Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a “Media Hall of Shame,” starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton’s rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.
Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, said: “I have not had a lot of regretful conversations with high-ranking media types and political reporters about how unfair their coverage of the Hillary Clinton campaign was.”
Among journalists, he added, the coverage “does not register as a mistake that must not be allowed to happen again.”
Some are calling for boycotts against MSNBC and CNN, and many are urging Mr. Obama, who addressed racism in a major speech, to address sexism, too.In response, the Obama campaign directed a reporter to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who supported Mrs. Clinton but who is now speaking for the Obama campaign. She said Mr. Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he already incorporates themes of discrimination as a societal problem into his speeches.
Er.
I guess misogyny is just a "woman's issue," then?
NOTE Best EVAH throwaway line on this from Rachel Sklar: "Not Even Close To Exhaustively Related:", which includes Shakes's List. For starters.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Bill Richardson his getting his for his arrogance and disloyaty
Bill Richardson’s Star is Falling with a BIG THUD
I guess people are saying NO DEAL to Bill Richardson!
All is not happy in Bill Richardson land of disenchantment…
“Bill Richardson’s Star is Falling with a BIG THUD (Not on VP Shortlist, State Legislators FED UP with Him)”
http://tinyurl.com/4mogb7
You can't see it, but there's a big smile on my face down here in Las Cruces, NM
Rep. Wasserman Schultz might want to watch her back, now that
she's flacking for Obama. May not help her with her own constituents.
Oof, not a good response, Rep.
Especially after this...
Obama spreads his unity magic in FL.
There's nothing anyone can say that will somehow justify the bigotry Obama exploited throughout his campaign. Just as race-baiting stained Reagan's win in '80, the gender-baiting and overt incitement of hate should taint Obama and the Democratic Party "leadership" in '08. The whole point was to benefit from it and secure the nomination--check and check--so any "talk" about it now is just bullshit anyways.
When push comes to shove we know where they stand.
Same happened in TX IIRC
Already accepted delegate replaced with Obama delegate. Looks like I called my shot...
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Lead?
Obama leading on this issue would be about as convincing as George H.W. Bush leading a national conversation on race after the '88 campaign.
Policy not party!
Oh, my snark detector
must be on the fritz today.
Policy not party!
Well focused and spot on
What was done to Clinton was wrong on every level. Needs to be condemned widely and loudly and for as long as it takes to get a response. Obama needs to walk this back, and actually say sorry. Right thing to do.
Don't agree with Sklar on everything, but net-net she's one of the good ones. I would be pleased to see her with a bigger platform. And spunky for a Canadian too, eh?
I'm guessing that its coming
The Hill: Obama campaign reaches out to female lawmakers
Obama also recently spoke to Emily's List founder, Ellen Malcolm, who was quoted in the Times article (btw, I think your link needs fixing).
I think Obama (wisely)is planning to address issues of sexism and misogyny, even if it doesn't take the form of a formal speech.
Is there a part in there about taking responsibility...
The truth part of truth and reconciliation?
So, nods and winks are OK? No formal speech needed?
Why would that be?
I seem to recall other formal speeches, on matters of equal weight, so it would seem odd for Obama not to use his considerable oratorical powers on behalf of this cause. Eh?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Me, too!
I want dinner and roses.
But first let me tatoo the number of the local battered women's shelter on my forehead.
[Sarcasm, sweeties.]
What's with all the unity dinners?
NovaM's pulling the same type of crap, holding a Unity
Party as if the only thing we need to have our questions answered are a few plates of hot hors d'oeuvres. Yes, hospitality is a start, but so is some truth and reconciliation work about what actually happened -- and I don't see that as bloody likely.
Excuse me, I saw the semi-season finale of BG, and I'm still cranky as hell....
this will likely bring on serious flamage, but:
Michelle Obama is a true "Black Woman," and i have a very hard time believing that she would tolerate any sexism from her hubby.
to me, the hardest part of watching all this dem-on-dem primary season violence is this: can't people understand the difference between what supporters and volunteers and workers say, and what the candidate says? although i've not at all followed things closely, it seems to me that much of what pisses off people who aren't on board the o-bus comes from what they read that his supporters have said, not what he has said. he's actually rather tight lipped and doesn't say so much of substance, in any sense.
now, i'm in no way disagreeing with the basic point of this post. obama still has time, he can do a lot more to make up with HRC supporters and women in general. he should, if he wants to win. as in, the on his knees, tearful, roses and chocolates in hand, "honey i'll never do that again" sort of begging. i doubt he will. but speaking as someone who knows a thing or two about the kind of woman MO is, and must be to make it in the way that she herself has made it....no, i don't think she puts up with much sexist bs at home. and i think like elizabeth edwards, there are some discussions we're never going to be privvy to until it suits them to share.
short version: most of the time, the woman is the better liberal in the couple. MO is no exception, imho.
