Feminist Freak Out: Ms. Magazine's Obama Super-feminist cover

The stage is set. Tomorrow, Obama will be our President. It's historical and wonderful, and I'm still feeling the chills from that performance of "This Land is Your Land." For the first time in my life, I feel like that song might be true very soon.



So Ms. Magazine decided to get in on the action with a "special Inaugural issue." The cover of the issue has caused a lot of femi-freak. Here it is:



Some feminists are upset at what they feel is a misguided image of feminism. Right. Who wants the President on our side? We want people fighting for our rights, just not the man who beat what this article calls the "real live" Wonder Woman candidate (Hillary Clinton). We're bitter, we're hurt, and we'd rather just sit in our meetings and complain.

And I'm saying, no. That's not what we're about. Feminists are PEOPLE who believe in women's rights. And while I don't think he's a God or a superhero, we want him fighting for us. While The Super-Feminist would make for a boring comic book, it's great in real life. Sure, we haven't broken the presidential glass ceiling, but all women are not feminists (Palin, anyone?). Yeah, yeah...so we don't need men to rescue us. But if that man is President, we need him on our side.

To the Second Wave Feminists who are still bitter about Clinton, who still think of feminism as an exclusive club, I say: Get over it. Wait till he screws something up, then complain. But maybe this time, he'll actually listen to us.

Sarah Palin and the media

Great suggestion, Andy. As you can imagine, I have a lot to say about the media.

While Jon Stewart did a great segment on the pundit turn-around for Palin, he didn't address the sexist coverage of Palin.

I just read an article in Bitch Magazine about the sexist analysis of women's voices. This one was centered on Hillary's coverage. And yes, some of the media definitely hit sexist territory during that race. And some of it revolved around her "naggy" voice. But I don't see the vocal mentions as sexist in and of themselves. Obviously I don't, because I mentioned Palin's shaky, accented voice myself.

We evaluate all of our politicians, celebrities, friends on many levels. It doesn't matter if they're a man or a woman, an especially high-pitched voice, a comical laugh, a snort - we notice these things and we comment on them. John McCain's voice is whiny as well. He sounds a bit like Kermit. Am I being sexist?

People have said that Obama is hot. When they say that about Palin, that's not sexist, it's just another method we have of evaluating people. It's unfortunate, but it comes down on both sides.

I can't disagree more with the people who think Palin isn't fit to serve because of her 5 kids. While there are sexist undertones to that point, John Edwards went through the same thing when his wife was ill with cancer and there were 2 little kids in the picture. Of course, it's definitely troubling that his wife had to have a terminal illness before the man was questioned. The sad thing is that I've heard mostly women make the priority argument. My mother even said she seemed like "an opportunist" and that she was "too ambitious." What politician isn't ambitious? What politician doesn't have an ego? If they think they can hold the highest (or second-highest) office in the country, they BETTER have an ego.

As far as the Bristol Palin coverage goes, I feel terribly sorry for the young, pregnant woman. I wonder if she was consulted at all before Palin accepted. They had to know it would get out. It's unfortunate that politicians' families get dragged into the public eye when their mother/husband/wife/father campaign. But the politicians open the floor when they make speeches and talk about their families accomplishments. Democrats and Republicans are free to use their families however they see fit, but the media is not allowed to respond? I don't think either side should bring the families in to it.

Palin's inexperience is getting the same amount of discussion as Obama's. It's just coming from the other side of the aisle.

She did exactly what she had to do at the RNC, but I don't think it changed anyone's mind (for or against). She's playing the folksy card, and she's playing it well. We'll just have to see how many Christian Conservatives are left in the world. If they still outnumber other voters, McCain/Palin will win.

Okay, that just makes me want to cry.

As Gloria Steinem said, "Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere."

Domestic Abuse

I posted this at MobLogic, but it seemed appropriate...

Alright, so we all know there's no way Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote. So why the hell is she still in the race?

Well, it's because she's an American...no, it's because she's a woman. That's it. As Clinton said (quoting Eleanor Roosevelt, who said): "A woman is like a tea bag. You never know how strong she is until she is in hot water."

Okay, this is actually a good tactic: focus on the female part of the candidate and remind people of the fight to break the glass ceiling. Some people may buy it. And some people might think Clinton is perpetuating the stereotype that women are bad at math.

