«

»

Mar 23 2008

It’s all about me

I just had a depressing conversation with Stingray, which she began thusly: “Well. It looks like Hillary’s goin’ down.”

She was bummed. Stingray wants a woman president, and she wants her now.

She enlarged on her point. It’s not so much that Hillary’s politics are destroying her, but the fact that, whether she advertises it or not (and she does not), Clinton is, by dint of her aspiration to ultimate personal sovereignty as the king of the world, de facto a feminist. Hillary isn’t electable, Stingray opined, because most people, particularly women, would rather die screaming than associate themselves with feminism.

Don’t I know it. These days even feminists are against feminism. Check out this post from a blog called, unfortunately, “The Pervocracy,” which I chanced upon at the very moment Stingray made her assertion about women’s antipathy toward feminism. The post was authored by someone named Holly whose online identity revolves around sex; it’s a twist on the venerable “I’m not a feminist, but …”, entitled, winsomely, “I love men!”:

I have to stop reading radical feminist writing. I consider myself a feminist, but with two caveats:

1) Some of my best friends are men.

[...]

2) Call me a rich white het cis privilegebunny, but I don’t feel very oppressed.

Young Holly seems to be sort poking fun at herself, but in a disingenuous, “Stuff White People Like” kind of way that really says “Damn, it’s great being me!”

Oh dear.

I don’t have any hard data to back this up, but based on my experiences with this blog I have to agree with Stingray that American women overwhelmingly are invested to an enormous degree in patriarchy, and, like Holly, have no wish to confront the many ways in which this investment dehumanizes them. They would rather shoot the messenger. So they imagine that radical feminists hate them for wearing lipstick, or that we want them to castrate their husbands in their sleep, or that we want to turn them into dykes, or that we aspire to outlaw sex. And that all these things that they imagine we are makes us paternalistic Nazi sex cops who view all women as “brainwashed.” They all seem to be saying,”I don’t know if patriarchy even exists, but if it does, it doesn’t affect me, so fuck you.”

I don’t blame them. You kind of have to be in the mood to go mano a mano with patriarchy; it’s like getting hit with a piss balloon from a frat house window. But Holly’s view* reveals a certain lack of sophistication. Sexy feminists, there’s a lot more at stake with American feminism than exercising your right to bleach your asshole. Consider what Iranian feminist blogger Unitari had to say in a comment the other day at La Chola:

It is so important to understand that the condition of human and women’s rights in the US and Europe and the west indirectly affects what happens to human and women’s rights around the world. So it is important for American feminists to work on improving “their own” society while staying in solidarity with feminists in other countries.

[...]

I agree 100% with the assertion that many americans including feminists are blind to the problems in their own society and have a condescending attitude about the whole thing. In fact, strengthening human rights and women’s rights in this country helps all feminists globally.

In other words, even if you’re a rich white heterosexual American “privilegebunny” who luxuriates in what you imagine is an oppression-free bubble, feminism matters.

***********************

The aforementioned Unitari, incidentally, observes in her own blog that the seemingly endless Hillary vs Barack debate is a non-event from the feminist perspective.

[A]s I was thinking about this whole thing and arguing with my friends about this and that aspect of this and that candidate, I had a revelation. WOMEN ARE INVISIBLE. It looks like the discussion is all about women, but really when you look at it hard, women are the losers of this debate. Why? Because everyone is talking about who women will vote for, but nobody is talking about what is at stake for women. Nobody is talking about CEDAW and how it was never ratified in the US; nor are they talking about the Equal Rights Amendment. I didn’t hear anything about not-so-equal pay. I also care about what happens to my job when and if I get pregnant and whether my husband will be able to share the responsibilities or I am assumed the baby-care-taker of the house in our system? Anyway, I don’t even know exactly what all the issues are…! And I need to know so bad.

Unitari bemoans the lack of a feminist movement in the US. Well, here’s what I think. I think an American feminist movement doesn’t exist because you can’t challenge patriarchy if you haven’t managed to grasp that it exists.