I don't buy it, CD
One aspect of the Obama campaign that's been repeatedly commented upon is its online presence (a presence which, for example, with the cooperation of the sysadmins, purged Kos of Hillary supporters). Further, if there's one thing the Obama campaign has shown, it's the tendency to be, er, unitary (see 527s; move of DNC to Chicago). So, I see little reason to differentiate between the campaign and the online presence; quite the reverse, in fact. Plus, it's the old question of Hillary Rules vs Obama Rules. Since Hillary's responsible for everything her supporters say, ditto Obama. The differences being (see above) that there's some reason in the latter case.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I can't believe...
So, I see little reason to differentiate between the campaign and the online presence; quite the reverse, in fact.
...that if Obama had spoken up loudly in a diary on Daily Kos against the misogyny and hatefulness toward Hillary and her supporters, expressed utter disgust with those who engaged in it--and done so, if necessary, more than once--it wouldn't have made a difference in the tone there, and probably on other pro-Obama blogs as well as word got around that the One was not happy with what was going on.
You never know, it might even have filtered out to the pro-Obama media that He was displeased.
If the man is applying for the most powerful job in the world,
with the largest military budget, largest grasp on natural resources, etc., and he cannot control the handful of people who speak for him during his campaign, why the fuck should I be impressed with either his management or persuasive skills?
If he sees a campaign strategy is toxic with a group of voters he wishes to be perceived as desiring, shouldn't he be bothered enough to use his power *within his campaign* to make his wishes -- not tepid statements, his concrete wishes -- known?
Sounds like a pretty powerless man to me, to not control the aspect of his campaign he's supposedly the strongest on: Its message.
whale, lb:
you're so lucky i really need to get in the gardens now.
whale, i hear you, i'm just trying to find some Hope to inject into our conversations. see, i'm a Cultist now, it's expected of me. anyway, i learned something when i met Elizabeth Edwards, and i stand by my claim that "it's the wimmin who make liberalism happen."
lb: that's fair. but perhaps: not helpful in beating down mcstain? again,that's really the only place i'm coming from. not now, but later. later you will have all the shadenfreude and toldyaso moments you could ever want. but for now, and for future generations who will wish they had free choice and a Constitution and no endless war.
i guess i'm just going to have to blog more. just not at this moment.
Huh?
In what sense is that comment either schaenfreude or toldyaso, pray tell?
It's setting the record straight. If that isn't done now, it will never be done. Period. And somehow, I have a very hard time seeing how McCain is going to make the online behavior of the OFB
an issue. Eh?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
There are two ways
to beat down McCain. One is to beat him down; the other is to convince folks to vote for his opponent.
There's room between winks and speeches, no?
Are you suggesting a speech on sexism in America, ala his race speech? I'm afraid that doing so would be perceived as contrived and the messages of both would be diluted in some sort of process narrative. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and he should do it.
OTOH, I might suggest a prime time interview with, say, Katie Couric, focused on sexism in the media. Wouldn't you rather have a situation of Obama answering direct questions; not being in total control of the content?
Anyway, my point was that signs indicate that the campaign is actively seeking advice from congresswomen, women's groups, et al on the most effective ways to proceed.
Side note. I'm not sure I understand that Obama is that responsible for answering to/apologizing for/addressing the media's role in misogynistic coverage of Clinton... but, McCain has shown that he plans to hammer this wedge, so Obama would be wise to get ahead of it.
I'd would be really nice not to have to read tea leaves...
... and look for "signs" and make deductions about this or that personnel move or whatever Inside Baseball stuff is going on, and instead have a full-force, open-hearted commitment that yes, misogny is a real problem, and that it needs to be addressed.
Typically, to get a politician to change behavior, one inflicts pain. That's what happened to Obama on Wright, and we got the speech on racism. So, I don't blame people one little bit for trying to show Obama there are real opportunities to lead on this issue. Might help with the Unity
thing, too, right?
Could there possibly be a downside here? And if so, what would it be?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Gotcha.
Just pointing out where you might find reason to be optimistic that your wants will be met; lest your pushback turn to contempt.
Downside? No. Like I said, Obama should get ahead of this issue before he loses it (I realize, even if don't understand, he has already lost with some/many voters).
Now, let me say, I agree that sexism and misogyny are problems in our society that need to be acknowledged, confronted and dealt with. And as the nominee of the Democratic party, Obama certainly has a lead role in this.
But, whatever the number of 18 million who demand it, Obama would be wise to maximize the effect of the message. Not just the vehicle for his addressing woment; also the timing. No doubt there are many who are not yet receptive to these hypothetical amends. We are only a week removed from the primaries. I'm guessing an optimum opportunity will arise for Obama to seize these issues. Maybe its attacks on Michelle (ratcheting up already) or a McCain gaffe or something else.