The numbers...the REAL numbers...don't add up to a Clinton nomination. She's not fighting for equal rights or tea bags everywhere, she's fighting for herself. This is a contest. No one likes the wrestler who keeps fighting after he's pinned.

But in her mind, she's not pinned. She's got Florida and Michigan propping her up. Of course, way back when, Clinton agreed not to campaign in either state and she didn't fight the decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. And if you factor in the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan...those two states aren't much to pile your hope on.

The Kentucky and Oregon primaries on May 20th will likely push Obama over the 2025 delegate mark. In the DNC's eyes, he would be the nominee. But Clinton is fighting for her two favorite states, which have been left out of that total number. In Clinton's world, the number looks more like 2209.

So maybe May 31st will spell the end for Clinton. That's when the Democratic Party's rules committee hears challenges to it's delegate strip-fest.

And if she hangs on after that, she should leave after June 3, when the primaries are over. If Clinton really respects the American people, thinks our voices matter, she'll drop out then.

But who knows if she will? Something sure has to change. She's loaned her campaign $11 million and Obama's acting like he's already the nominee (by visiting Clinton's best friends, Florida and Michigan, no less). She's redefining the word "win" and he's giving rational explanations for his decisions and actions.

Maybe if she plays up the hard fight, sisterhood, sexism thing, she'll gain some ground. But right now, she's just giving powerful women everywhere a bad name.

Clinton Carnage

Does anyone else think the Clinton’s have adopted a “look over here!” method of campaigning?

Yes, some of it can just be chalked up to dirty campaigning, but just before the last debate, the Clinton camp pulled the whole plagiarism thing.

And now, they’ve come out with this picture of Obama.

As the article I linked to says, Obama wore the clothes after he was presented with them by people from his father’s hometown. Sure, that hometown is Kenya, and the “people” were tribal elders, so the fuck what?

How many times have politicians wore things presented to them for diplomatic and friendly reasons? Plus, yes, this is a part of his heritage.

It’s ridiculous that Clinton (I’m assuming it’s Clinton despite her camp’s denial) is using this to spread the fear that Obama’s a muslim. Playing on the American people’s ignorance and fear is not the way to get me to vote for someone.

But on to my point: does anyone think Clinton’s using this shit to derail the debates? She definitely used the pagiarism in the last one, and I’m sure this picture shit will come up in tonight’s debate.

Why, oh why, can’t debates be about issues. Yes, people vote on character, but personality comes through as they talk about policy. And THAT is Clinton’s problem. That’s why she needs dirty campaigning to win her presidency.

She’s not the first, (anyone remember McCain’s black baby?) and she’s certainly not the last, but damn if this doesn’t just give me more reason to root for Obama.

Not So Fast, Clinton

Jessica at Feministing is right. This is the funniest thing I've read all day.

In an article from The Concord Monitor, Dick (wad) Marple pops a blood vessel over the fact that the 19th amendment does not explicitly say women can be president. That's why his article is called: "Legally, a woman can't be elected president"

It's fucking hilarious. Here's a taste:

Today's feminists believe the election process is an evolutionary process, legalized by common practice and that someday a woman will be president. They are convinced that since women have run for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered .

Not so. They will be challenged, and a Supreme Court ruling on the language will be necessary. At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required.

Better be scared, Clinton. Oh, and Obama, you better start looking at the 15th amendment. I don't see anything in there about black people holding office.

Oh well! Guess we'll have to have a Republican! Oops!

THIS is what's wrong with Clinton's campaign

Unfortunately, I think this cheesy, unrefined, untalented performance represents Clinton's campaign perfectly. I'm not talking about the issues here. But come on, how the hell does cheese like this compare to this?

Sure, it's manipulative. But it's hot. Like Obama. I think these videos are a great representation of the differences between these two. Again, this is playing into the idea (which is, I think, obviously true) that a lot of people vote based on the feeling of a candidate, the vibe.

I can't resist putting this one up.

A perfect representation of funny Americans. I love this.

Super Delegates Have Crappy Lives

Via ABC News:

Jason Rae is 21-years old. He's a junior in college. And he's a super delegate.

Yeah, that means he gets to vote for whoever the hell he wants, but it also means he has strangers calling him. Sure, their last names are Kerry and Clinton, but they're still strangers. And they're calling to influence his vote.

I would hate every second of the conversations described in this article. Someone calls me who's clearly trying to manipulate me, I hang up.

