2008 shows the silliness of old-school feminism

[George_Bonanza]

I generally dislike Third Way Feminism because to me, it feels too much like a cave-in to patriarchal demands on women whilst keeping up a facade of empowerment. I respect the stereotypical "bra-burning" feminists more because they're not afraid of pissing off anyone.

But I think the 2008 Democratic primary season has been the death knell of whatever relevance the old school of feminism has had in these contemporary times. From disrespectful statements like Gloria Steinem's "But Blacks had the vote 50 years before women!" to the anger management case that was the NOW response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, to the latest editorial by Erica Jong, it's clear to me that paleo-feminists are confused and irrelevant. For some reason, they've deified Hillary Clinton to the point where an attack on her is an attack on (white) womanhood worldwide. Apparently, she's so flawless a candidate that the only way she could possibly lose is if the evil American patriarchy, one that's suddenly smitten with Black men, does everything in its power to take her down.

So Hillary has given a lot to politics and may not win the ultimate prize. So what? John McCain, after a lifetime of service and two attempted suicides in a POW camp, may end his career with merely a senate office. Hillary has already achieved more than most politicians can even dreams of: she is a prominent senator from an important state, and a star in the Democratic party. She is NOT entitled to the presidency just because she happens to be the only viable woman around (which is a lie, since there are other great, nay better, women in the Democratic party).

No wonder feminism has become such a poisonous term with these paleo-ideological dinosaurs still trying to speak for women today.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Didn't know that about NOW

personally, I'm looking at the race on issues, not race or gender. Still wish Kucinich were in the race.

[ieoeja]

36. For the record that was only the NY state chapter of NOW.

President of NY-NOW authored two really off the wall articles in which she flat out accused every single person not voting for Hillary as doing so because they hate women.

The two biggest women's rights organizations, NARAL and NOW, are split on whom they endorse, Obama and Clinton respectively. But neither organization at the national level has been particularly negative on the other candidate. From an article on the front page of NOW's website:

"Neither women nor African Americans are a monolithic population when it comes to voting or anything else. The insinuation that women owe Hillary their allegiance or blacks owe Barack not only leaves African American women, white male Democrats, and any other minority within our voting electorate in an impossible quandary, it is a disservice to the larger political debate about who is the most qualified candidate with the strongest political agenda to lead our country – now. And while our willingness to finally engage the race and gender conversations as a nation is encouraging, we're talking about electing the person in charge of the most powerful nation in the world, not identity politics."

http://www.now.org/news/note/011808.html

As you can see at the national level, NOW is pretty fair to Obama.

[George_Bonanza]

38. Thanks for that info

I'm relieved to know that that particular article was by a rogue branch of NOW.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. thank you!

I appreciate the information and link.

[LordJFT]

181. NARAL endorsed both Clinton and Obama

[LisaM]

2. Wow....agist AND sexist

It sounds as if it's only OLD women (or paleo, as you so elegantly phrase it) that you don't like.

It's also true that black men were given voting rights 50 years prior to women. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. A lot of early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were also abolitionists and worked hard to end slavery and GET black men the vote. They agreed with them that it WAS more important for black men to get the vote than women, and worked to help them achieve it. When the time came for the favor to be returned, it was not.

I strongly suggest that you rent "Not For Ourselves Alone", the Ken Burns video about Stanton and Anthony.

[Independent-Voter]

4. Try Realist. The OP is right on target.

[theHandpuppet]

15. You're the same poster who called HRC a "shrill bitch"

I think you really should withdraw your credentials to speak out on anything remotely resembling feminist issues.

[progressive_realist]

165. I'll second that. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

157. It's obvious you responded to the thread header, didn't read the post at all.

That's just lame, Mr. "Independent-Voter."

[George_Bonanza]

7. And all men were created equal. Those Blacks have had it good since 1776

If you're going to try and use that disingenuous "50 years" argument, then why don't you go back to the Declaration of Independence and try and claim that Black guys had it easy because the document said that "All men were created equal". Those Blacks had it easy since 1776!

[LisaM]

12. Did you even read what I wrote? No one said any such thing.

But it is a fact that the early suffragists worked VERY hard on the abolition movement and never even lived to vote themselves.

[George_Bonanza]

18. Some suffragettes were racist too

And trying to claim that the 15th amendment was NOT obstructed by Jim Crow laws, KKK, and voter disenfranchisement (which goes on to this day!) is either stupidity or intellectual dishonesty.

[VotesForWomen]

111. and some black men are sexist. what's your point? nt

[DemBones DemBones]

158. I call bullshit on that claim. You're posting a lot of sexist crap here.

What kind of Democrat are you?

We know you're male and misogynistic. Got any progressive beliefs?

[Darth_Kitten]

84. Uh, women haven't had it easy SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME??

Hello?

[VotesForWomen]

112. stop making sense. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

43. I think Jim Crow would disagree about the Black vote.

[Alexander]

96. In some areas Jim Crow stayed until the 21st century. See: Florida 2000.

[DemBones DemBones]

166. The fact remains that black MEN were given the right to vote in 1870

while women of all skin colors were not given the vote until 1920. Women were also discouraged from voting, told it was "unladylike," threatened and even beaten by husbands or fathers. I can remember when it was legal for men to beat their wives and to rape them. It wasn't a crime if the victim was your wife, she was essentially your property.

Women were also kept out of some colleges and universities, some professions, some clubs, until long after the new feminism began. There is still a glass ceiling and a lot of subtle discrimination. Some of it isn't so subtle. In the Eighties, I had prospective employers (male) ask me my marital status, if I had children, who would care for them while I worked -- all completely illegal by then, and probably still going on today.

Blacks had it worse, no doubt. I'm not arguing about that. I remember the Jim Crow laws.

I also remember that black Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm who ran for president in 1968 said later in her life that she had faced more discrimination as a woman than as a black. Nobody attacked her for saying that, as I recall.

As a white woman, I've been discriminated against because of my sex but I was surprised that a black woman would say that being a woman was more difficult for her than being black.

[Reterr]

101. Yep-ageist (check), sexist (check)

You hit the nail on the head. And assuming we are all too stupid to get the sub-text...

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

185. The OP is right on

"It's also true that black men were given voting rights 50 years prior to women. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. "

Its also true that under the constitution you could not buy or sell a woman but you could an African American... Its also (as with voting rights) a completely irrelevant fact brought out so someone can 'out victim' the other..

[izquierdista]

3. Agree 100%

After her health care flop in 1993, I wouldn't trust her with anything more challenging than highway beautification, like Lady Bird Johnson's pet cause.

[Olney Blue]

63. Please don't demean highway beautification and Lady Bird. I think this is one

of the most positive contributions to our country ever. Have you ever driven in North Carolina in the summer?

[izquierdista]

66. How was I demeaning highway beautification?

That WAS a significant accomplishment, unlike the 1993 health care fiasco.

[Olney Blue]

67. the phrase "anything more challenging than highway beautification"

hit me the wrong way- glad to hear I was wrong :hi:

[Der Blaue Engel]

5. Yeah, those old hags are just confused and irrelevant

And Hillary should be grateful she was allowed to run for any office at all.

:sarcasm:

[LisaM]

6. Can you belive that? Paleofeminists?

There is nothing society hates more than an old woman. Honestly!

For whatever reason, ever since Edwards got out of the race, I have turned into Super Feminist. I didn't know how strong my feelings were, but I have become really charged up and have suddenly started to notice how sexist our society is. I still don't know why it's wrong to say that women were the last group in this country to get the vote! It's true, AND it's relevant.