This is why whatever he says will be met with skepticism
He'll do it when the opportunity is right. Not because right is right.
For some of us it'll never be right
- he can't win. The only thing that would convince me is a loud, thorough apology, but he can't afford to admit wrongdoing in the middle of a campaign.
Any attempt to "lead", whether prompted by attacks on Michelle Obama or anything else, can provoke only laughter from me.
Any such attempt by Michelle Obama will leave me utterly cold, after her "if you can't run your own house you can't run the White House" moment.
Policy not party!
Uh, no.
It isn't just that "sexism and misogyny are problems in our society that need to be acknowledged, confronted and dealt with"; it's that he *exploited* those problems to gain the perception that he won a close primary campaign. His participation in this process was not passive, and neither should be his direct and public expiation about strategies that were undertaken on his behalf.
VL
Or both.
Michelle Obama takes her young daughters to see
Reverend Wright speak - she's not a feminist. She's not a good mother - no one who exposes young girls to the likes of Wright is a good parent. She's participating in inculcating her young daughters into the notion of second class status.
I used the analogy earlier in another post, so I'll continue. She's the second wife who gets together with the new man to help deprive the first wife of custody and/or child support. Her rhetoric against Clinton - the nasty "if you can't run your own house" line - was just as misogynistic as Obama's "periodic" comment. They're both misogynistic creeps.
If we are the ones we have been waiting for, then we have met the enemy and he is us.
i still want to know who watches their kids every day--
seriously.
Wow. What sort of black church service would be acceptable to
you?
One that simply Hoovers the tithes out of pockets, without any mention of the need of attendees to particpate in social justice and other good works?
There are thousands of churches glad to keep their congregations asleep. Liberation theology was only a bad concept to the reactionaries of the Catholic Church and the CIA troops that liked killing activist nuns.
I guess what my larger question is what, in your view, is a proper leftist church's theology? Are all imprecatory actions and prayers banned from it? Do people pray over Bush and Cheney so that they're slightly less worse than the day before? Is religious fervor a no-no?
I'm sorry I was so silent during the Wright mishegas, but I separated out Wright's own hunger for the spotlight with his church's obviously popular message.
One possible factor in future news coverage:
MSNBC will change, positively or negatively, because their lead political commentator has died:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/
Once they mourn, the producers and anchors might have a moment to listen to people who might say, respectfully, that we're in a lot of trouble out here, too.
Timmeh Death
Will only strengthen the MSM's resolve.
It will be tantamount to heresy to say something "bad" about his conduct now.
Tweety might be on suicide watch.
Watch how Olbermann treats Russert tonight.
the ultimate "gotcha" ?
(yup-i'm evil) ; >
Now now, Amberglow
If you've got nothing nice to say... (that's why I'll keep quiet on this). ;-)
Go Global!
nah---
i didn't keep quiet when Reagan died or Atwater or many many many others--why now?
LMBAO!!!
Cafe Press is beggin for a visit.
LOL
but who wants pumpkinhead's gigantic mug
on their chest?
*shivers*
manamah - if he objects to misogynist attaccks
while never having said a word about Randi Rhodes calling clinton a fucking whore and all the other crap that was dished her way - he'll lose more voters. I can't tell you how hurful that would be to a lot of us.
In fact, the most important thing for those two is to suck it up when the racism and the misogyny come their way. They've dished it out. they need to prove they can take it.
If we are the ones we have been waiting for, then we have met the enemy and he is us.
Um, no.
later you will have all the shadenfreude and toldyaso moments you could ever want. but for now, and for future generations who will wish they had free choice and a Constitution and no endless war.
It's Obama's job to convince those voters who are unhappy with him to vote for him, not the job of those voters to get in line and just accept the shit sandwich that's been the only thing on the menu for generations.
Also?
Really, really tired of my uterus being used as a political football. If the Democrats really gave a damn about free choice, they'd have been doing something to prevent Roe from becoming no more than a coat hanger with which to beat women into line every four years.
Women have no effective choice now in huge swaths of this country. What have the Democrats done to prevent that?
Zuzu, I'm just asking here
not looking for a fight, but to understand what is (or rather, what is not) happening.
"Women have no effective choice now in huge swaths of this country. What have the Democrats done to prevent that?"
True, and awful, and a good tough question. Played it for political gain, but then that is what political parties will do. Both sides have used Roe as a bludgeon and a fundraising tool; probably they will always do that, with pretty much everything.
What puzzles me, though, is another question: Women have no effective choice now in huge swaths of this country. What have Women done to prevent that?
