than most of us,

    I didn’t say that. Didn’t say anything about its importance. Just an observation that trickle-down respect doesn’t seem to be operative—-it’s something folks tend to hope for, but it doesn’t happen. Trickle-up respect however, (meaning: when a community is powerful enough to demand respect for its members) does. That is all. I agree that media has an influence, and that’s why deregulation and corporate monopoly of media is so damaging—they know they can get away with that shit because of their size.

    Meanwhile, I’m going back to the conversation we’re having at your joint—that gave me food for thought.

  156. thank you Jesurgislac for your first comment. I’m sure the others in the thread were spot on as well, but, this thread is longer than I have time to read on this shared computer right now.
    Bbefore anyone “you”s me, decides I am “they”
    be aware
    I am working class poor, single mother, “exotic” “ethnic” “other”
    with a rainbow family.

    The sexism surrounding the presidential race as it was directed at Clinton and how it is currently being re-directed at the potential first wives (both wealthy women, one African-American and one married to an elderly man) is not justified or acceptable. It is something feminists can come together to fight against. Even if the woman being attacked is not the minority du jour. Please refrain from making a site titled feministe a place where women can go to be dismissed and hear isms being compared.
    Women are being discriminated against. Lets work to stop that from happening to any of US.

  157. Yes, it really sucks that some women could possible fall in the category of winners. WTF? Do we have to drag all women down to be fair? Can’t we try to raise us all up instead? Why be pissed off that somebody got close to getting something they deserved? Do you think she never had to work for what she had?

  158. wow, brilliant. This is the first time I’ve seen HRC being blamed for Obama being a giant sell out. kudos to you, obamabot.

  159. ALL WOMEN no matter how powerful or wealthy are second class citizens. In that sense, we are equals. We bond as class women.

    For what is done or learned by one class of women becomes, by virtue of their common womanhood, the property of all women. –Elizabeth Blackwell

  160. When Clinton traveled to 80 countries, she changed the perception of women forever. ALL WOMEN. When she was attacked in the primary, ALL WOMEN were attacked.

  161. Even if the woman being attacked is not the minority du jour
    Comments like this are WOC retreat from feminism and increasingly call themselves womnanists…keep alienating people.

    Do we have to drag all women down to be fair? Can’t we try to raise us all up instead?
    As the post implied it is not about dragging women down it is about focusing our energies on something that will help a larger group of women. Historically feminism has been about rich white women. I questioning if whether in the next big organizing push it can maybe deal with that are related to poverty, or disability etc…the focus needs to change if we are going to have a more inclusive movemenet.

    ALL WOMEN. When she was attacked in the primary, ALL WOMEN were attacked.
    No..her class of women were attacked they don’t bother to pick on poor women the same way. …please, yes she was a woman but as a physical body incapable of representing all women

  162. Renee, it sure appears that you made a big splash here at Feministe! I love what you have to say and understand it too, unfortunately I find that sometimes when WOC and white women get together it’s like we are speaking two different languages, and of course it’s frustrating all around when we apparently can’t communicate to each other what we mean.

    Like your BET comment, I understood exactly what you meant. There are so very few role models for black women, the portrayal in the media and the general public stage is limited to a handful of stereotypes, so if one of the few new portrayals with a positive impact is attacked, it’s like saying—don’t step out of line, black women, and expect a better image than the ones we have decided are approved, like the rump shaker or mammy.

    I agree with La Lubu, treatment of women gets better as the most marginalized gets respect and dignity, not the other way around. I think this is especially insightful, “I do believe that some Hillary supporters thought that HRC being treated like the rest of us was a demotion for her.” All I know is that if most women got the same treatment as Hillary Clinton they would feel it is a step UP from business as usual. If all I ever had to deal with is someone calling me a bitch or telling me to iron their shirt I’d think life was pretty good. That’s why Donna Darko’s last comment is backwards. When the least of us is attacked thats when all women are attacked, the worst treatment is reserved for the marginalized and it trickles up to the most privileged women among us.

  163. Whereas when a poor woman of color such as Megan Williams is publicly attacked, women similarly marginalized by gender, class and race are harmed. The media blamed her for her own torture, rape and near-murder and the same treatment would not be given to a privileged white woman. When a privileged white woman is disrespected by the media, all women are fair game.

  164. Whereas when a poor woman of color such as Megan Williams is publicly attacked, women similarly marginalized by gender, class and race are harmed. The media blamed her for her own torture, rape and near-murder and the same treatment would not be given to a privileged white woman. When a privileged white woman is disrespected by the media, all women are fair game.

  165. Donna Darko, do you realize just how fundamentally authortarian (and stratified) the sentiment you propose is? If the leader is injured in pride, then all of his followers are also injured in pride, and therefore we should all go to war to restore our dignity.

    I mean, the mirror argument is the kind of thing I expect to hear from rednecks. Or any ethnic group that is highly concious of another group’s standing. You *do* know that women are a gender, not an ethnic group, right? That there isn’t any such thing as a spoils system for women, should they “win”? It is entirely spurious for someone to believe in an equal impact on women, when gender is so mediated by race, class, appearance, and age.