[Der Blaue Engel]

51. I'm an Edwards voter turned Hillary supporter in part due to comments like these

I didn't particularly care who got the nomination out of the two corporate candidates (aside from the bad taste in my mouth from the McClurkin incident), but this thinly disguised mysogynist rhetoric really ramped up post-Edwards suspension and put me over the edge.

I find myself feeling like I did when I was in my early 20s and first got fired up about the women's movement. I'd gotten complacent, thinking we'd really made more progress than we had.

[LisaM]

60. Tell me about it.

I didn't even know I HAD these feelings bottled up.

[DemBones DemBones]

74. Men want women to be whores or madonnas and die young

so their poor widdle eyes don't have to see any older women.

Also, they know that the older we get, the more likely we are to kick their sexist, ageist asses!

:kick:

I'm supporting Hillary because she's more experienced, more progressive, and doesn't just lead pep rallies but lays out plans to solve problems.

I am not supporting her because she's a woman. In fact, I'd much prefer to have a white man named Dennis Kucinich be president.

:kick:

It's very tiresome that the Obamaniacs keep starting threads claiming women are only supporting Hillary because she's a woman. Though I believe in voting based on qualifications, I don't have a problem with people who are basing their vote on sex or race; it is their vote, after all. If some women are voting for the woman candidate because she's a woman and some blacks are voting for the black candidate because he's black, white men need to stop whining about it.

White men have been voting for other white men since the first US election, in the 18th century. Black men couldn't vote until the 19th century and women of any color had to wait another fifty years, until the 20th century. This is the first time that a woman or a black have been viable candidates so it's a first opportunity for women and blacks to vote for someone who's like them.

[hfojvt]

91. we simply cannot believe

anybody would be supporting her because she is more progressive. I'd have the same kind of mental disconnect if a Kucinich supporter told me they were supporting McCain.

[VotesForWomen]

113. you can project anything you want on to O; that doesn't make him progressive. nt

[DemBones DemBones]

156. Is that the royal we speaking?

What do you find progressive about Obama? That he claims he would have voted against the IWR? I would have voted against the IWR so why not vote for me? I can talk about hope and change, too.

Obama has voted repeatedly to continue funding the war, so he's not truly anti-war. The Dems could force * to bring the troops home by cutting off the funding

Obama has cited Ronald Reagan as changing America. Why not cite * ?

Reagan put the economy in the toilet and * has spent eight years driving it down. It's said that the economy is at its worst in 25 years. Guess who was prez 25 years ago? Reagan. With GHWB as his VP.

Hillary Clinton can beat McCain in November and she is a damned sight more progressive than he is. I think she's more progressive than Obama, too. She's not as progressive as Kucinich but for some reason most DUers insist on going with the candidates the media supports. Either I vote for Clinton or I write in Kucinich or stay home; which will do more good?

The media is salivating over Obama now because he's the guy the GOP wants to run against. They're talking about how popular Obama is even after primaries in which Hillary has done better than he did. Aren't you onto their game yet?

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Well, they ARE a little confused - they want us to go back to the 90s

while they themselves are stuck in the 60s.

Old radicals never die - they just become irrelevant.

[Darth_Kitten]

86. Sad that in 40 odd years women are still being treated as irrelevant?

But I suppose those in the Civil Rights movement never use the 60's as any kind of excuse EVER, huh? :eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

143. They are using 60s arguments to back a 90s feminist icon

for president in the 21st century.

You are aware are that a great many modern feminists do NOT back Hillary, aren't you? As I said, old radicals become irrelevant - they continue to fight the old battles in the old ways with the old rhetoric, despite whatever is actually happening on the ground. Where do you think the term "young Turks" came from? As much as I might respect what they once did, they just don't do it anymore - the culture has passed them by. They were products of the 50s and 60s - just take a look at 'Mad Men' on AMC, or check out "The Apartment" to see if you recognise that culture at ALL.

There's a whole nother fight going on today, and they just don't seem to get it. This isn't about the guys in the office wondering how to deal with that girl who might be promoted over them as 2nd vice-president. Women have proven themselves as governors, senators, CEOs, and Hillary is running for President of the United States - the kind of sexism that they are talking about only exists among neanderthals who would never vote for a dem anyway.

Yet Hillary RUNS on sexism - "I'm your girl" coming from a 60+ year old woman is demeaning. She EXPECTS women to vote for her simply because she's a woman. Did she indicate that expectation when she was running for Senate? Of course not - because there have been plenty of female senators, and people expect the senators to get stuff done, whether male or female. IOW, it's ONLY because she's looking to break this mythical 'glass ceiling' that the old-school feminists are backing her. Well, that glass ceiling doesn't exist. The only reason there has not been a woman president yet is because only a bare few women have held that ambition AND had the credentials to be credible candidates. And I would be surprised if we don't have at least one credible female candidate from one party or another, at least every other election for the next few, and then every election, from here out.

The presidency is not an affirmative action position. And the people trying to stop Hillary are not the 'boys club' gossiping over the water cooler, but people who favor other candidates because of their positions and their agendas.

[NashVegas]

152. re: "I'm Your Girl" - What's She Supposed to Say?

"I'm your man" just doesn't quite cut it. If she said, "I'm your woman," would that be worthy of criticism as well?

[DemBones DemBones]

162. You seriously think there is no glass ceiling for women?

How long have you been in the workforce?

[XemaSab]

186. I'll back you up in part and say that the WORST most anti-feminist part

is referring to herself as "Hillary." x(

[Reterr]

100. "Old radicals never die - they just become irrelevant."

Yeah all those irrelevant old feminists, civil rights activists...to whome none of us owe anything of course. The arrogance and the stupidity in that sentence is incredible.

They are just now kewl anymore :eyes:? Not as kewl as "hope" and "change" and "yes we can"...
Now those are very relevant (if completely vague and undefined) ideas.

[George_Bonanza]

13. I'm not referring to their age, just their beliefs

Stop trying to disingenuously make me look like an "old hag hater".

[Der Blaue Engel]

47. I'm not making you look like anything

It was your post. You use words like "silly," "confused," and "irrelevant." You could have chosen other less loaded words, but you didn't.

[LostinVA]

68. Gays have also been recently called "irrelevant" on here, so I'm triple-damned

Female over 40, gay, feminist.

Oh boy. I'm such a Paleo.

[Der Blaue Engel]

104. I'm triple-damned, too

Quadruple-damned if you count atheism. Then there's the poly-damnation, pagan (yes, atheist/pagan, lol), BDSM, goth damnation...I'm actually collecting irrelevancies just to piss people off ;)

[LostinVA]

135. That's what I've always liked about you!

[TexasObserver]

14. Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Barbara Boxer, and many others didn't appeal to sexism as Hillary does

Hillary should be grateful anyone ever heard of her, because if she hadn't been married to Bill, no one would have ever heard of her. Without the Clinton name, she's Harriet Miers.

[Beaverhausen]

81. wow

are you in the right place?

[TexasObserver]

92. that's TWO

Are you sure YOU are in the right place?

Either accept that not everyone who is a Democrat believes as you, or find someone else to annoy. You get one more annoying comment to me, and then I dump you in the dumpster with the other emotionally disturbed posters. I don't need to read or see your comments, so if snarky is all you have, say Bye Bye Beaverhouse.