It seems to me that when the ERA failed the wind went out of any sort of issue-oriented women's movement. Lots of talking still but not much doing. Not being critical, just observing - but it seems to me that the lesson from women's sufferage is that unless there is a substantial organized and relentless push for an issue, it is unlikely to happen.
If women want to preserve the right to privacy within, the right to control over, their own bodies, then women will have to mobilize and secure it. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I do mean to be blunt. As much support as there will be from men, and there will be considerable, I can't see any path other than one forged by women.
(And I know women shouldn't have to, and yes it is all wrong that women do have to, and it should just be there because it is right and reasonable and fair and all, but still; reality is what it is.)
Does this make sense?
makes perfect sense
1921-1997 -- 76 more years, an entire lifetime [that's longer than you can expect to live] of testiculan 'support' yah, go get em, tiger! and while you're up would you bring me another beer, sweetie?
btw, that would be suffrage you were thinking of, although sufferage describes it well enough.
Suffering Suffrage
One would think that there might be some slack cut for spelling errors committed in the midst of perfectly good intentions, but no. I'll try to do better, but with my massive editorial and research staff on holiday I'm struggling here on my own.
Eight years focused, objective obtained. Since then, not much; sounds like an attention span issue. If women, as a block, took 1/10 the time expended on the intricacies of accessorizing and applied it instead on women’s issues, they would all be solved – with or without testiculan support. If women want it done, they need to take responsibility and do it; waiting for others, especially those who see themselves threatened by the desired changes, will not work.
I declined to join your NWP or NFP or whatever because I only have so much effort available, and I want to spend what I have on a broader-based, humanist approach. For what you propose I say go get ‘em, best wishes, hope it all works well for you. Consider me a moral supporter.
We’re all sweeties, now.
With all due respect and friendship, BIO
These 3 paragraphs of yours are one big pile of bullshit. They just reveal your ignorance of what women have been doing at grassroot levels (in the US and worldwide) for their own survival. There is a lot being done that is invisible to the privileged groups, never counted as economic / social productive activity (see my post on solidarity economics). And so, if it's not counted in the dominant measures, it means it does not exist, right?
The problem is that women ARE a minority and therefore getting anything done requires a lot more effort, money and presents many more obstacles. And it pisses me off when women work their asses off (remember the second and third shifts??), and some jackass (in this case, yes, you) shows up and proclaims "well, why don't you ladies get off your asses and get it done??".
Well, screw you, BIO, we're trying but when even our side of the political spectrum does not recognize the major obstacles women face (misogyny and sexism) even exist, it makes everything all the more difficult.
Oh, and as for having so much effort available, pal, women have way less leisure time than men in ANY societies, and yet, we find the time and effort and energy to get shit done.
So keep your pontificating for when you know what you're talking about, 'kay.
Go Global!
thufferin' thuccotath
One would think that there might be some slack cut for spelling errors committed in the midst of perfectly good intentions, but no. I’ll try to do better, but with my massive editorial and research staff on holiday I’m struggling here on my own.
[mad proofreader skillz, i has them, also copyediting skillz. your staff wanted to hire me to fill in while they were on vacation, but they couldn't afford my ratez. you're in luck, i've got a distinct weakness for bloviators, so here's a free sample. --ed]
Eight years focused, objective obtained. Since then, not much; sounds like an attention span issue. If
women, as a block, took 1/10 the time expended on the intricacies ofaccessorizingbaseball/basketball/fooball/soccer/bloviating/ogling women on the beach and applied it instead on women’s issues, they would all be solved – with or withouttesticulanovarian support. If women want it done, they can just kill all the men who stand in the way. if instead, men want to survive the process, they need to take responsibility and do it; waiting forotherswomen, especially those women whosee themselveshave been marginalized/patted on the head and dismissed/outright threatened by men, to ask sweetly for the desired changes, will not work.I declined to join your NWP or NFP or whatever [dismissive much? --ed] because I only have so much effort available, and I want to spend what I have on
a broader-based, humanist approachanything but mere women. For what you propose I say go get ‘em, best wishes, hope it all works well for you, now get out of the way of those of us who have real goals to pursue. Consider me a moral supporter [we need moral supporters like we need athletic supporters --ed].We’re all sweeties, now.
.......................
seriously, this demand [and it's not just you] that the poor/weak/afflicted/downtrodden/been kicked in the teeth/fell in tiger pit need to go to extraordinary lengths to prove their moral worthiness before being allowed to beg for help -- that's a republican value, not a democratic one, not a liberal one, not a progressive one. it's not even a conservative one, fer cryin out loud.
you've got humanist goals you want implemented and only limited resources avialable? with just a small expenditure of your precious capital you could literally have half the population fighting alongside you to reach those goals. we have the same goals as you, actually, surprise surprise, but we can't get a whole hell of a lot done as half-persons.
not to mention that we're just fucking tired of being half-persons.
woman on top, you should try it for a while, spice things right up for you. sweetie.