But there's another angle to this story. It starts with the fact that Rae had breakfast will Chelsea Clinton this morning. It's not clear if Bill Clinton set up the meeting, but he did call Rae on January 25th. THIS is what Shuster was referring to. He was saying Bill and Hillary Clinton are using Chelsea. Sure, Shuster chose an apparently inflammatory phrase, but it's a valid opinion. I don't happen to agree. I think she's doing it because she wants to (okay, maybe they're pushing her a little bit).

But again, it's a valid opinion. I feel like Shuster's suspension is misplaced anger at Chris Matthews. He's the one who should get the boot if anyone should.

Hillary Overcome

Via Feministing:Fuckin'

NOW Freaks Out Again

I know NOW isn't the only organization going crazy over David Shuster's 'pimp' comment, but NOW's press release is the first one I've read.

NBC News President Steve Capus announced this afternoon that MSNBC's David Shuster would be suspended from appearing on all NBC broadcasts because of his "irresponsible and inappropriate" remarks -- I would call them disgusting and sexist -- suggesting it was "unseemly" that 27-year-old Chelsea Clinton is campaigning for her mother, and then characterizing it as "being pimped out."

After Shuster's damaging remarks on-air, the National Organization for Women and others called on Capus to take action. After all, NBC has had a track record of employing sexist on-air personalities and for taking its time to deal with their behavior.

The article then mentions Don Imus (natch) and Chris Matthews.

I wouldn't even think of characterizing Shuster's comments as sexist. Here's what actually happened:



Oh yeah, he took a real stand there. He was talking about the fact that she's out there, clearly campaigning for her mother, but she is untouchable by the press. There's a double-standard there. Sure, it's not a great metaphor, but he was clearly grasping for the right words.

Comparing this dude to Chris Matthews and Don Imus is ridiculous. But I do think, like some of Imus' and Matthews' comments, it slipped out because Shuster was trying to fill time. 24-hour news sucks.

Clinton Wins

I'm just guessing. This is a crazy night, but I'm sick and tired, both literally and figuratively.

I'll get back into the game, even if I am right about tonight's winner. But for now, it's time to go to bed.

Here's hoping I'm wrong.

Femininity Will Win the Election?

There was an interesting but, I think, misguided article yesterday on PopPolitics about campaign theme songs and their greater meaning.

The general thesis of Bernie Heidkamp's article is that presidential hopefuls should take a cue from Clinton and Obama and run on a platform of femininity. (He cites Obama's association with Oprah as an example of his feminine side and Clinton's woman-themed campaign songs as hers.)

Heidkamp notes:

For awhile I felt that Hillary was going to lengths (and the media was complying) not to make gender a part of the campaign. Learning the Pat Schroeder lesson, she rarely showed emotion. Going further back, moreover, she had long been positioning herself in the Senate (until her infamous vote endorsing the Iraq War became unpopular) as a defense hawk. No one was going to accuse her of being "soft."

So for her to make the music of Parton and Gloria Estefan a central part of her campaign rallies -- and to choose a song from Big Head Todd that focuses on how a woman is changing the world -- is an intriguing choice.

Part of it can be explained, though, by her fairly recent realization that her perceived weakness is her greatest strength...

It can also be explained, though, in the realization that Americans -- or at least Democrats -- are sick of the rugged individualist, hyper-masculine narrative that Rove-Bush has sold us the past eight years. Feminine is in.

Don't believe me? Just try to picture Barack hunting for votes in camouflage. His authenticity and sensitivity (or at least his construction of an authentic and sensitive image) wouldn't allow it. He's the Oprah candidate.

He goes on to warn Republicans to get with the feminine program.

Oh, how I wish this was true (aside from that horrible perceived weakness=feminine part). But come on. Is he serious? Sure, lots of people find a feminine side comforting. But when it comes down to the election, people are going to go for the POW over the sentimental man or woman every time. I mean, seriously, how could a woman or a womanish-man protect us from the billions of terrorists out there plotting to kill us? Newsflash: everyone is still afraid. And the majority of Americans do not believe a woman (or anyone resembling a woman) could protect us.

I know. It's sad. But it's true, god dammit.

Michelle Obama Backtracks

From Talk Left:

The site seems to think that if Bill Clinton had said this, everyone would be up in arms. I'm not so sure. Would anyone really be surprised if he said that?

According to Politico, there was a little more backpedaling in the interview. Directly after the above clip:

ROBERTS: That's not a given?

MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.