________________________
*Holly goes on to characterize radical feminism as “[T]hrowing up your hands and screaming ‘we’re so oppressed we can’t even make decisions!’”, a perfect example of the spurious fun-feminist argument against radical feminism to which I alluded the other day.

138 comments

3 pings

  1. Mamasquab

    I get Hollies in my undergraduate classes all the time, and I always think I have to be patient, that they just haven’t hit their heads very hard against the sides of the cage they’re in. But of course it also is easier for them and nicer and pleasanter and all that just to stay away from the bars and pretend they’re free. I’d tell them to grow up, if I hadn’t seen grownup women do that very thing.

  2. Ann Bartow

    “I think an American feminist movement doesn’t exist because you can’t challenge patriarchy if you haven’t managed to grasp that it exists.”

    Oh yes it does. There is a very vibrant feminist movement here, it just doesn’t get covered by the mainstream media, and all kinds of weird freaking stupidity happens in the blogosphere. As much as I adore your writing, maybe you need to step back away from the computer for a while, if you need re-charging and re-centering, which would be entirely understandable. Right here in South Carolina there is a lot of important feminist work happening. If the same is not true in your neck of the woods, you need to come visit! But I’ll bet there are plenty right in your neighborhood if you look, and are willing to define “movement” somewhat, wait for it, “broadly.”

    Ignore the faux feminists, post feminists, Feminist But(t)s and movement derailers. They aren’t worth it and will only trip you up and try to hurt you when possible for the evil pleasure it brings them.

  3. magriff

    Oof. I made the mistake of reading Holly’s full post and attendant comments while hungover. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

  4. Somebody with problems

    I watched a friend of mine dismiss ten to fifteen years of her own career destruction, about which she whined endlessly to me in e-mail, with the breezy dismissal that she just “didn’t have much in common with” Hillary Clinton.

    The woman who has been subject to more career sabotage than any other human woman on the planet. The woman who has been cartoonified as a cunning gorgon because she dares to act as if she knows what the fuck she’s doing. The woman who has committed the unforgiveable sin of actually being qualified for the job she wants, while not being cute and 25 at the same time.

    This, after the aforementioned friend banged on and on and fucking ON to me in e-mail for the past decade about how much easier it was for her at her job before she got some grey hair and gained weight and wasn’t “cute” anymore, about how the men at her workplace, including her boss, would sideline her repeatedly because “some people thought” she was intimidating. The friend who literally had her first choice career not just frustrated or sabotaged but ripped to pieces before her eyes and then handed back to her in bloody shreds.

    But she “doesn’t have much in common with” Hillary Clinton.

    It sickens me to think of all that pointless fucking whining of hers that I was subjected to, caring more about it than evidently she did given how easily and simply she threw the whole thing in the garbage and forgot about it. All that pissing and moaning about I Don’t Know How I’m Going To Go Into Work Tomorrow, and They Promoted The Guy I Hired Over Me, and she just chirped and forgot about the whole thing the minute she got a chance to put some muscle in the moan.

    There is a REASON why women have never gotten real power.

    They don’t want it.

    Oh, some of us do — some of us evolutionary mistakes with miswired heads. We do. But we are not what evolution wants. Women are indeed meant to be the Sidekicks and Helpmeets of life. And every goddamned one of those little sidekicks can pay for their own birth control and abortions from now on.

    Raped? Need an abortion? Awwwww, go find some man to help you. I certainly hope you don’t think I’m gonna give a shit about your sad little problems, Just Because You’re A Woman! I, Like, Totally Resent That Assumption! Just get a new hairdo and manicure, and I’m sure you’ll feel all better.

    Seriously — shove power into a woman’s hands, and she’ll go looking for someone else with a penis to give it to. Except for Charles Darwin’s little mistakes — you, me, Stingray, and Hillary Clinton.

  5. Chai Latte

    Ugh…what a moron. I suddenly feel sick. How can women be so damn complacent? “It’s not a problem because it doesn’t affect me”?

    Now I need to go off somewhere and quietly have an aneurysm.