Hipparchia, you misunderstand
See Here.
I didn't "turn it down" -- I wanted to reframe it.
National Human Rights Party? Hell, yeah.
And "natural" successor to NWP, IMNSHO. That's what the third ("????") option in my sig means: If there were a genuine alternative, and not Naderite self-indulgence, I'd go for it. (And I'm in a state where the Greens are supposedly big, but I don't see anything from them, so it looks like whatever the angle is, the Greens don't have it.)
I have to say, also, that I found the "Rivers of Blood" title a little offputting. Seems to me that with the examples of Ghandi and MLK before us, we don't need to equate violence with success.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
no i don't misunderstand. i just reframed your reframe.
national human rights party? oh hell yeah, with ya 150% on that, i really am, and yes, you're absolutely right, it's the logical successor to the nwp.
one small problem, the nwp didn't get to quite finish its mission. the era came this || close to being passed, but didn't make it. we got more pay, more maternity leave, more child care, more steps on the corporate ladder, we're allowed to play in more sports in schools, we got all kinds of goodies, but ...
oh look, you women care about racial inequality, we need to work on that! [we do] and kids! we need to do more for our kids! y'all care about kids! [we do] and animal rights! [you bet] and iraqiranafghanistanabughraibguantanamo!
lots of people [and animals] are getting lifted up out of hopelessness and moving up the ladder to where you are, and thanks to the god/dess/e/s and a lot of individual humans it's happening, but the default 100% fully human with all rights, repsonsibilities, and liberties that go along with the position? that's still white+male.
and that includes your reframe of my proposed party. you could just as easily have jumped in and said adopt your priority and make it my first priority too? oh hell yeah! we get that taken care of, i know we'll have half the population on our side when we take on my priorities!
----------
heh. the title was more than a little offputting.
all those events [and they're timelines, really, not discrete events] can be interpreted several ways --
interesting breakdown, more or less along gender lines, in which commenters on that post made which interpretations.
I remember a story I read as a child...
... about a child who was in the business of cutting lawns for the neighbors, and started out doing a cheap, lousy job, until one of the neighbors said "Why not try to do a $3.00 job?" instead of the $2.00 job the kid was doing? And so they did, and did better with a $4.00 job, and a $5.00 job, and they got stuck at a $7.00 job and after trying and trying and trying, couldn't do a good enough job to charge $8.00. So then the neighbor suggested, "Why not try to do a $10.00 job?" Which worked....
Meaning -- and I like the story because I did that when I was a kid -- maybe the work of the NWP isn't finished because it takes more than the NWP to do it?
Very happy to have this discussion, it needs to be had. Depends, to a degree, on who you think "the real enemy" is?
FWIW, I think the answer has to be along the lines of "there will be violence" but not from us. One of the nice things about MLK and Ghandi is that they didn't lead movements that turned into the Jacobins, say.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
$10.00 job, that's the one i want
you give us $10 worth of work on women's rights, we'll give you $10 worth on any number of other issues that are dear to your heart.
you put $2 into women's rights, promise more to come later, and ask us to spread ourselves out so thin on issues of your choosing that we can only put $2, $4, 7$ worth into any of them....
defining the enemy is easy. the problem is figuring out who among your friends will hold you back while seeming to help: some of them will do so inadvertently, some of them will do so subconsciously, and some of them will only be your friend just so long as you don't seek admission to the secret clubhouse.
non-violent civil disobedience, i'm all for it. i've been trying to get myself arrested since before i got my drivers license. started by chaining myself to trees to keep them from getting cut down and once even belonged to a group that helped women get safe abortions back when they were illegal.
so here it is 30+ years later and where are my pet issues? era never made it, we got roe v wade but it's relentlessly being chipped away bit by bit, and dick cheney is effectively running the epa [and almost as well as he's doing with iraq].
i. am. pissed.
i see right now as a really good time to revive serious work on women's issues [hillary is also on the environment committee, yay! bonus!], and i see splitting off a sizeable portion of the democratic party, with hillary at the head, as an expedient way to do that. you want to talk me out of doing anything that drastic, so i ask your question:
and we get... ?
Good Luck With That
Sincerely.
"i see right now as a really good time to revive serious work on women’s issues [hillary is also on the environment committee, yay! bonus!], and i see splitting off a sizeable portion of the democratic party, with hillary at the head, as an expedient way to do that."
I disagree. I do not share that vision, either from a practicable standpoint or from a philosophical one. If I were to plot taking a chunk out of the Democratic Party to form a new one, I would not count on Hillary being willing to join it, much less head it. From a standpoint of political philosophy, I do not see a fragment of the size of the "Clinton faction" as being a viable entity by which to achieve electoral victory. Rather, I would see it more likely to end up facilitating the continued dominance of Republicans in the White House, and putting the Congress at risk; quite the opposite of what I want to occur. That's what I see happening; your vision may reasonably vary.