I feel the same way, but you'd think she'd have been better prepared to answer this. I've thought about it, and, like Ann Coulter, if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, I'd vote for her over McCain (or, even more resolutely, Romney). Like Michelle Obama, though, I'd much rather vote for her husband.

I do think this was a bit of a gaffe, but nothing incredibly shocking.

NOW That's a Level-Headed Response

At least the national chapter of NOW has it right. Here's the sane response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama (as opposed to NOW-NY's insane response).

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.

Hillary Clit-on

Get it? If you take out the 'n' her name is like clit but with an 'on' at the end. It's funny, cause it's true.

That's about the caliber of the Hall of Sexism out there on Cafe Press. There are some seriously unfunny sexists out there.

Broadsheet did some research. Unfortunately, I don't think they had to look very hard. Click on the link to find every horribly sexist thing you could think of to say about Hillary Clinton.

But no, it's okay, because it's about a woman. And it's on a t-shirt. Isn't free speech great sometimes? It's a great way to see how fucked up this "cunt-ry" is.

Great Colbert Interview with Deborah Dickerson

"Cuntry" is "funny"

Broadsheet's all over this one.

Apparently, it's okay to call Hillary Clinton a cunt if you say it in a t-shirt. And a word puzzle is an added bonus:

Oh, C.U.N.T

I resisted posting about this initially, because I didn't want to give them any undue press, but I'm just a little blogger with no readers, and more powerful people have already put it out there.

The PAC in question is Citizens United Not Timid, or C.U.N.T.

The object of the PAC is to "educate the public about what Hillary Clinton really is."[my emphasis] Republican Roger Stone is responsible.

How, exactly, are they educating us? By selling t-shirts, of course, with the slogan emblazoned right across the breast underneath a vagina-ish graphic. The image to the left is from the website. Girl in a tight t-shirt with no face. Nice.

Pure misogyny, pure disgustingness.

Some think it's a trick to create backlash so people will vote for Hillary Clinton, who will then be defeated by whatever Republican wins the nomination. I think it's a bunch of dicks being horrible people.

Now Oprah's a Traitor

The Times Online reports that Oprah is in some hot water with some of her female fans.

On her website, and interesting little discussion thread popped up: OPRAH IS A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!. Yes, the topic title has NINE exclamation points.

Why is she a traitor? Because she's backing a political candidate she supports instead of a woman. "Choosing her race over her gender."

She's been absent at the last bunch of rallies, but she's also trying to negotiate her new network, OWN with Discovery.

If she is stepping back because of the backlash, I understand why. Her fans are important to her success. But Oprah, if you're reading this, get back in there and support the person you believe will make the best president. And I know you read this, O.
The whole celebrity endorsement issue is another story. Oprah is pretty influential and her support of Obama did something. If she stays out of the limelight on his campaign trail, it could hurt him.

Bottom line, this is ridiculous.

Well, she did it...

Hillary took the wheel for Nevada.

And Romney. Ugh. This is an interesting/scary race.

Chris Matthews Apologizes

Favorite quote: "She did a 'wow' of a job..."

Okay, so he belabors the heart bit a little. (Gag) But he makes a good point. He does this shit on purpose. He's politically incorrect because it gets him numbers. When viewers complained, he apologized. That's the way punditry works. Sad, I know.

Feministing has a great list of all the shit Matthews has gotten away with. I guess these weren't affecting his numbers.

* In an interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards: "Behind every great man is a woman trying to kill him... What's this with equal marriages? Why do people try to marry their equals? What happened to the Stepford Wives, the good ol' days? [Audience boos.] Oh, how PC! How PC!"

* He's called Hillary Clinton "witchy," "she devil" and compared her to a "strip-teaser." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys." He has called her "Madame Defarge" and "Nurse Ratched."

* He has described one of Clinton's speeches as a "barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it -- fingernails on a blackboard."

* To Sen. Chris Dodd: “Do you find it difficult to debate a woman?”

* To CNBC's Erin Burnett: "You're beautiful," "you're a knockout," and "It's all right getting bad news from you."

* On one show, he repeatedly asked his guests if they find Ann Coulter attractive. And when they, smartly, wouldn't answer, Matthews said, "You guys are all afraid to answer. No, I find her—I wouldn‘t put her—well, she doesn‘t pass the Chris Matthews test."

* And to top it all off, the Hillary Clinton cheek-pinching incident.