    –Chai

  6. BadKitty

    Huh. I don’t any feminists who are voting for Hillary. Not because of her chromosone structure so much as they find her hawkish and completely enmeshed with corporate lobbyists. They voted, you know, on the issues. Well, I do know a few who voted for her in our caucus but now wouldn’t vote for her if someone was shoving bamboo under their fingernails because of her behavior and campaign tactics. I used to say that while I preferred Obama, I’d happily vote for Clinton. No longer. I have lost all respect for her and will have to be dragged to the polls kicking and screaming if she gets the nomination.

  7. Jen

    I love you and your unapologetic radical feminism, precisely because the many women who think it wise to say “I’m a feminist, but…” so hate the things we say here. Of course, any woman that feels it necessary to qualify the statement “I’m a feminist” with “but” isn’t a feminist at all. This fact, when expressed, doesn’t go over well in my classes with “enlightened” feminists. I always figured that an important part of feminism was suspicion: suspicion of men’s motives, suspicion of women’s motives, and suspicion of the sex and gender-obsessed world at large. It seems that the suspicion of the feminist movement has died, when so many of us feel it necessary to qualify our beliefs with “but”.

    Of course, one of the many reasons I support Hilary Clinton is precisely because I feel that she’d be more open to women’s issues. I do think you’re right to say that the issues are largely absent in this debate. It seems that most are too obsessed with her lack of penis to really articulate what exactly that means on a larger scale.

  8. anonymous_poster

    Perhaps I’m a nut, but I’d rather have a good president, even if he or she doesn’t share my race, gender, religion, or political affiliation.

  9. Laurel

    “Stingray opined, because most people, particularly women, would rather die screaming than associate themselves with feminism.”

    Not necessarily. I have no problem associating myself at the top of my lungs as a feminist. And I do. I’m not supporting Hillary for three reasons: (1) her unjustified sense of entitlement to the job; (2) my deeply rooted feeling that we’ve heard-quite-enough-thank-you from the Bush/Clinton dynasty and (3) she’s behaved like a complete assclown in terms of ‘dirtying up” the contest with every bullshit, nasty game she’s decried in everyone else. Frankly, I’m so sick of the Hillary campaign’s crapfest that I could barf. At least with Obama, I get to keep my lunch down.

  10. dilexi

    It’s so true that everyone, men and women alike, hate Hillary so much because she is a feminist. Unfortunately, it is also a depressing truth that in order for a woman to be in a position in which she is able to be a presidential candidate these days, she has to be a very savvy politician, enmeshed in the terribly corrupt boys club of party politics, and just altogether mainstream. Which means that not only is she too feminist for the anti- and but-I’m-not-a-feminists, she’s not feminist enough for many die-hard feminists. I support Hillary in blind faith that all the negativity about her is misogynistic media hype, but it’s getting harder and harder to maintain the solidarity.

    After this last Obama speech on race, I tried to imagine Hillary giving a similar speech about gendered tensions, and I just can’t see it. She might be that self-aware, but I doubt that she would ever have the wherewithal to begin that honest a conversation about feminism. And neither are we self-aware enough about it as a voting public to even identify the gender tensions as they are. The nation would watch it blankly and uncomprehending. It is indeed invisible. We need a lot more consciousness and a lot more “movement” before we could have that kind of a speech. Yes, feminism matters in the US – all social movements matter greatly in the US – and maybe because of this fact, Hillary isn’t the right feminist for the job. Is she a step in the right direction? Probably. But meanwhile, my heart has left (this week) to visit Obama.

  11. Laurel

    I don’t hate Hillary because she’s a feminist. I hate her because she’s an asshole. Every bit as much of an asshole as Dick Cheney and for exactly the same reasons. I’m not voting the labia ticket and I won’t have my feminist cred shit on because I don’t and I won’t vote for a candidate whose values stink just because she’s a woman in order to “earn my cred”. Hillary Clinton is part of the established problem every bit as much as every other male-centered jerk out there.

  12. PhysioProf

    “Sexy feminists, there’s a lot more at stake with American feminism than exercising your right to bleach your asshole.”

    People bleach their assholes?