"you want to talk me out of doing anything that drastic"
Disagreeing with you, and telling you why I do, is not the same as trying to talk you out of it. By all means, proceed according to your best judgment. I wish you good fortune, and all success; may everything you desire come true.
Shakespeare's Sister has the NYTimes photo accompanying the
"Was there really sexism?" article in a post.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2...
A photo of Hillary from the neck down to just about waist. Honest. Head cut off (symbolic, what?). Microphones and taperecorders surrounding her torso. Focus: bosom.
Objectifying her? Depersonalizing her? Some photo editor's snark, either against the MCM's protests or against her? Very weird.
And shocking. Infuriating.
A real grabber--in the most groping way imaginable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/pol...
Times link, bcz posted one seems wrong.
Byline on the NYT article jawbone references above
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JULIE BOSMAN
Grrrl Power.
Media Panel At Emily's List
I'll have more on this since I'm going to do a whole post on the Emily's List Majority Council Conference, which I'm still digesting, but they had a very interesting panel this morning on gender and the media (the NYT panel was universally mocked) and if one thing is quite clear, there is a great deal of fury from the roughly 200 women and men (okay, only about half a dozen of them were men) not only at the media, but at the Democratic Party for failing to say anything or stand up to the media's misogyny.
And, you know, as angry as I was on my behalf, I'm even angrier on behalf of some of these older women (most of the women were over 50 and some were in their 70s). I happened to be sitting in front of a couple of donors who were asking for guidance from one of the coordinators about which Emily's List candidates to give the maximum $2300 to. It was clear, it wasn't going to be just one, but a list of them. And I thought these women have been doing this for probably not just Emily's List candidates - all of whom, of course, are Democrats - but other Democratic Party candidates for a very long time.
Then after waiting their entire lives, they finally get a viable female Democratic presidential candidate and party leaders can't even be relied upon to defend her from GOP operatives calling her a white bitch or reporters saying she was pimping out her daughter. Yet, you can bet the party will be hitting them up again for their large donations (although other than to Emily's List, I'm not sure the Democrats are going to be getting as many donations from this crew as they have in years past).
The word that comes to mind for such behavior by the Democratic Party towards these women is shameful.
thanks for this
and i look forward to your post on it
Shameful indeed
And I look forward to the post that reports on the Emily's List meeting!!
I remember quite vividly a story when Obama took the first caucus state, IA, and reading what some reporter wrote about a crowd of forlorn older women in a corner somewhere, looking sad and left behind, and I thought "Wait a minute, something's wrong here...." And how right I was.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Are you fucking kidding me?
What puzzles me, though, is another question: Women have no effective choice now in huge swaths of this country. What have Women done to prevent that?
Do you ask black people what they've done to prevent the erosion of their rights, or LGBT people what they've done to prevent the erosion of theirs?
Why is it only women's responsibility to take on the government if they want to deserve to have rights?
Not to mention, you could do a little research into the matter before you assume that women haven't done jack shit. There are lots of grass-roots organizations on the local and state level who've been fighting the fight, but they can't do much without the assistance of lawmakers, who after all are the ones who pass these "reasonable" measures like parental-consent laws or waiting periods, or who fail to stand up to the domestic terrorists who are trying to prevent women from getting health care. And they can't do much without donations, and people who might donate think that because Roe is still more or less standing, the fight is over.
Don't lay it at the feet of women and tell us it's our fault we've lost our rights.
KA-Slam! zuzu, excellent point
since when is it "women's work" to fight to protect choice? i don't disagree that too many younger women take choice for granted these days, but hell yes, i'm with zuzu. gender means nothing, if you're a true progressive you care and fight for choice regardless of yours.
Fuck that.
If women, as a block, took 1/10 the time expended on the intricacies of accessorizing and applied it instead on women’s issues, they would all be solved – with or without testiculan support.
Excuse me?
Oh, guess you think that the laaaadieeeez are too busy picking out SHOOOOOOEZ to concern themselves with rights, and that therefore they don't deserve them.
Fuck
you sideways. You are a white male, which means that you've never had to do anything to secure a full set of rights except draw breath. And now you've got the unmitigated gall to suggest that I don't deserve any rights at all unless I put down the nail polish and take on the government to get what should be mine just because I'm a fucking human being.
And how *dare* you try to claim that "We're all sweeties now," when you've never had anyone ever suggest that your basic human rights are conditional, and right after you say that you'd love to help out women's issues, but you just don't have the inclination or the time.
Too busy accessorizing, maybe?