[Beaverhausen]

102. .

:rofl:

So, I guess you put me on ignore. You can dish it out but can't take it, eh? what a wuss!

[NCarolinawoman]

88. Maybe your name should be Tweety-Junior.

}(

[TexasObserver]

93. maybe your name should be Barbara Bush.

judging by your attitude and demeanor

[VotesForWomen]

114. so you don't think hillary helped bill get where he got? it was only the other way around? and

you expect people to take your criticisms of feminism seriously. heh.

[DemBones DemBones]

168. Oh, please. She graduated from Yale law school, worked as

a lawyer on the Watergate investigation, practiced law in Arkansas, and is a second-term Senator.

Like Michelle Obama, she helped her husband with his career, campaigning for him, being First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the US. She was also raising a daughter during those years. Then it was her turn to get into politics.

Who says a politician's wife isn't allowed to run for office? She was a separate human being, a very good student, and a lawyer before she was a wife. She was always keenly interested in politics, she's still very intelligent and focused and still a separate human being. She's not the first politician married to a politician to run for office, either.

I'm going to say it now: if Michelle Obama runs for office after her kids are grown, no Obama supporter will accuse her of riding on Barack's coattails.

[theboss]

8. This election is interesting in that it is sounding the final note of two 1960s movements

Obama is a black candidate who seemingly has no connection to the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s, either in lineage or ideology. He is connected to the 1980s and 1990s Civil Rights movement but clearly thinks in a language far removed from Civil Rights Era orthodoxy. And - fascinately - he is embraced by the black voters despite his sometimes heretical stances. After this election, the Rainbow Coaltion brand of protest and activism will seem completely antiquated.

Hillary, on the other hand, appears to be the last gasp of Baby Boomer era Feminism.
Since you addressed most of the reasons why I won't repeat them.

I honestly feel that history books in the future are going to mark 2008 as a historical marking post.

[Independent-Voter]

21. Great post - I completely agree

[theboss]

22. Well, I am brilliant

I have a lot of great posts.

[Independent-Voter]

31. lol

[theHandpuppet]

41. Yeah, you have a fan...

... who is so tuned in to feminist issues he called HRC a "shrill bitch".

[theboss]

48. I love all my fans

I'm like Justin that way.

[Independent-Voter]

134. If the shoe fits...

[Lorien]

78. Says the poster who calls Hillary a "Shrill Bitch"

how's your cave this time of year?

[Hoof Hearted]

124. Wow. I wish you were kidding but I'm guessing you're not. :-(

That's really ugly, but good information to know.

[Lorien]

79. What a boon to the long suffering white male, eh? n/t

[NJSecularist]

9. This is the best post in a long time

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

10. It is the death knell of the core of women who clamor to Hillary as a contemporary.

There's a strong contingent of 50 and older women who align with Hillary and see every event as Women v. Men. The world is viewed through the prism of some real or imagined event 40 plus years ago, attributed to sexism, which it very well might have been.

Thankfully, today's feminists have outgrown that, and view personal responsibility as the key component of feminism.

Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards succeeded because they didn't try to use their gender as their primary selling point. Likewise many other female governors and senators. I can't think of any major female politician in the party who has used an appeal to sexism as Hillary has done this year.

[Adelante]

16. THIS paleo-feminist dinosaur is not confused, but voting for Obama

You should learn a little respect for the elder women supporting both of our candidates. We went there when it mattered most.

[Frances]

40. So, is the original post a clever way to get McCain to win

the general election?

Divide the Democrats so the Republicans can conquer the election?

Why would any thinking Democrat alienate a very large block of reliable Dem voters: older women who have fought for civil and women's rights their whole lives?

That's just plain stupid IMO.

[Adelante]

42. I agree

Obama himself would be disgusted by this OP. Not least for its political stupidity.

[HeraldSquare212]

17. I just don't understand why the war vote doesn't disqualify her as a feminist. nt

[killbotfactory]

25. Brown people who talk funny don't count.

We only care about their plight when it gives us an excuse to invade and steal their natural resources.

[BeyondGeography]

19. What's the incarceration rate of white females compared with black men?

I forget.

[NMMNG]

33. What's the rate at which they commit crimes compared to any men

black or white?

You're comparing apples and oranges trying to make a case for discrimination. It's not going to work.

[NorthernSpy]

54. That depends: is war a crime?

If it is, Saint Hillary herself might sport a bit of tarnish on her halo.

[VotesForWomen]

115. what's the rate of white women vs. white men? true, there's racism in the system, but men just

plain commit more crimes than women.. sorry to be an old-school feminist and point that out.

[George_Bonanza]

20. Barbara Boxer: There's a tough woman whom I can completely respect

I think Steinem and Co. should hitch their wagons to a brighter star than Hillary's, or at least explore options.

[VotesForWomen]

116. i'll bet money if Boxer ran for prez, she'd get the same treatment hillary has. nt

[George_Bonanza]

146. Boxer never ran on her husband's credentials

And she never voted for the IWR either.

[Dhalgren]

23. You know the difference between ignorance and stupidity?

Ignorance can be alleviated by education, but stupidity, you're stuck with...

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

28. Yes, most Hillary supporters are both, however.

That's why they don't learn even when presented with facts.

[Dhalgren]

30. Oooooo, good one....

:rofl:

[incapsulated]

24. "Paleo-feminists", I guess they are the new "Feminazis"?

I don't think anyone said Hillary was flawless and should be elected simply because she is a woman.

I have see more sexism on "my side" spewing forth than I ever feared was really there and even more insulting language used when it was called out.

Now we are poison, thanks.

Why do I keep coming back here, I must really be a masochist, I can read garbage like this at freeperville.

[VotesForWomen]

117. yep; it's dem-speak for feminazi. nt

[Iceburg]

26. Belittling the female species again /nt

[StoryTeller]

27. I strongly disagree with the premise of this post.

I am an Obama supporter. I'm also a woman in my early 30's. There are things about feminism that I don't agree with--mostly the stereotypes such as "man-hating" or "have to act/dress like a man to get equal treatment."

But to term it "silly" is incredibly ignorant and disrespectful, in my opinion, toward the sacrifices and hard work feminists have done to ensure that I, as a young woman, have the opportunities that I have.

I own my own business, I have hours toward a master's degree. When I had my daughter, I could breast feed her in public, and I could have had maternity leave if I was working for someone else. (Self-employed...didn't have that option.) It's okay for me to choose not to have children, or to have a career instead of staying home--if that's what I want. It's even okay for my husband to be a stay-at-home dad if that's what we want.

I know there's still a lot of inequity and oppression toward women, but these older women--my mothers and grandmothers--gave me a world that is a little less oppressive. A little more equal.

Don't denigrate their achievements and sacrifices.

I have chosen to support Obama because I believe that he will be a better president than Senator Clinton. There was a big part of me that wanted to support her because she is a woman. I totally understand why any woman of any age would want to vote for Sen. Clinton. And it's more than just her being a woman. There are many good qualities about her and many good ideas that she has.

But the presidency isn't about making a statement or crashing through glass ceilings. It's about choosing who we personally think will make the best leader for our country. So I chose Obama because there are leadership qualities that are important to me that Obama has and Clinton does not have (or at least not to the same degree).

But it angers me deeply to see anyone, especially a fellow Democrat and Obama supporter, posting insulting and condescending remarks about a movement that has fought hard to give me and other women the life we now have. It was not a perfect movement, but it did what it could to bring justice to people who desperately needed it. And for that, it deserves our respect and our gratitude. Not our disdain.

