|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) ffantastik |
|
|
|
|
Finally, someone tells me about the shit I need to know! This doesn't make up for no one mentioning DEBS or lesbian Buffy, but I am pleased that Darbs was kind enough to send me a link to a pretty fascinating Salon.com article on Hilary hate, Obama supporters and feminism. It doesn't end as strong as it starts, but the information included in the peice is interesting because it takes the troubling undertone of agressive sexism that can appear as a note in the Obama rallying cry - especially among priveledged white males and females - and manages to consider it in the context of this election while at the same time separating this problem from what lever actually gets pulled in the voting booth. Because its not the same thing. I also think its interesting that the young(ish) priveledged female is front and center in this article, because I don't know when I last read something that so extensively quoted women in their late 20s/early 30s. I agree with the conclusion that regardless of the outcome of this election, for this group (which includes me) is that the issue of sexism, the need for feminism, has begun to be reexamined. In my own experience, coming out as a Hillary supporter has been just that - a process of becoming proud to claim the association, becoming informed enough to defend my position. And because Hillary is a woman, a large part of that process had to be tied to me addressing my position as a woman. Which isn't really something I've ever done before, outside of queer circles. What happened inside of queer circles is relevant, but I won't delve into it at the moment. The point is that there's a constant misrecognition of feminine motivation as something necessarily titillating, or when it can't be (and with Hill, it isn't) as something malignant. And well, maybe it is, maybe its both of those things. Because really what is happening now is that women are in a position to produce the content of our culture in a public way, when before it was mainly private or...I guess the word I want is gentle. But it doesn't have to be now. Women can just stand up and say, I want to run things. I want to make the world in my image. And I suppose that does excite and threaten the very form of society. Which I think is really really really cool. So I guess I'm a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a neat article... interesting, and yet, as you say, there's something lacking, the article seems to trail off. I wish instead of just quoting a billion people saying "I have no evidence," they could have found at least one or two people with actual evidence or examples.
But, I agree in the large sense with the content of the article--both its purpose, and smaller things--like that I DO get freaked out by and turned off by the passion of the Obama supporters... their insistance that he will change everything when he's elected, and I just want to remind them that we are in a HUGE war, HUGE deficit, HUGE mess... whomever is President next will be lucky if they just get to tread water and clean up half of Bush's messes. Sigh.
Hells yes, you are a feminist! Me too :) It's wonderful, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to get attacked for this, but here goes...
I consider myself a feminist. I really, really do. It's been interesting to note the amount of sexism coming to a head in all of this. I had no idea there was so much sexism just under the surface of our society. Naively, I thought it wasn't that large a problem these days. I suppose it's just ingrained in our culture, meaning I think a lot of sexism isn't even noticed but accepted as status quo, even by women.
I've always noted that the people who hate Hill so much have no reason as to why. They just hate her, and it says more about them than her.
That said, I'm kind of barfing to death over this article. It's laughable to blame Obama supporters for being venemous. I mean, I've no doubt Clinton supporters feel that, but (in the eyes of Obama supporters) she's run an insanely negative campaign while Obama has been continually eloquent and down right sensitive.
Furthermore, Obama supporters are afraid, and legitimately so, that Clinton is going to steal the nomination in spite of the will of the people, with whom Obama has the lead. You can't blame them for being a little cranky. They feel that the very party is at risk in all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: April 15th, 2008 10:41 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
I don't think the article was blaming ALL Obama supporters for being venemous, or insinuating that all the venom was necessarily due to these issues of sexism. I think the writer and the women quoted were saying that at times, or from certain individuals, part of the fear, or anger is stemming from a fear and anger that is directed at women in general, and not specifically related to the issues at play or the candidate at all. That was separate from legitimate complaints that people might have about Hillary or the way she has run her campaign. Comments where the guy was like "I don't hate her cause she's a woman, I just think she's a bitch." I mean, that's exactly the sort of ingrained, unexamined sexism that is making this uncomfortable. I don't feel that the article was trying to pin anything on Obama supporters. Especially since many people quoted WERE obama supporters, but still felt this was a problem, within their own camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: ffantastik |
Date: April 17th, 2008 11:34 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: Interesting
|
After I posted this, I read this article http://nymag.com/news/features/46011/ which is a little bit more slickly written and a little more analytical. I think the thing that's the takeaway here is in this piece, the issue that qualities associated the concept of a leader can only be effortlessly assumed by someone male and masculine, and that women striving to attain that mantle can only do so by making fairly extreme preparations and then are perceived as calculating, overeager, a bitch. That's something that can be supported with plenty of evidence separate from this election, or Hillary's political or personal choices. For example a friend of mine who was promoted to VP at JP morgan had someone quit on her (with no other job lined up) as soon as the promotion was announced. His reason? "I don't want to work for that bitch." The guy doesn't have to want to work for her. Maybe her felt she was a bad boss (which I doubt) or too demanding for his liking (which I suspect). But why was he so angry about it? Why the need to publicly call her a bitch? Why did he feel the situation warranted breaking professional etiquette to use language like that? Or maybe he felt it never required it in the first place? And I think that's what's upsetting to women. Its like, all your life people tell you to work hard and succeed and that the opportunity is there if you want it, but then people who are accomplishing are being painted in this fucked up light and inevitably being called a bitch. Even in my office, which is really theatery and very supportive of women. And its like, well, maybe these chicks are bitches. So? Are we supposed to be upset about that? What does that mean? Why is it bad to be a bitch? Do people realize that assuming qualities of bitchery - being outspoken, being aggressive about pushing your ideas forward, letting people know when you're dissatisfied or angry, critiquing others, manipulating situations to your advantage - are pretty much the qualities that allow people to lead? Separately - I'd be interested to hear more about why specifically your mother feels Clinton is a poor representative of her generation. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/openid-profile.gif){kind=small}
Previous