God, what an asswipe.
Your assumptions are showing, ladies
Speaking of pontificating. How would you know how much I've had to overcome, how many hours a week I've had to work my whole life, how much struggle I've endured? My life has hardly been a cakewalk.
Point of fact, 2006 census puts women at 50.7% of the US population; spare me the "minority" pity card.
My POV is that in every respect women are equal to men, in talent, intellect, skill, mental strength, everything. I also credit women with being able to deal with blunt and honest discussion, so I don't mince my words when I state my opinion on the work that needs doing and who needs to do it. If you're looking for someone to pat you on the head and murmur "there, there, poor little thing, it is all so difficult" that won't be me.
I'll be back, in a while, with a promised front page post on the whole issue of gender relationships in the modern world, and what I see as the remaining problems. You can have at me more then; I promise, it'll be a target-rich environment.
Fuck you, BIO
You shouldn't frontpage a post on gender when you so obviously don't know what you're talking about.
1. FYI, "minority" = "disadvantaged group", nothing to do with numbers. That's one basic fact you get wrong.
2. In addition to pontificating, now, you're patronizing us without any basis for doing so since neither Zuzu nor I sought a pat on the head. We've had enough sexism throughout this primary.
3. The problem is not that you don't mince your words (oh, how courageous and un-PC you are!! Now, who deserves a pat on the head), the problem is that you're full of shit and ignorant of basic gender issues.
4. "I've had it hard too" is the usual BS we get from men when it comes to gender discussions, or whites when it comes to racial discussions. It's a nice and convenient way to flush unearned privileges (being male, white, straight...) from the discussion. See this, for instance, or the male privilege checklist.
There has been a ton of analysis of this phenomenon of unearned / unrecognized privilege. Unless you're cognizant of it, I suggest you shut the fuck up on it.
Oh, and BTW, you don't have time to get active in promoting women's rights but you have the time for a FP post on something of which you're completely ignorant. How about you go back and read some feminism 101 stuff rather than inflict your sexist drivel on us.
And spare us the "you can criticize me cuz I'm gonna be so controversial"... Zuzu and I have better things to do than educate you on stuff you should already know if you claim to be a liberal or progressive (if you claim to be). After all, we're too busy bitching about the sad state of women's rights without doing a damn thing about it.
Go Global!
fish in a barrel, shotgun loaded,
looking forward to this.
Wish I could write 'em like that...
short and sweet! :-)
Go Global!
if you did that...
what would i do for reading material? i'd hate to have to go back to reading toothpaste tubes and catfood labels. i like your posts just the way they are.
Thanks Hipparchia
Actually, when I read you "fish in barrel / gun" comment, I thought "don't mess with the farm girl!!".
:-)
Go Global!
Hipparchia, have you heard the news?
Crest has been shown to be an effective decay preventive dentifrice that can be of significant value when used as directed in a conscientiously applied program of oral hygiene and regular professional care.
*Whacks VL over the head*
Don't get snarky, young man, us ladies ain't in the mood (you know, THESE moods that we get, periodically) for snark (and Hipparchia has a gun too!).
Go Global!
Toothpaste is a sensitive topic, I know...
Which is why they created Sensodyne.
Also note that fluoride is a rather sensitive topic for us gents, what with its effects on the purity of our manly essence.
You mean
it might pollute your precious bodily fluids?? :-) (Hey, I know my movie classics too!)
Although "manly essence" sounds a lot more exotic.
Go Global!
Hey, now we can get on-topic. Sort of.
General Jack D. Ripper: Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
*
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
*
I guess there's a reason why no one ever asks "what do men want?"
You asked for it!
After all, it's Saturday night.
Yikes yikes yikes
BIO and I've liked reading you so much, and now there are flames coming out of my ears.
As you are obviously highly intelligent I can only assume that you lit that fire on purpose. I look forward to your essay, with feelings I have no wish to describe, hoping it will be entitled something like "Life's a bastard" and will lead to an interchange as rich in feeling, insult, and general horse manure as Xenophon's recent offering. I wonder if it would be possible for us to have that discussion without ever saying "privilege". I'm so tired of that abstraction.
So much fun. My Hillary-hate bruises were starting to fade so I guess it was time for something like this.
Yr lady friend,
gob
Policy not party!
Bwah.
I’ll be back, in a while, with a promised front page post on the whole issue of gender relationships in the modern world
Oh, THAT will be a laugh. The dude who doesn't want to listen to why some women would object to being called "ladies" is going to give us the lowdown on MODERN gender relationships.
Ooooh, and I bet it's going to be all contrarian 'n' un-PC 'n' shit.