  13. Nia

    I know it’s exciting to have the possibility of electing a woman as president, but it brings out the cynical in me. Wishing Hillary Clinton to be president because she is a woman would mean being really happy that Condolezza Rice has her job, because she is a woman too. But I think that Hillary voters are not the greatests fans of Rice.

  14. Naadir Jeewa

    I’m with BadKitty on this one. She doesn’t come across as a torchbearer of the feminist front in any way whatsoever. I simply can’t trust the product of Mark Penn’s neuromarketing whatsit, and neither can many in America, it would seem.

  15. Laurel

    Well said Nia. I’ll add that I will be voting for the candidate who does me the most good as a woman and a feminist. And that ain’t Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton for sure. My obligations as a feminist are clear and they are much greater than voting for someone based on their genitalia.

  16. sevanetta

    To Ann Bartow: No no no no no. No telling Twisty to get a life. Twisty just got back to the computer and got her rant on in FINE style a little while ago. I’m all for Our Twisty having a life, but this blog is so much to so many. You could even say it is an important work of feminist awareness raising, equally as important as any feminist work done in ‘real life’. Huh.

    To Twisty: Sorry to talk about you in the third person like that. Just wanted to put my hand up and say that I make a point of saying often that I’m a feminist and that many issues people talk about are feminist issues. (It’s a great conversation stopper.) I do agree with Stingray and your depressing conclusion though… a lot of women do not want to taint themselves with the nasty ‘feminist’ tag. God forbid we look for a pattern in the many oppressions against women.

  17. deja pseu

    Having just returned from a mostly relaxing margaritafest in Palm Springs, I decide to catch up on Twisty’s mental mastications. Clicking on “I Blame the Patriarchy” in my “Favorites”, I almost have a beer-and-pistacios-through-the-nose moment when I see, “The Evangelical Pro-Life Gazette” across the top of my monitor. Twisty, you keep us on our toes!

  18. Gayle

    “But I think that Hillary voters are not the greatests fans of Rice.”

    I only know of one woman who said she was voting for Hillary because she’s a woman–she was 101 years old. I don’t see why she shouldn’t get to see a woman president in her lifetime.

    All the HRC voters I know supported her because she’s stunningly smart, she doesn’t back down and her proposed policies are extremely well crafted–and more liberal– than those of her opponents.

    I like her because her economic plan is bold enough to actually, maybe, help us crawl out of the pit we’re in. Obama’s economic advisers are Milton Friedman loyalists and his plan is Republican light. I definitely don’t think Hillary is an “asshole.” Observing her throughout this brutal process, I’ve been surprised by how warm and funny she can be. Admittedly, I had bought into the stereotypes about her being cold and calculating. No more.

    StingRay’s comment reminds me of a blog post Steve Gillard wrote a couple of years ago. He was listing reasons why HRC could never be President and one of the reasons was that she “looks like a feminist.” Stingray’s onto something.

    Oh, and BadKitty, I’m very much a feminist. Now you know one who likes Hillary.

  19. Kathleen

    Huh, Dilexi, I’d never thought about what you said but it’s for sure true that if Hillary gave a “gender” speech like the race speech Obama gave we would NOT have the liberal blogosphere falling all over themselves to praise it. They’d go to town on her. I mean, aside from the fact that it would never happen in the first place, as you pointed out.

    I really started out an Obama supporter for the same reason I voted for Nader in 2000 — I was so, so, so disappointed in the W.J. Clinton admninistration and don’t want a repeat. Obama doesn’t strike me as a miracle come to earth but I do think he’s decent and competent. But the more I think about why people don’t/won’t vote for H.R. Clinton, the more it feels like a whole lot of sexism going on. As a result, I just care less and less who wins the nomination — I’ll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, but I don’t want to have to choose between them.

  20. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    I was about to bang out a protest comment defending my right to loathe Hillary Clinton with every fiber of my being, but then I read the others’ comments and now just want to say, “AMEN. What they said.”

