Radical Feminism and The Campaign
(NB: I wrote an abbreviated version of this post as a FaceBook comment - you may have to have an account to read the orginal post - in response to this article by Linda Burnham (the link is second-hand - the original article couldn't be found). It's a great read, although, depending on your politics, it might make you angry. I found it compelling. Your mileage may vary.)
Which sin of commission deserves greater recompense, gender bias, or racial discrimination?
It seems that in the Democratic nomination process leading up to November's election, feminists, or rather radical feminists, would have you believe the former is the more egregious and that only at this moment in history, can one literally cast their vote against the horrible institution of (white) male privilege in America.
This is not the first time enfranchisement, race and gender have intersected. The primary battle mirrors the 1880's question of who deserved the franchise more, freed black slaves (advocated by Frederick Douglass), or women -- exclusively white women -- as put forth by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and oddly enough, Sojourner Truth (who spoke eloquently on the subject, so the record says, at the 1851 Convention on Women's Rights). Truth did eventually come to support the right of universal suffrage for women at some point later in her long career as a leader and advocate for change.
In this case, we ask not so much about the frachise, as we do the legacy of the right to vote. In this case, we're presented with the question -- as posed by radical feminists: for whom does a vote represent the greater good, the more equal good in this election, one for Hillary Clinton, or one for Barack Obama?
Radical feminists (the Gloria Stinem's and Robin Morgan's, et al.) of the world would suggest to you that women need to do away with the "male left" and in this case espouse, that Hillary Clinton is the only person ready, and able to step into the breach, the only person ready to run the world (as the President so often does). And that, in fact, it's her time to do so.
And you know who knows it, primarily? White women older than about 50, thats who, because they've suffered under the heel of the man, much longer than you darkies!
And the remainder of us...well, we are simply deluded and bamboozled by Mr. Obama's flash, his oratory and good looks. And his race, of course. Can't forget that. Mr. Obama is, of course, the beneficiary of being at least half black, and his male gender puts him over the top -- interesting, because last I checked, being a presidential candidate was not something positively correlated with being a black man.
In short, to the radical feminists, there is a notion that gender bias is a greater evil than racial discrimination, and many in this group believe this is "their time" in the ascendancy, embodied in the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton; that young upstart Obama better wait his turn in line, like a good boy.
But this is not a time to play either racial or gender games.
To me, the choice and framing provided by the radical feminists is a false choice, and a specious argument at best.
Let's break it down: for the vast majority of voters, gender is NOT why Clinton is behind. What many women who support the New York Senator seem to discount, is the fact that Mrs. Clinton is disliked my many on the left and the right, because of her record, and the fact that she is seen as inauthentic. At best, they see her with no firm beliefs, and if she has them she doesn't articulate them. At worst, some consider her an outright liar.
At the least, she is seen as sometimes fast and loose with the truth, and prone to revisionism -- much like the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, if only a bit more liberal. And as Carl Bernstein so eloquently pointed out his his book on the First Lady, A Woman In Charge and reiterated in this blog post, Mrs. Clinton's veracity and grasp of the facts are the bain of her existence, even among close confidants and friends.
If we are to trust that our vote for Mrs. Clinton does more than "equal the playing field for women," I'd think the voting public is owed explanation on the latest Clinton mishandling of the truth: the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described on more than one occassion, in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience,” not to mention her insistence that her Iraq vote was correct, or that she was instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland (despite spending most of her time in the spousal limousine). These are matters quite apart from her gender.
We -- men, women, black, white and everything in between -- should have something more on which to hang our hats when voting, than just righting a century (or more) of discrimination, and that goes for both racial and gender.
Were there a different female candidate running behind in the polls, a Jennifer Granholm, two-term governor of Michigan (I know she can't run -- she's only a naturalized citizen), or a Kathleen Sibelius, two-term governor of Kansas, or even a Christie Todd Whitman, two-term governor of New Jersey and moderate Republican (!!), for instance, I suspect "she" might have more traction in the argument that she is behind because of gender, and other bias, rather than a substantive difference in political capability.
The radical feminists need a crutch on which to lean because their candidate is faltering under the pressure of running a losing campaign, built less on her own gender-less intelligence and capability, than defining her competitor as just "the black candidate" and the media as being "anti-woman." The obvious crutch, the most convenient one is race "preference" for Obama among blacks, and the fact that he's part of the XY crowd, so he wins with men.
He's is winning, not because of gender or racial bias. He's winning because millions of men and women see him as a better alternative that they can trust.
It's not the 1880's and one day a woman will be president. A woman that deserves the office. Unfortunately this is not the time nor is Hillary Clinton the woman for the role.
Which sin of commission deserves greater recompense, gender bias, or racial discrimination?
It seems that in the Democratic nomination process leading up to November's election, feminists, or rather radical feminists, would have you believe the former is the more egregious and that only at this moment in history, can one literally cast their vote against the horrible institution of (white) male privilege in America.