[George_Bonanza]

32. Every great movement comes to an end

I completely respect the accomplishments that the feminists have accomplished, but it's my belief that their philosophies that form the basis of their contention that an attack on Hillary is a biracial patriarchal conspiracy is one that needs to be laid to rest.

[StoryTeller]

34. I haven't heard anything about "biracial patriarchal conspiracies."

Enlighten me?

[George_Bonanza]

35. A black-white patriarchal alliance to keep the white woman down

That's basically the theme of NOW and co.

[StoryTeller]

52. I don't pay a lot of attention to NOW

So if that is what they are saying, that is pretty bad. I have a friend who has been told by other women on a different forum that she is betraying women by supporting Obama.

I think that is sad. It's as if some people can't accept that there are women like me who simply feel Obama would make a better president. It's not about race or gender. It's just who they are as people.

In a way, it's a testimony to the progress that has been made--that there are a lot of us now who have the ability to support a candidate based on deeper things than merely their race or gender. It upsets me when supporters on either side claim that those two relatively superficial characteristics might be why we are supporting our candidates. Maybe some are, but a lot of us are not.

I just think there must be a more productive way to address this problem than by calling them "silly" or "irrelevant." As an Obama supporter, I want to note that it's not our guy's style to treat the opposition that way. I think there are more positive, respectful, and useful ways to have this discussion. No matter if it's reciprocated or not.

[DemBones DemBones]

161. I call bullshit on that claim. You offer no citations, just

bullshit claims. You've already been told that ONE woman at ONE local NOW branch is responsible for comments you attributed to NOW, clearly implying that it was a national position of the organization when it's not.

And what the hell does "NOW and co." mean? "Paleo-feminists," I suppose. Mad at your Mommy, maybe??? Still living at home?

The anti-Boomer crap is ridiculous. Obama is a Boomer himself. It's clear that your problem is with white women who were young in the Sixties. Jealous you didn't go to Woodstock? Neither did most older Boomers!

Newsflash: Nobody gets to choose when they're born. Anger at an entire generation is as stupid as anger at all women or all men or all blacks or all whites.

[susanr516]

62. Thank you

Great post.

[varelse]

133. Thank you - this is a great post

It's very good to know that not everyone under 50 shares Camille Paglia's contempt for feminists who are over 50.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/02/13/political_wars/

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. As a woman who grew up --

in the heat of the women's movement, I can say I have been pretty disgusted with some of what has come out of some of our feminist leaders mouths.

I saw the current leader of NOW on the Bill Maher show try to bullshit me about Clinton's IWR vote and I wanted to scream. To me, being a feminist doesn't mean making excuses for other women when they are wrong just because they have a vagina. :mad:

To me, true feminism is looking beyond gender and making a descision on merit alone.

And that is why this feminist voted for Dennis Kucinich, not the "vagina" candidate.

[John Q. Citizen]

64. Your post cracked me up! And it's good to hear you cast your vote for the best.

It's nice not having to regret your vote.

If Obama locks this thing up on march 4th, or soon after, I'll vote Kucinich.

If there is a close race here and the race is still going (not likely) I'll vote Obama.

We vote on June 3rd.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. As Red Green says, "We're all in this together."

[VotesForWomen]

118. i'm a kucinich feminist too, but look at the pass O has got on the war, while hilllary

is blasted on it every day.

[Samantha]

37. This has been my impression from the very beginning

This whole pitch has seemed extremely "corny" to me. The use of that dated word is appropriate to describe a hackneyed pitch in a political contest.

Regarding Obama, I have never seen him as "Black" or "White." He's just a man. Hillary's just a woman. The issue is who is the better candidate, and that's it in a nutshell for me.

[Geek_Girl]

39. I'm really getting tired of the whole race vs gender Bull shit

If your not a white hetro male in this country then you've probably have experienced some form of grief from bigotry. Who's to say who's pain is worse. Horrible violent acts have been committed to gays, women and blacks in this country all because of bigotry. This race vs gender, my pain is worse than your pain, is asinine.

[ecstatic]

44. I'm a feminist, and I really think it's time for a woman prez, but I also agree with

what you said, to a certain extent. Well actually, feminism isn't the problem-it's the clown leadership that's in place (i.e., some outspoken feminists that hurt the rest of us with their statements). Sort of like how PETA hurts the animal rights movement.

[Hoof Hearted]

46. Shove your snotty little agist, sexist, bigoted post right up you rear-o.

It deserves no more in the way of comment or explanation than that from me.

[Independent-Voter]

53. NOW's "Psychological Gang Rape" routine..

"Think about the legacy we'll leave behind when we support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Let’s put a stop to the psychological “gang banging” of women and girls. Let's stand up and be counted by way of the hard-won votes we can now cast!

Marcia A. Pappas, President, NOW New York State "


That is some old, tired bullshit right there. It's not 1967 anymore folks.

[VotesForWomen]

119. why don't you quote Malcm X and whine that racism is so yesterday. nt

[George_Bonanza]

57. Brilliant comeback

And kudos for your insight that anybody who opposes Hillary and her upcoming anti-democratic dealings to wrest the nomination away from the people's choice is an ageist misogynist.

[Hoof Hearted]

61. Thanks George. Your approval validates me as a human being.

As a woman, I really need that from a man like you.

:hurts:

[Darth_Kitten]

87. You just don't get it, do you?

:eyes:

Pity.

[DemBones DemBones]

149. Remember that song

"He's an idiot, babe"? OOH, showing my age. Throw all the women and Boomers under the bus!

And vote for a Boomer named Obama! :rofl:

[BooScout]

49. Just what we need sisters.........a MAN telling us how to behave....

Sod off.

Is that disrespectful enough for ya?

Geeeeee.....I must be one of those stereotypical angst driven bra burning types of feminist.:eyes:

[JAbuchan08]

73. You seem to have a problem with when a man tells you you are wrong

I've known people like you, both male and female, who simply could not admit they were wrong, because it was someone of the opposite sex telling them they were wrong and they couldn't let go of their gendered pride and just admit it.

[BooScout]

175. No.......I have a problem with a man......

..trying to define feminism and why and how a feminist should behave. I also have problems with men like you telling me that I am wrong on women's issues because you obviously, being a man, know so much more than me.:eyes:

[JAbuchan08]

179. when you phrase it the way you did

What "woman's issue" did I tell you, you were wrong about? and at what point did I (or the OP) say that "as men" our opinions are inherently more valuable? I don't believe either of us stated that point.

What I did get from your post is that it is inherently wrong for a man to critique a particular strain of feminism. The OP may have used a slightly broad-brush to paint all paleo-feminists as falling behind Hillary Clinton. I personally am not familiar enough to say for myself what kind of feminists are falling into line behind Hillary, but I agree with the general gist of the article.

Several female writers have written that women should vote for Hillary because she is a woman. The fact that she is arguably qualified gives them a little leeway in presenting this opinion, but it doesn't seem to give some of these women much pause that she MAY not be the best candidate. The fact that she is a candidate with experience seems to be enough.

The problem is, as a man, Hillary's womanhood is not enough reason for me to vote for her. Sorry, but it's true. I've been lucky enough (as a man) to have the choice to vote for a wide variety of men, so voting for a man or woman based on his/her gender is not a reason for me. Unfortunately women have not had the same broad variety of female candidates to choose from, so it is understandable that many are happy about the chance to vote for a woman with the political backing to possibly win.