    I don’t know where to begin. Perhaps there are no words. How ironic that the first time we have a viable female candidate, and during a time of crisis when we so desperately need a president who will bring the troops home, back out of NAFTA, and rescind the unconstitutional Executive Orders that have turned our country into a fascist police state, SHE’S NOT THE ONE WHO IS WILLING TO DO IT. Irony of ironies: The only candidate who will back us out of this MESS is Ron Paul.

    Here’s my bottom line: All of my feminist “issues” pale in significance to the million people we’ve killed in Iraq and the trashing of our Constitution. Am I going to vote for 4-8 more years of Police State, WAR and a million more unconscionable murders – GENOCIDE – because of a litmus test or my party affiliation?” F*ck that. That Dr. Paul is supposedly “anti choice” doesn’t even cause me to flinch. “Leave it to the states” sounds HOKIDOKE to ME! They couldn’t even turn South Dakota anti-choice (for long) so I’m no longer worried about the lunatic fundy fringe messing in my business. I’m worried about Blackwater and the NSA messing in my business. I’m worried about the lethal Nazi-Commie lunatic assholes soiling the halls of Congress and the White House, ordering us to bomb Iran on behalf of Israel using another bogus WMD charge. These traitors have bribed and extorted the people who are supposed to represent US. Hillary is ONE OF THEM, a neocon shill, criminally corrupt, compromised and susceptible to blackmail. She belongs in the BIG HOUSE, not the White House!

    Obama is only a LITTLE BIT better. He’s Zbigniew Brzezinski’s candidate. Brzezinski, co-founder of the TriLateral Commission, is the dude who “invented” the Afghan Mujahadeen and the radical Islamic political movement. He’s darn proud of it too. Flip on the lights, look under the Barack Obama rug and you’ll see all the roaches, all of them named Mussolini. It’s NOT pretty.

    Changing the subject: I saw this post and thought Twisty would get a laugh out of it:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

  21. Gayle

    deja pseu,

    You too? For a second there I thought someone had hijacked Twisty’s blog!

  22. KathyR

    “castrate their husbands in their sleep”

    This is obviously spoken by a husband-free spinster aunt. Why would we wait until they are asleep?

  23. Debby

    Right on Twisty!

    Bet you’re not at all surprised that everyone is jumping on the “I’m not a Hillary supporter but…” and the “Hating Hillary is *so* a pro-feminist position” bandwagons. (apologies for the ellipses, but they are truly called for here!) I certainly wasn’t. Although calling Hillary “as big of an asshole as Dick Cheney” did strike me as particularly vitriolic and unhinged from reality.

    This bullshit rhetoric around Hillary Clinton and her campaign has been so misogynist, the only way people could possibly pretend otherwise is because the invisible patriarchal waters they are swimming in blind them to it.

    Consider this recent exchange on national news that I transcribed:

    Jim: Hey, Bob, would you say that Americans rejected Hillary because she is a bitch, or because she is a cunt?
    Bob: Well, Jim, that is a very important question. I think it is because she is a bitch.
    Jim: That’s where you’re wrong, Bob, I think it is because she is a cunt.
    Bob: Bitch!
    Jim: Cunt!
    Bob: Bitch!
    Jim: Cunt!
    Bob: Well, Jim, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. Now, let’s check in with Mike, who is here to comment on how “white man can jump” from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, because Hillary is a castrating, manipulative spider woman!

    It’s hours and hours of endless fun for everyone! They get to talk shit about the Clintons, their all-time favorite activity, and they get to be sexist pigs, their second all-time favorite activity! YAY!!!

    Look everyone, I’m not saying that Clinton is perfect, not by a long shot,and I’ll happily vote for either one of them, but don’t kid yourselves that your vitriolic distaste for her is completely unrelated to her having a vagina. It isn’t.

  24. Ryna

    1. I feel Stingray’s pain, since I want a successful worldwide anti-capitalist revolution which renders our current systems of government irrelevent and I want it now. (We don’t always get what we want.)

    2. I’ve been one of the funsexy feminists. I’ve been one of them recently, as in I was one this time two years ago. Writing like Twisty’s helped me see the light. You are making a difference, if slowly.