Nothing needs stirring up more
than conventional wisdom that's started to coagulate and turn sour. If I read one more they're all so mean its all so awful woe is us essay I will flat out scream. Definitely a need for a thorough reexamination so yeah gob (aren't you the clever one), deliberate, and thanks to all for the talking points - I'll be sure to address each one.
And how about that Xenophon; he is a stitch, isn’t he?
Here's more evidence
that you don't know what the fuck you're writing about.
First, there was no "woe is us" post / comment from either Zuzu, yours truly or any other commenters.
And second, oh yeah, your post will just write itself: "the PC crowd would have you believe that women are an oppressed minority... but I, unprivileged male will show you otherwise because my courageous (albeit ignorant and uninformed of the realities of the world, I might say) viewpoint just NEEDS to be added to shatter the untruths... yadda yadda yadda" we've read it a million times before from conservative and reactionary pundits.
There is nothing original or controversial or revolutionary or courageous about it. If it smells like bullshit, it probably is.
But, hey, whatever makes your poor, underprivileged, male ego feel better, sweetie.
Go Global!
i [heart] xenophon
that was a post [xenophon's] that i've wanted to write, but can't really.
i did actually want to bring the conversation around to ladies and joan jett and grrrl rockers earlier, but my threadjack[threadjill?] got threadjacked, which was just as well probably.
so, pistols at dawn? rubber-tipped arrows at 30 paces? in spite of the fact that i'm sharpening my filet knife and dreaming of sushi, i am interested in what you have to say.
Ahhh, Xeno's OK
but don't tell him, it'll go to his head. That post of his needed writing.
A lot of holier than thou around, less self-examination than there should be. So many angry people, on all sides, lashing out at everyone not just like them. Toxic environment. I'll have something to say but not for a little while, other things in the queue; bats, couple of econ pieces, the Minutemen and Ron Paul.
I’d put up something about Grrl rockers but I might be called out for not being properly, ah, equipped. Joan was a topic in the other thread where I was also an idiot, but of a different kind, wasn’t it? Who knew there were so many variants?
wool of bat, tongue of dog
i like bats [and newts and frogs, and i'm assuming we're talking about the critters and not baseball bats, cricket bats, barking moonbats] looking forward to that.
yep, i'm going to have to step away from the gender wars for a bit too. i've got to demystify single-payer, be a gentleman farmer, take on big agriculture, speculate on commodities, and with fd's help, solve world hunger. and something about toxic environments....
idiot variants, who knew indeed? nobody warned me either, about how many different ways there are to be an idiot.
see ya at the knife fight. i'll bring you some arugula.
I must turn in
But we'll meet again.
oh, so it was you
who ordered up the thunderstorm that turned out the lights?
Oh, yes
Wimmins are just angry and aren't doing any self-examination. That's the problem, of course.
I note that you did a whole post about FISA without once suggesting that if citizens don't want to have their right to privacy eroded, it's up to them to organize and take action against the government.
Why is that?
Heh
Good point. But bringiton is nothing if not consistent. He made exactly the same point with the disenfranchised voters of FL and MI.
And, I suppose, the same point could be made for all of us. Why weren't we.... doing something after Bush v. Gore? When the Iraq marches didn't work... What then?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
ya beat me to it
about florida, for which bio consistently beats me over the head with fannie lou hamer every time i mention it, but i maintain this makes him consistently wrong on two counts now.
i'm all for personal responsibility, have been since i first learned the word no at about age 2, but i refuse to let the rest of y'all turn a blind eye to the various collective, corporate, and institutional irresponsibilities.
But of course it isn't either / or
H:" i refuse to let the rest of y’all turn a blind eye to the various collective, corporate, and institutional irresponsibilities" Who is doing that? Not me. Blast the oppressors wherever they are, without mercy. Also, organize to maximize impact and demonstrate and march and be highly vocal and all the rest of what it takes to be heard and get attention and make your point. There is no need to choose between the two sets of actions, and every reason to do both.
As to me reminding people that they are responsible for holding their elected representatives accountable, that this is for all its flaws a democracy that offers paths to remediation, that organizing demonstrations and marches are viable and effective options that are underutilized, I suppose I could do that on every post on every topic but my expectation is that people should be informed on that already.
My asking now and then why it isn't happening shouldn't IMNSHO be cause for condemnation; that it has been suggests to me that more inquiry on the specific topic is warranted.
solidarnosc
the revote thing, it ended up not really helping, but lambert has been a staunch ally of michigan and florida voters. you? you offer lessons in political activism and platitudes about personal responsibility, both of which i've already got, in quantity.
when i describe the republican dirty tricks that went into, and along with, moving the primary date, i'm not looking for sympathy, lessons, or even solidarity [though that one would be nice to have]. i want my fellow democrats to be smart enough to counteract them, or at the very least to notice them.
hard to fight off evils perpetrated by the opposition if you're too blind to see them.