The thing is, feminists should not and cannot expect men to be as excited about Hillary as they are. Not being excited about Hillary, disapproving of her record and disliking her manner is not a rejection of women or womankind. It is a rejection of Hillary. Some of that may be based on the sexism of individuals, but the general opposition to Hillary is based on Hillary herself.

But when these individuals push me into the same category as Chris Matthews when I critique Hillary for her tone, or her presentation - that offends me. When, on issue after issue I'm told that the reason that I oppose Hillary's nomination is not closeness with the DLC, or the IWR, or Kyle Lieberman, or her general hawkishness, but sexism - THAT offends me. When I'm told that a specific criticism of Hillary is equal to a generalized criticism of women - THAT offends me.

You sort of have me over a barrel on this one, because so many have tied their gender in so tightly with the Hillary campaign that if I do criticize their gender based support of Clinton than I really am perceived as attacking their gender and "telling them how to think" which is even worse than the original criticism of Hillary. So it's not the content of what I say at all that offends many Hillary supporters, but the fact that I dare say it from my position - as a man.

You know what though, you are exactly right. I - a man - am telling you - a woman - how to think. I'm not telling you what to think because I am a man and you are a woman. I am simply stating my perspective and hoping that you can and will understand it, and I make no apologies for it.

[nam78_two]

50. "feminism has become such a poisonous term"

Feminism had become a poisonous term? Who knew :shrug: (from an under 30 feminist)?
With all due respect, I am not sure these are the best ways to make a case. I can understand that we all want prominent progressive groups/influential progressive voices to support our candidate, but it is a bad idea imo to throw respectable progressives (Paul Krugman/Senator Kennedy/Gloria Steinem/Senator Kerry etc. etc.) under the bus as irrelevant, stupid etc. because they endorse the "other" candidate.

Most of these people who we tear apart depending on what day of the week it is, have long histories as people who have fought for progressive causes. Generalizing about any of these people/groups based on one endorsement or one editorial is erroneous imo.
Younger feminists like myself owe a whole lot to the "paleo-feminists" and we are unlikely to regard organizations like NOW as irrelevant or useless, no matter which way their endorsement goes.

Just my two cents.

[VotesForWomen]

121. yep; what he meant was that he considers woman's equality to be a poisonous concept. nt

[Stephanie]

55. It's a generational shift, on many levels.

Feminists of my mother's era, the 70's activists, are the ones you're talking about, but I have to say, even Mom went with Obama, and she's def of the old school.

[Darth_Kitten]

89. Yeah, and?

:shrug:

[DemBones DemBones]

56. 2008 has brought all the sexist ageist posters out of the closet,

although very few if any are long-time DUers, so they'll probably be gone in a few months.

[NorthernSpy]

58. THANK YOU for saying this!

But I think the 2008 Democratic primary season has been the death knell of whatever relevance the old school of feminism has had in these contemporary times. From disrespectful statements like Gloria Steinem's "But Blacks had the vote 50 years before women!" to the anger management case that was the NOW response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, to the latest editorial by Erica Jong, it's clear to me that paleo-feminists are confused and irrelevant. For some reason, they've deified Hillary Clinton to the point where an attack on her is an attack on (white) womanhood worldwide. Apparently, she's so flawless a candidate that the only way she could possibly lose is if the evil American patriarchy, one that's suddenly smitten with Black men, does everything in its power to take her down.

Yeah, that's a lot of what I've been stewing about for some time now. It feels really good to hear someone else say it.

No wonder feminism has become such a poisonous term with these paleo-ideological dinosaurs still trying to speak for women today.

It's gotten to the point that I loathe the word, because I've come to loathe the small clique who own it.

[smoogatz]

59. I admire the old school feminists. It took (and still takes)

a lot of courage to think, write and speak from an uncompromisingly feminist point of view in this country. I'm glad somebody's doing it, and that so many do it so well. Too bad so many of the rest of us still haven't gotten the message. That said, I don't think there's any monolithic feminist POV on the current election, but if there was I'd be inclined to take it seriously and not be dismissive, even if I ultimately disagreed. I'm not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to trash supporters of hers who've given so much of themselves to advance progressive causes, including the cause of "old school" feminism.

[Lorien]

80. Amen to that! n/t

[0007]

69. Where is Valerie Soianas when ya need hundred of girls like her?

Valerie Soianas Rocks

[NorthernSpy]

72. it's Solanas with an L...

:crazy:

[0007]

138. Double check it toots.

[NorthernSpy]

141. I know it looks like a lowercase i on that book cover, but her name was Solanas...

... with an L!


It's Greek, I think.


Same as Pappas.


(Hmmm...)

[0007]

144. My bad! Your so right.

[goodgd_yall]

70. I think you are broadbrushing .

And after reading the your OP, I find it hard to believe the supposed "respect" you have for "old-school" feminism.

[nam78_two]

71. "the anger management case that was the NOW response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama"

Just out of curiosity, what is the issue with NOW's response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Sen. Obama?

Here is the text of it from their site (I researched this post a bit because some of the specifics confused me-having been a supporter of NOW's for years and having followed Ms. Steinem's opinions for a while too. I did not see attacks on Sen. Kennedy, references to a biracial patriarchy etc.):

http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

NOW's Response to Sen. Kennedy's Endorsement

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

January 28, 2008

The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.

Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote.

Was there another one that was harsh :shrug:?


If you search for "Obama" on their site, I am not seeing anything that is disrespectful to Sen. Obama coming up?
http://www.now.org/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=Obama&x=17&y=21
Am I missing something :shrug:?

Similarly, this is Ms. Steinem's endorsement of Sen. Clinton:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?ref=opinion

I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.



And here is NOW's endorsement of Sen. Clinton:
http://www.now.org/press/03-07/03-28.html

I do not see any references in there to a "biracial patriarchy that is out to oppress women" :shrug:? Steinem says she would work for Obama if he is a nominee. I am really not seeing any divisiveness or conflict here honestly. Both Steinem and NOW seem to have positive sentiments toward Sen. Obama. They are merely criticizing media coverage of race and gender issues and NOW in fact has criticized the media for their comments about Michelle Obama being "emasculating" etc.

Of course it is entirely possible that I am missing something...

[NorthernSpy]

75. the OP is referring to the screed written by Marcia Pappas of NOW-NYS

You know! The one! with all! the! exclamation! points!

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, and the Family and Medical Leave Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). “They” are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). "They" are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future.

This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation- to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us.

http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html


Or maybe the OP meant the infamous "gangbang of Hillary" rant -- also by Pappas, I believe.

[nam78_two]

76. Thanks for posting that

I haven't seen that before-and I agree with you and the OP that I don't care for it much. To be honest though, the main criticism I have of it would be the same one I have of the original post, i.e. throwing a person (i.e. Ted Kennedy) or a group (i.e. NOW) with strong progressive credentials out the window for one endorsement/editorial etc.

Ethnic minorities, the GLBT community, working-class people, Feminists, even those "ivory-tower intellectuals"- these are all important, traditionally Democratic constituencies and once the primaries are over, whoever the nominee is they will need the support of all of the above to make it jmho. Hopefully, this rather divisive primary season will not permanently alienate any of those groups :-/.

[eridani]

77. "Old school" feminism is NOT "glass ceiling" feminism!!