  25. Ryna

    PS. She’s now claiming you want to make prostitution illegal. I corrected her under a different SN.

  26. Ann Bartow

    Sevanetta, I wasn’t telling Twisty to “get a life.” I wasn’t trying to tell Twisty what to do at all, and I’m sorry if that’s what my comment sounded like. She just sounds depressed to me, and maybe hanging out with real life feminists would help with that. Because there are a lot of us. And we are doing lots of interesting things. I had dinner a couple of nights ago with the woman who drafted the original version of VAWA. And she continues to work to improve it and related laws. Just being around her made me feel happy and optimistic.

  27. deja pseu

    HP,

    *RON PAUL*?!?!? You plug Ron Paul on a feminist blog??? The dude who’s both anti-abortion AND anti-contraception???? Can you say “Supreme Court Appointments”? At least I can sleep knowing he doesn’t have a worm’s chance in a chicken yard of winning.

  28. invisible

    Unitari bemoans the lack of a feminist movement in the US. Well, here’s what I think. I think an American feminist movement doesn’t exist because you can’t challenge patriarchy if you haven’t managed to grasp that it exists.

    But here’s a problem. What if you ARE a feminist that HAS managed to grasp that it exists? What then? How do we live our lives?

    This turning-over-rocks thing is a tad tedious.

  29. invisible

    …and another thing:

    War-mongering, aka love of mammon, is genderless. Haven’t y’all noticed that?

  30. tinfoil hattie

    I’m a feminist, I voted for Hillary Clinton, and I hope she wins.

    There, BadKitty. That’s two.

    I still don’t thinks she’s teh evil — sorry, Obama lovers. He leaves me lukewarm, and his refusal to denounce the misogyny, and his occasional dipping of his toes into the Misogyny Pool Party, make me like him less and less.

    I’ve never bleached my asshole. I hear some women actually shave them, too. (When I read that, I could not make myself NOT explore my own anus to see if there actually IS hair there. Who knew.)

  31. uh huh

    Yes, they all really believe that they hate her because “she’s entitled” or “she’s as much of an asshole as Dick Cheney.” Now, find me the data that supports entitlement. Seriously, I want some quotes. Got none? Oh really. And to say that she is a warmonger. Do you know Obama’s position on extricating us from Iraq? It’s very similar to Senator Clinton’s position. But, he doesn’t have that entitlement vagina that makes you all nervous. WEVs.

    You can also keep pretending that she won’t make a difference on gender issues, but she worked w/ Senator Patty Murray to get the Food and Drug Administration to accept the overwhelming recommendation of the medical community and make Plan B (the “morning after” pill) available over the counter. Has Obama done anything like that?

    Yeah, the data to back those positions of vitriol is not too good. And I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. You know, like an adult, not a whiny baby.

  32. invisible

    Nom Myo Ho Ren Kyo

    Phonics.

    I’m guessing it means something like “Calm down”.

  33. Somebody with problems

    In a perfect post-feminist world, we could vote for a candidate without caring about their gender. But here’s a newsflash, which apparently is a big shock to an awful lot of the commenters here:

    WE AIN’T IN THAT WORLD YET. CHRIST ON A FUCKING CRUTCH.

    Maybe YOU want to live in a nation where the larger, more violent half of the population is drunk with joy at having beaten the shit out of the most powerful woman in politics and naively think that that won’t touch you and won’t have any effect at all on you, but how about you engage the rest of your brain cells and face up.

    Here’s a little test I propose to you — why don’t you go take one or two of those “ripped from the headlines” posts that shows up on a feminist blog, oh I don’t know like, “WOMAN RAPED TO DEATH BEFORE EYES RIPPED OUT OF HER HEAD” or “TEN YEAR OLD BLAMED FOR OWN GANG RAPE” and post it twice:

    Once to the HRC blog and once to the Obama blog — and tell me what the responses are like. Where you get sympathy and outrage and where you get hate.

    and then tell me which group of people you want CELEBRATING after the Democratic nominating convention.

    And then tell me who’s an asshole and who’s good and bad for women’s rights.