    It is not spurious, though to believe that attention from the ground up tends to increase the power of women everywheres, simply for the fact that you increase the number of women who are *able* to compete at higher and higher levels. Moreover, as that classic XKCD comic shows, what truly shows any group’s acceptance into society as a normal, fully human being, is the idea that your mistakes don’t translate as the mistake of the group you are percieved as belonging to. Hillary Clinton should be celebrated as someone who has achieved beyond what most women has been able to reach, but to *identify* with Hillary Clinton to a great extent is to tempt people away putting attention and resources into having more women who can succeed (like that whole mini-storm over Hillary being the only eligible female VP). There is also the risk that Hillary Clinton’s mistakes become identified with the rest of the female political class. Two-way street, you know…

  166. I am not talking about any leader. I am only talking about class, race and gender.

    If the media disrespects a privileged (read rich) white woman, all women will be fair game. If the media disrespects a poor woman of color, the media will disrespect poor women of color. For example, Williams was relatively ignored by the media until bloggers demanded more attention. If a rich white woman had been in the same situation, it would have been the story of the year.

    To be clear, IN BOTH CASES, ALL WOMEN ARE ATTACKED.

    I’m talking about the direct consequences of media treatment.

  167. But the medial doesn’t disrespect all women equally. When White middle-class or affluent women get killed or disappear, the media gives them so much more attention than when women of color are killed or disappear (in this case, there’s very little or nothing). And as odious and sexist as the media treats women, in cases of disappearance especially, it can be very valuable at finding out what happened to these women or at least in pressuring LE agencies to assign more detectives or evidence technicians to a case.

    I saw that happen locally in two parallel cases involving hit and runs of two women, one Black and one White. The Black woman had the minimum two homicide detectives assigned to her case and it’s gone cold since it happened five years ago. The White women had eight detectives, two evidence techs and the homicide sergeant working on it. It cleared in 72 hours and the man involved was convicted of her murder several months ago. It’s pretty much like that in other cases with the exception being if the murder of a Latino or Black individual gets a lot of media attention for some reason.

    And as said, if the media respects a poor and/or woman of color, then it will trickle up to impact wealthier or middle-class powerful White women on occasion.

  168. But the medial doesn’t disrespect all women equally. When White middle-class or affluent women get killed or disappear, the media gives them so much more attention than when women of color are killed or disappear (in this case, there’s very little or nothing). And as odious and sexist as the media treats women, in cases of disappearance especially, it can be very valuable at finding out what happened to these women or at least in pressuring LE agencies to assign more detectives or evidence technicians to a case.

    I saw that happen locally in two parallel cases involving hit and runs of two women, one Black and one White. The Black woman had the minimum two homicide detectives assigned to her case and it’s gone cold since it happened five years ago. The White women had eight detectives, two evidence techs and the homicide sergeant working on it. It cleared in 72 hours and the man involved was convicted of her murder several months ago. It’s pretty much like that in other cases with the exception being if the murder of a Latino or Black individual gets a lot of media attention for some reason.

    And as said, if the media respects a poor and/or woman of color, then it will trickle up to impact wealthier or middle-class powerful White women on occasion.

  169. “If the media disrespects a privileged (read rich) white woman, all
    women will be fair game. If the media disrespects a poor woman of
    color, the media will disrespect poor women of color. For example,
    Williams was relatively ignored by the media until bloggers demanded
    more attention. If a rich white woman had been in the same situation,
    it would have been the story of the year.

    To be clear, IN BOTH CASES, ALL WOMEN ARE ATTACKED.”

    It just …doesn’t make any ~sense~. The Better Viewed People among a group
    don’t carry the burden of the people on the lower rungs when the lower
    rungs get screwed, dammit. If it worked that way the earth would’ve
    found Utopia by now, because people don’t like burdens and the Better
    Situated at the beginning of society’s creation who were ‘carrying’
    the pain of the people on the lower rungs would’ve helped to fix the mess. In other words we’d have equality by now. But there isn’t, as of yet, equality, because the people at the top of the heap aren’t attacked when the people at the bottom get screwed. This one seems to hang on qualifiers more than female. Women are treated as women differently based on what other qualifiers they also have. You can’t just separate woman from poor, or woman from black, or …well, the list goes on.

    What you seem to be talking about could be considered a spin on the Trickle Down Theory. “Treat this rich white woman better, because then the goodness will slide on down to you, or at least, hopefully, you won’t get treated any worse than you already are”.

    And you know? I didn’t see that Trickle Down Theory working in Hillary’s favor based on other groups she belongs to, either. I don’t remember any men that are part of Hillary’s qualifiers (the culture she belongs to, fer instance) going to their fellows, “Damn, dude, we’ve been lax! We really need to share this pie with all these women who also resembles us because we’ve a lot of the same experiences, run in the same social circles, eat the same food…”, I certainly don’t remember seeing that, no. So why would one qualifier (gender) being treated better when it’s also attached solely to the qualifiers ‘rich and ‘white’ in the media, how is that supposed to help women who aren’t also rich and white? Those affects aren’t going to trickle down to those poor women and women of color because (I don’t think) most people associate Hillary with living disadvantaged lives. Because, for the record, when I hear the name “Hillary Clinton”, the first thing that comes to mind are other rich white women in her situation, which aren’t ~nearly~ all women. So I really doubt better gender-based media representation for Clinton is going to help the bulk of women in general.

    If the media disrespects a privileged (read rich) white woman, all women will be fair game.”

    The rest of the women are ~already~ considered fair game.

Comments are currently closed.