Get a clue, ferchrissakes. In the 70s, a number of studies showed that radical femimists were more radical on every single progressive issue than any other of the organized constituencies of the era. That is, feminists were more likely to support environmentalism than environmentalists were to support feminists, more likely to support gay men than gay men were to support them, and the same all down the line.

This old school feminist does not think that cluster bombs are feminist. Voting to put the entire female population of Iraq under house arrest isn't feminist either.

[Lorien]

82. Feminism:

1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.


It's a term and concept that any true Progressive embraces wholeheartedly.

[Darth_Kitten]

83. Maybe young people ought not to walk so freely.......

through the doors opened to them BY feminists if they are so resentful. :eyes:

Feminism is only a poisonous term to those who cannot quite grasp the simple notion that their mothers,wives, sisters, daughters and friends are actual human beings.
By the way, old time feminists stood up for people of colour long before it was the politically correct thing to do to impress one's peer group. But I guess they don't get the same regard and respect in return?

Maybe misogynists should do some soul searching and find out who they are really bitter at.

[Reterr]

97. I thank feminists like you for the doors you have opened for people like me

:yourock:

[Darth_Kitten]

108. Actually, I grew up in the 80's and didn't have to knock down many doors

but I think as I'm growing older I appreciate the struggles that women (and men) went through, so I can have it pretty easy.

But thanks, anyways. You rock too! :D

[Justpat]

85. Well, thank you sonny, for letting me know that feminism is poisonous term.

I'll be sure not to use it anymore just so I don't offend any women hating men in my life.

Way back in the paleolithic era of US society, women had the unmitigated gall to demand
equal rights in the work place, (the ERA STILL has not been passed), equal pay,
and the same opportunity for self determination that men have had since the beginning
of time.

Your assertion that feminist perceive any slur against Hillary as a slur against women in general
is ridiculous. We have worked and fought to enable women to make their own decisions
regarding their job, their mate, their sexuality and their candidates.

When I see people with a need to tear down feminists in this day and age, it is not hard to
see who the Paleolithic members of society really are.

[bunnies]

90. HA! I'm 35 and don't even OWN a bra. Take that anti-gravit-istsas!

:evilgrin:

edit: cant even even spell my made up word right. :banghead:

[Book Lover]

94. Let's set aside your sexism for a moment, Angry Man

and answer me this: Whence this cognitive dissonance?

"John McCain ... may end his career with merely a senate office."
"Hillary has already achieved more than most politicians can even dreams of: she is a prominent senator"

How is being a senator a mere achievement for the man but an amazing achievement for the woman?

[Hoof Hearted]

122. Obviously it's natural for a man to be a senator. It's UNnatural for a woman - she's SO LUCKY!

Cuz she's like - A FEMALE.

Amazing cognitive gymnastics there don't you think?

[NorthernSpy]

137. because McCain's record of service to the country is more distinguished than hers...

Simple as that.

[Book Lover]

139. I don't understand your point.

Explain it.

[Darth_Kitten]

151. Who was Obama a year ago?

this is too easy.

[DemBones DemBones]

177. Is Obama a five-term Senator who was in Nam as a fighter pilot and POW?

No, he's not, but thanks for playing.

[George_Bonanza]

145. It's called sarcasm

Only 100 out of 300 million people in America get to say that they're current senators. Hillary is one of them, but for some people like Gloria Steinem, unless she wins the presidency, then she's done nothing with her life.

[NashVegas]

155. And Now It's Transference

You didn't say it, the Feminists did?

[DemBones DemBones]

167. Got a link for Steinem saying that?

You really are just making shit up, IMO.

[Reterr]

95. Lovely-more from the "unifying" campaign

GLBT Dems , those "old coots", them perfessors and now those nasty, nasty feminists :eyes:....
Is there any group within the Democratic base that Obama supporters like yourself are actually trying to appeal to or are cross-over Repukes ("ex-gays" and the like) the only group some of you want to cosy up to?

Unbelievable...Whatever my opinions of Barack Obama himself, his supporters are making this an easy choice.

[Iktomiwicasa]

98. I'll bet most of you didn't realize

that my people were the LAST group to be granted voting rights in this country....1924, four years AFTER women. Hell, we weren't even CITIZENS in OUR land.

It gets pretty frustrating to remain so invisible to the wider population :(

[DURHAM D]

99. I am ashamed to say that I didn't know that.

I have no excuse because I lived in Oklahoma for 15 years. I see where New Mexico continued to deny voting rights until 1962.

I am sorry.

[Jed Dilligan]

103. Remember when Reagan promised to offer you "full citizenship"?

That must have felt pretty good, huh?

[troubleinwinter]

109. The Navajo, the largest 'Native American' voting block

has been successfully targeted for voting disenfranchisement under the false guise of preventing "illegals" from voting.

The Navajo voted 67% Kerry. 2004 Navajo turned out to vote 90% vs. 66% statewide.

The Navajo vote is very imnportant so they HAD to disenfranchise them. They did. The new "ID" requires a birth certificate (many were born at home), a utility bill (many have no utilities at all), a property tax bill (no such thing on the res.). A "provisional ballot" is meaningless when one has to drive 2-3 hours to get to the county seat to "prove" ones "eligibility", after having voted for 60 years.

Walk into any Navajo home and view photos of family members having served in the US military in the past and attend honors for those who currently serve.

Navajo over age 50-60 tend to not speak English, so cannot use "early voting".

It is an orchestrated, designed program of disenfranchising American voters.

This is Sally. She has always voted. She cares for a young retarded man of her family/tribe. She has no utilities. She keeps a small flock of sheep. She has photos of her family members who serve in the military. She speaks no English. She has no birth certificate or utility bill. Now she cannot vote.

This is Libby. She has always voted. She does not speak English (what some falsely claim to be our "official langage"). She now lives with her daughter and son-in-law. She was born at home and has no birth cirtificate. Her husband died of uranium poisoning in the mines providing US govt with the weapons. Her village has no water anymore, as the mining poisoned the water. The Navajo were lied to. People are dead and still suffering and dieing for the lies.



Not only are the indian people the last to have been awarded the 'right to vote', they are being disenfranchised NOW. American indians follow the machinations of federal government closely, for good reason. They are likely more alert to certain federal bullshit than most of the general poplulation.

The fact that Arizona has a Dem governor is acknowleged by BOTH parties is due to the Navajo vote. The Nav vote simpy HAD to be disenfranchised, so AZ voting ID law is the most revolting in the country, and set the standard for disenfranchisement across the land under the guise of "illegals are voting!", while preventing our American parents (Sally and Libby) from voting.

I am not an American indian. I happen to have a number of friends who are. I am FUCKING PISSED OFF that they are yet AGAIN being manipulated and disenfranchised. Secondarily, their disenfranchisement hurts everyone.

[Iktomiwicasa]

120. You know the sad truth

is that the Democratic party is no friend of indian people either. I align myself with democrats because I am more likely to find non-indian individuals who will ally with us and our struggles than people from the other party.

[Oskie]

128. Thank you for posting this! I'm horrified to learn about what is

happening in Arizona. Please post this where more people can see it. I seldom come to DU anymore...just lately checking out the primary guff that's going on. But I will tell others in my Dem bookclub group about this!

[ProgressIn2008]

163. Good post, thank you. We do hear nothing about these issues.

[DemBones DemBones]

170. This is horrible. Something has to be done for the Navajo.

I have no Native American/Indian blood at all but my father taught me at an early age about how we had screwed them over, and he was a Republican! The first letter I ever wrote to a politician was in support of AIM.