    Do it.

    Try it on the rest of the pro-Obama blogs online — there’s shitloads of them. And see what sort of response you get. And why not come back here and share your findings with the rest of us pro-Hillary dinosaurs.

    First person to bring up the Iraq war vote will be the first person to be gently reminded that BARACK OBAMA VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR TWICE AND FAILED TO DO SO FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY BECAUSE HE DIDN’T YET HAVE A SENATE CAREER TO RISK.

  34. Elaine Vigneault

    “Sexy feminists, there’s a lot more at stake with American feminism than exercising your right to bleach your asshole.”

    Sigh.

    Sexy feminism (aka sex-positivism) isn’t about appealing to men and thus perpetuation the patriarchy through internalized sexism. It’s about claiming our own sexual pleasure and our own bodies. It’s about doing what we want despite the patriarchy. It’s about using our bodies for our own pleasure or to express our own thoughts, despite how you or anyone else interprets our bodies. We’re saying, “It’s my body and I get to decide how to use it.”

    You are misrepresenting your sisters.

    I don’t know about Holly, but the reasons I’m dissatisfied with radical feminism are these:
    1. Radical feminism tends to be essentialist. It assumes there is something about women that we all share and it totally ignores the differences and variety. The 1% of humans who are neither fully male or female biologically are considered male by radical feminism. Transwomen are not considered women in radical feminism.

    2. Women who aren’t part of the sex class, for whatever reason, are left out. It asserts that women are breeders, or viewed by society as breeders, and totally ignores the other oppressions women may experience, even when those other oppressions are more severe.

    3. Radical feminism hates Las Vegas, happy strippers, and lots of other people, like motel maids. Basically, radical feminism tends to ignore the needs and wants of working class women. Really, even Ms. Clinton visited Vegas, (and remarked that it made her truly aware of the subprime mortgage crisis) but radical feminist philosophers wouldn’t. They boycotted Vegas in 2001 when the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy conference was there. They wrote off an entire city and its residents; something they’d never even think of doing if it were another, eastern city (like NYC) with just as much prostitution, stripping, and other sex work.

    4. Radical feminism is not accessible. Most theorists write in a way that can only be understood by elite, well educated people, that is, in a way that cannot be easily understood by regular, working class people. Fun feminism is accessible.

    I completely agree with many of your ideas, Twisty, but I think your preoccupation with one type of oppression, the one based on women-as-breeder, clouds your thinking on some other issues.

    Just my opinion. Take it or leave it :)

  35. goblinbee

    I have yet to see or hear anything (substantiated) to hate about Hillary Clinton. She seems terrific.

  36. lucy stone

    OK, goblinbee. Here’s something to hate: in December 2005, Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a flag-burning bill. As in, a bill that would criminalize flag-burning. Sure, it’s merely one example of pandering, but it’s the first one that springs to mind. Not so “terrific.” Yeah, Hillary Rodham Clinton is adequate. She’s the DLC machine candidate.

  37. pisaquari

    “What about the ME’s” is just as annoying as “What about the menz.”

  38. HypeJersey

    I am a middle-aged woman and I am very well-educated. I did not notice sexism so much when I was younger. But I notice is very much now. Because sexism – misogyny – in our society, is so pervasive that it is like very small cuts that aren’t noticed when they occur. But they have a devastating cummulative effect. I see it now at my company. I’m sure all of the younger new hires don’t even notice what is happening to them. All of the new hires are probably hired at the same level and the same salary. Why do the females get saddled with more administrative tasks which limits the time they may use to do original research? So the new guys get to spend all of their time doing research and of course, making discoveries and getting patents and having opportunities to be called “brilliant.” They fall behind in the more mundane tasks at work, but they get the pass because “their brilliant!” So OF COURSE they will be promoted faster and get better raises.

    Meanwhile, the female new hires take on the boring administrative tasks and they do them well because they have a great work ethic. But because they do these things well, they are given more work of this type with lots of praise for “organizational ability” and all of the other fluffy stuff that gets you nowhere. People don’t seem to get that what sets it all in motion are the small things – the things like making a female new hire also responsible for some dumb administrative chore or giving a male new hire a pass when he doesn’t complete his crappy safety quiz (or whatever).