This is not the first time enfranchisement, race and gender have intersected. The primary battle mirrors the 1880's question of who deserved the franchise more, freed black slaves (advocated by Frederick Douglass), or women -- exclusively white women -- as put forth by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and oddly enough, Sojourner Truth (who spoke eloquently on the subject, so the record says, at the 1851 Convention on Women's Rights). Truth did eventually come to support the right of universal suffrage for women at some point later in her long career as a leader and advocate for change.
In this case, we ask not so much about the frachise, as we do the legacy of the right to vote. In this case, we're presented with the question -- as posed by radical feminists: for whom does a vote represent the greater good, the more equal good in this election, one for Hillary Clinton, or one for Barack Obama?
Radical feminists (the Gloria Stinem's and Robin Morgan's, et al.) of the world would suggest to you that women need to do away with the "male left" and in this case espouse, that Hillary Clinton is the only person ready, and able to step into the breach, the only person ready to run the world (as the President so often does). And that, in fact, it's her time to do so.
And you know who knows it, primarily? White women older than about 50, thats who, because they've suffered under the heel of the man, much longer than you darkies!
And the remainder of us...well, we are simply deluded and bamboozled by Mr. Obama's flash, his oratory and good looks. And his race, of course. Can't forget that. Mr. Obama is, of course, the beneficiary of being at least half black, and his male gender puts him over the top -- interesting, because last I checked, being a presidential candidate was not something positively correlated with being a black man.
In short, to the radical feminists, there is a notion that gender bias is a greater evil than racial discrimination, and many in this group believe this is "their time" in the ascendancy, embodied in the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton; that young upstart Obama better wait his turn in line, like a good boy.
But this is not a time to play either racial or gender games.
To me, the choice and framing provided by the radical feminists is a false choice, and a specious argument at best.
Let's break it down: for the vast majority of voters, gender is NOT why Clinton is behind. What many women who support the New York Senator seem to discount, is the fact that Mrs. Clinton is disliked my many on the left and the right, because of her record, and the fact that she is seen as inauthentic. At best, they see her with no firm beliefs, and if she has them she doesn't articulate them. At worst, some consider her an outright liar.
At the least, she is seen as sometimes fast and loose with the truth, and prone to revisionism -- much like the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, if only a bit more liberal. And as Carl Bernstein so eloquently pointed out his his book on the First Lady, A Woman In Charge and reiterated in this blog post, Mrs. Clinton's veracity and grasp of the facts are the bain of her existence, even among close confidants and friends.
If we are to trust that our vote for Mrs. Clinton does more than "equal the playing field for women," I'd think the voting public is owed explanation on the latest Clinton mishandling of the truth: the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described on more than one occassion, in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience,” not to mention her insistence that her Iraq vote was correct, or that she was instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland (despite spending most of her time in the spousal limousine). These are matters quite apart from her gender.
We -- men, women, black, white and everything in between -- should have something more on which to hang our hats when voting, than just righting a century (or more) of discrimination, and that goes for both racial and gender.
Were there a different female candidate running behind in the polls, a Jennifer Granholm, two-term governor of Michigan (I know she can't run -- she's only a naturalized citizen), or a Kathleen Sibelius, two-term governor of Kansas, or even a Christie Todd Whitman, two-term governor of New Jersey and moderate Republican (!!), for instance, I suspect "she" might have more traction in the argument that she is behind because of gender, and other bias, rather than a substantive difference in political capability.
The radical feminists need a crutch on which to lean because their candidate is faltering under the pressure of running a losing campaign, built less on her own gender-less intelligence and capability, than defining her competitor as just "the black candidate" and the media as being "anti-woman." The obvious crutch, the most convenient one is race "preference" for Obama among blacks, and the fact that he's part of the XY crowd, so he wins with men.
He's is winning, not because of gender or racial bias. He's winning because millions of men and women see him as a better alternative that they can trust.
It's not the 1880's and one day a woman will be president. A woman that deserves the office. Unfortunately this is not the time nor is Hillary Clinton the woman for the role.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Radical Feminism and The Campaign.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.obsidianhustle.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/161
Oh so Agreed...
Look at this week, a week after Obama deftly and inspirationally defended the character assassination of his former pastor. Where Obama stated that the pastor has issues with which he agreed and disagreed, but he refused to throw him under the bus because of all the decades of positives for which Pastor Wright has fought. Instead, Obama wanted to have a candid conversation about Race, compassion, and get this pathway to candidacy focused on the issues.
And Hilary this week? Outed on a LIE about her Bosnia trip. I've been around gunfire. You don't forget that. Ever. She claims its a misstep because she was sleep-deprived. Is that what we want to happen if she were to take a 3AM phone call. A lie? A weeks worth of apologies?
Now, even yesterday she is still bringing up Obama's pastor as a issue. She refused to address Obama's excellent speech. She refused to take up the task of having a candid conversation about race. She refused to focus on issues concerning America- Ecomony, Economy, Economy and The War.
Its time for the Democratic Party to quietly walk Hillary away. Not only was she ultra-divisive between Dems and GOPs, now she has cast her divisive talents towards the Democratic party itself. Time to let it go, Hil. Please.