You should start a thread about this in GD where it has a chance of being noticed by more than a few people.

[Iktomiwicasa]

171. A good percentage of Americans

Dems included, are very uncomfortable with Native issues. It makes them squirm like nothing else. Can you guess why?

[DemBones DemBones]

174. I'd guess guilt because of what whites did to the Native peoples.

Conquerors have never been kind to the conquered but people don't like to admit
it happened here.

Am I right?

[troubleinwinter]

184. That's an interesting comment to me.

I don't think I agree.

I don't feel guilt over slavery or over how the early Americans treated the indians.

I feel unbridled rage and resentment and frustration over how the issues are being treated (read: NOT addressed) TODAY. I don't feel guilt, I feel furious anger that we treat our own precious American people as invisible and meaningless. How many threads have there been on DU in the last 6 weeks about "black" and "women"? How many threads about our other citizens, our indian people?

No, I don't feel guilt. I feel sheer fucking panic. Most DUers will panic over the loss of any endangered animal species. Nobody gives a shit about the loss of a small endangered American culture. There are MANY that are endangered. We grew up watching old TV movies and think of Apaches and Sioux. Who knows of the Hualapai, Yavapai, Hupa, Mojave, Pomo and hundreds more unique cultures. When one of these cultures is lost, it will never come back.

No, not guilt. Rather, an absolute requisite to support independence, sustainability and well-being of unique human cultures.

[troubleinwinter]

182. Let me count the ways.....

Just for jollies, let's start with the BILLIONS of dollars "held in trust" that belongs to Natives, and the gov't. simply "cannot account for".

If someone takes your money and says they'll hold it for safe keeping, then says "Well, golly gee, I sure don't know where all of that money might be or even how much. Call again some other time.", that's pretty uncomfortable to talk about when it is one's own government playing the cheating sheister.

We could then talk about coal, uranium, timber, water issues, and we still would not have begun to scratch the surface of issues that Natives are currently contending with (read: getting fucked over).

[troubleinwinter]

183. Certainly, justice is needed for the Navajo, but

one must realize that the Navajo are relatively fortunate compared to most. The Navajo nation is large and somewhat powerful, compared to many, many small tribes.

There are many small groups on remote, desolate reservations with little to no resources or opportunity.

Are there solutions? I think so. Investing in community businesses, such as manufacturing to give work and income so that the people can survive and prosper in their own communities... so the young people can choose to remain with family and community and culture, rather than being forced to choose between dire poverty, the military, or leaving the community for low-paying jobs in the cities.

These different peoples are priceless treasures of unique cultures and heritage that should be revered and respected and treasured. If they are lost, we will ALL BE POOR as Americans and as people.

[Barack_America]

105. This woman agrees with you...

...and I don't apologize for that.

[varelse]

106. wtf is a "paleo-feminist"?

And at what age does a woman's perspective become irrelevent? How old can we be and still pass your checkpoint?

[Mark Twain Girl]

107. Thank you, old school feminists, for all you gave to us

Here's hoping we can live up to your example.

[VotesForWomen]

110. give it up. you don't have a clue what feminism is. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

123. ahhh DU is now the new place on the web for limpball and hannity wanna be's ..Obama what a uniter!

[IndianaGreen]

125. The shame was when many feminists excused Bill Clinton's predatory sexual behaviour

Things they found fault in Bob Packwood, they excused in Bill Clinton.

[NorthernSpy]

140. yeah, THAT was a fun time...

(shudder)

[DemBones DemBones]

176. Packwood was hitting on women who worked in his office,

Clinton was hit on by Lewinsky. As I recall, she testified that she went to his office late one night to take him some pizza and then showed him her thong underwear by pulling her pants down in the back.

Packwood was sexually harassing female employees. Clinton was sexually involved with a female employee who made the first move. He should have refused her, and could have made a complaint of sexual harassment against her, but he wasn't using the head on his shoulders.

Should he have been impeached for improper sexual behavior that wasn't harassment? I don't think so. It wasn't admirable behavior on his part or Lewinsky's, but he was not the first president to fool around while in office.

I thought then and still think that it was really a matter between Bill and Hillary.

[smalll]

126. How do the kids on the Obamabus get anywhere at all,

when they seem to stop so often to throw people under it?


Old feminists, it's your turn now! Oh Yes They Can!

[Danger Mouse]

131. and let's see who some of the hillary supporters have thrown under the bus

ted kennedy
john kerry
keith olbermann
young voters

the amount of HATE and DISDAIN i've seen directed at young voters on this forum has SICKENED me.

yet more hypocrisy from some of hillary's shrillest and most hateful supporters! no surprises here!

[DemBones DemBones]

187. The OP and many other posts here have attacked

baby boomers/older women/white women/feminists.

I haven't seen any posts attacking young people, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Keith Olbermann.

[XemaSab]

132. Hillary has thrown entire states under the bus!

:wow:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

127. I get your point, but lots of "old school" feminists are going for Obama

While plenty of 3rd Wave feminists are supporting Clinton. Gloria Steinem, Erica Jong, and Robin Morgan will always be feminist icons but they don't represent the views of all feminists of their generation, or mine. Their opinions should stand on their own, just as those of any man would. And while Marcia Pappas' statements were disturbing, I prefer to remember the statement of Kim Gandy (national president of NOW)

The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.

Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote.

http://www.now.org/press/01-08/01-28.html

I have said on this board before that I will never support NOW again. I realize that I spoke in emotionally overwrought haste. I will support NOW in the future and I will support Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. Some things are more important than my pride or a primary race.

I am a feminist and I am a person who believes in the equality of all people. I will support the nominee for President who best represents that.

[Danger Mouse]

129. Hmmm...the part about white women...yeah...

yeah...that's interesting.
good point.

[Tektonik]

130. Thank you for cherry-picking a couple comments to smear an entire gender

Shut the fuck up

[NorthernSpy]

136. since when do a small faction = "an entire gender"?

I belong to that same gender myself, and there was never any doubt in my mind that the OP wasn't talking about me.


:shrug:

[saltpoint]

142. This topic deserves its own forum. It's that interesting and that full of

possibilities for productive exploration and consideration.

Social movements have to begin somewhere. For me, it's important that the historical perspective be weighed disproportionally high against current attitudes.

For example, no one calls into question Harriet Tubman's relevance in a history book. Against considerable bigotry, institutional and otherwise, she put her life on the line to bring people out of enslavement. Her example is not lessened by generational reconsideration.

I think Sappho makes a very convincing "first wave" prototype for feminism. Zoom up several centuries and there's Janis Joplin, IMO a titanic figure in and of herself even before she grabbed the mike and took the stage.

And millions more examples whose names we do not know inbetween those historical points.

[George_Bonanza]

147. My definition of a paleo-feminist

Some people think that I was slamming older women with this term, but I was referring to a mindset or a system of beliefs. A 20-year old college student could be a paleo-feminist, while a 60-year old woman could be a Third Wave feminist. It's all in the mind.

Essentially, IMHO, a paleofeminist is a feminist who still lives for the 60s and 70s when everything had to be combative and boundaries had to be pushed for the sake of being pushed. I believe that those methods were necessary back then, during the "Stepford Era", but nowadays, with women governors and congressmen, it's increasingly unnecessary to resort to such jarring tactics. An example of this kind of paleo-feminist tactic is pushing the belief that anything short of support for Hillary Clinton is tantamount to supporting an oppressive patriarchy (i.e. NOW-NY's defrocking of Ted Kennedy).

[PATRICK]

148. Maybe it would be better

and more politic to note that all institutions, those older than the energetic senility of corporate propped conservative newbies, are neither perfect, with the times or generally in touch. In touch enough at any rate. That goes for labor, civil rights organizations, the ACLU, liberal thinkers and publications, the Democratic party and by wide extension looking out in horror, the whole damned world organization from the top down. Conservationists are just now getting back on the roller coaster that started out with world doom from freon that somehow mellowed back to TR sentimentalism for scenery heritage, puppy seals and such. Always, the chief concern that started these things was horrific life threatening loss, like the Dust Bowl. People knew what conservation was about then even without extinction threatening global catastrophe becoming more than imminent. TR- Dust Bowl-Lacy Bird's beautiful highways- Nixon and the underarm deodorant scare- Sierra Club- Global warming.

What happens when one finds one's advocacy club about as relevant as a sewing circle during a barbarian invasion? What about it's growth in knowledge and awareness of the political unities and global ecology? What about the corruption of fitting into tainted capitalism, old successes, old glories and the sudden insufficiency of the Holy Grails that were part of their very essence? Part of it is generational tension, delusions, competition, change, clubbish wagon circling, old battles that never die, abandoned old battles hidden behind the delusion that everything the organization does is necessarily on course. The greening of the lean. The leaning of the mean. Experience hands such groups the power to fight upstarts and the pain they are unwilling to face regarding the new. Resentment that the new is certainly no cyclically better than their meritorious predecessors. And like in Yeats' Purgatory the advantage goes to the generation that knows how to murder both the past and future. The victory of the past, now, can very physically mean the death of the future. Purgatory is becoming very brief. In righteous denial, it cannot be redemptive.

Yes, I am trying to be high blown. Is there a single bastion or person that has failed to disappoint in times where the test still goes unrecognized or misunderstood and is always ill acted upon? I wouldn't start throwing stones. Not that the house is glass but that the stones go whizzing out the empty wall to hit others in Emperor houses.

This too, the corruption, the appeal to noble vanities and righteous crusades and divisive behavior, is all that remains of GOP political strategy, because they already torn down their old garbage for the sake of new walls of steel that all our squabblers prefer not to see or assail.

What group has not been aroused to betray their self-interested resentments? The higher plane of Obama's presentation may be part of a different delusion, but from past experience(in keeping to the general spirit of the poster), the old guard confronting change destroys its case by revealing bitterness, unreason and destructive opposition. When the noble traditions of that cause hold respect and validity, it is their abandonment for hatred the vacates them of any association with that positive "conservatism". It becomes absurd and self-contradicting. All bad signs.

It is up to the new to respect the traditions even under the heat of the contradictory battle and not respond in kind as both sides throw value and causes under the bridge of political power. It is up to everyone to respect the other no matter how badly we behave otherwise. The anger that comes from failing to do this is a sign of defensive frustration, a greater pettiness still in these critical times.

[Darth_Kitten]

150. 2008 - the Year of Frat House Misogyny

I really feel sorry for the OP. To have so much hostility, hatred, and narrow-mindedness when it comes to women. I wonder how he feels about the women in his own family.

Pity. Such a sad pity. Maybe stay away from some of the more strident, shrill, "Obama can do no wrong" types. Hating and DETESTING women doesn't make your candidate some GOD. Grow up.

[DemBones DemBones]

153. You mention three (3) women as "proof" of the "silliness" of feminism,

and not their entire life's work but one thing each wrote that displeased you, an Obama supporter.

You provide no link for DUers to review what any of the three said for ourselves.

You wrote:

"From disrespectful statements like Gloria Steinem's "But Blacks had the vote 50 years before women!" to the anger management case that was the NOW response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, to the latest editorial by Erica Jong, it's clear to me that paleo-feminists are confused and irrelevant."

You've already been told that ONE woman at ONE branch of NOW was what you refer to disparagingly as "the anger management case that was the NOW response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama." It's NOT the position of NOW's national office. You provide NO LINK to what the woman said, either.

You say "From disrespectful statements like Gloria Steinem's 'But Blacks had the vote 50 years before women!' " but NOT what else she said. Context is always important. You put words that Steinem supposedly said in quotation marks but
is it a direct quote? We don't know unless we read what she said, and you provide NO LINK. Are you implying that it's a racist remark?

It is a fact that blacks were given the vote in 1870 and women -- including black women -- did not get the right to vote until 1920, which was 50 years later. Blacks had long been counted a fraction of a person while whites were counted as whole persons. It was, by the way, the Northeast that insisted that blacks not be counted as equal to whites because if they were, the South would gain more representation in Congress than the Northeast wanted it to have.

But in 1870, black men who had previously been considered as fractional persons were given the vote while women of any color were denied it for another fifty years. That shows clearly how low the status of women was. Posts like yours show how strong testosterone poisoning still is.

You say nothing about what Erica Jong wrote in her editorial, and you give NO LINK to it.

But you use un-linked remarks by one woman from one NOW branch, Steinem, and Jong to justify saying "it's clear to me that paleo-feminists are confused and irrelevant."

It's clear to me that some Obama supporters are confused. They think that it's wrong for women to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, but fine for blacks to vote for Barack because he's black. Some seem to be saying women must not vote for a woman.

It's doubtful that anyone who takes politics seriously would vote for either candidate based solely on race or sex, although many women and blacks presumably are glad to finally have candidates more like themselves. But if some women and blacks are voting based on sex or race, so what? White men have been voting for "people like us" since the US began.

[NashVegas]

160. Go Go Go Go Go

And it's white men who are laughing right now, I fear.

[DemBones DemBones]

173. Thanks! I think you're right

that white men are laughing now, specifically Republican white men. :grr:

Think I'll get a response from "George Bonanza"?

[in_cog_ni_to]

154. From the keyboard of ANOTHER MAN whose manhood is THREATENED by a STRONG WOMAN. Feminism ISN'T a

"poison" word in the REAL world...just your delusional sexist world.:grr:

[ShortnFiery]

159. I agree as a WOMAN who has had to compete for positions in traditionally male career fields.

You can't rant DISCRIMINATION all the time and get any attention. Especially within the military. Women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. AND Whites are forced to work together as "a team."

HRC has NOT proven herself as a truly tested leader or candidate. It's sad to watch but both HRC and her husband, via Mark Penn's penchant for "dirty tricks," have mostly done this to themselves. :(

[musiclawyer]

164. Disappointment is a bitch

I was an edwards guy, now a obama guy based on electability vs mccain. But I have noted the nastiness of HRC supporters towards others who are not. All I have so say is she was not the beacon of light she was supposed to be. Lots of other threads about why. So people are hurt . Lots of reaction formation going on. But get over it. No one wants to hurt YOU.

[LostinVA]

169. Wow -- a sexist term in a sexist thread

Shocker.

:eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

178. You do want to hurt us by putting John McCain in office.

The media get their paychecks from people who want the GOP regime to go on.

The media are full of love for Obama at present.

Ergo, the GOP want to run against Obama.

Why would that be? It must be because they're sure McCain can beat him easily, with a little help from their friends in the media.

[musiclawyer]

172. See what I mean

[TheDonkey]

180. amen, amen.