    My take home message here, is that sexism isn’t something that is usually seen in a single act or a single stroke. It has a cumulative impact. This is why younger women don’t identify with Hillary. They haven’t yet experienced the cummulative effects of sexism. Interview them 20 years from now, when we still will be waiting for the first woman president if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination.

    The people reading this blog probably already know everything I’ve written. But thank you for reading my message anyway.

  39. Gumleaf

    I think Hillary is great; she strong, fiesty, knows how the system and mechanics of government works, and has has so much more experience than Obama it’s not even a contest.

    I know this is not going to be a popular thing to say on this blog, but I actually think her policies are secondary to that fact that she’s a woman. As long as she’s feminist *enough* (not a surrendered housewife type), just think what a fantastic, resounding message it would send to men everywhere, all around the world, that the most powerful person in the world was a woman. That alone is enough to make me vote for her (if I could).

    I think the symbolic victory of Hillary in the whitehouse would give renewed impetus to the feminist movement worldwide, because it would signal that even the top job is available to women, and I think that many people on this blog are underestimating the paradigm shift that would be for most men around the world.

    Also, after reading some of the comments, Obamas beginning to sound like a bit of a closet misogynist-supporter (or at the least not anti-misogyny, which is akin to being an ally), and his islamic links are suspect.

    Mostly I think Hillary in the top job would be setting an example to young girls everywhere – she’d be a great role model for aspiring politicians, and proof that even the most powerful of boys clubs can’t keep a pwerful woman down.

    I’m really surprised more feminists don’t grasp the power of symbolism, and very sorry to hear that many have turned their back on her, as it might be a while before another woman has the guts/opportunity to run for president.

  40. Curiouser

    After this last Obama speech on race, I tried to imagine Hillary giving a similar speech about gendered tensions, and I just can’t see it. She might be that self-aware, but I doubt that she would ever have the wherewithal to begin that honest a conversation about feminism.

    I would disagree – I think what she has is the wherewithal to not make that speech, for all the reasons you list in the rest of your comment. What would be the point of making such a speech to a ‘blank, uncomprehending’ audience? All it would do is give the Boyz more ammunition to accuse her of playing the gender card, which as near as I can tell means they’ll spin it whichever way makes her look worst.

    There isn’t a feminist who’s right for the job, because the country isn’t ready for or interested in a feminist. The argument that Hillary isn’t feminist enough for women to vote for her is, forgive me, pure BS. She’s a frickin’ woman, fer f’s sake, the first woman who has a real shot at the presidency EVER. As Twisty says, the mere fact that she has the ovaries to make it to the top three shows that she’s a feminist, whether she calls herself that or not. Why is that not a big deal to more women? I think an awful lot of folks have their heads buried in the sand on this one.

    She has done what she has to to be electable at all as a woman, doing the balancing act that all politicians must do to have a shot at winning in a country that is so horribly divided. The last two elections were ‘won’ by a hair, and this next one will be no different. True radicals don’t stand a chance in this political climate. Obama isn’t a radical or a prophet – he’s a Republican in progressive clothing, with the slickest speech-writers and spin doctors money can buy. And he shows zero interest in women’s issues, in fact I would say his misogynist colors have been showing pretty clearly.

  41. Elinor

    Yeah. Fine. I don’t agree with all the tenets of radical feminism, but Holly’s post is radfem-blaming of the most bush-league variety. She could at least get the basic theory right. God.

    And “I’m a feminist with one caveat: I like men”? I’m sorry, has she read any feminist books ever? Some of my best friends are men and I don’t blather about how that makes for a “caveat” because I’m not such a goddamn jerkoff (most days) as to fish for compliments by trash-talking other women. “Other feminists are MEAN! They hate men! Poor misunderstood men! I’m much nicer and more fun than THEY are, doncha think, boys? Teehee!”

  42. Lauredhel

    I don’t know about Holly, but the reasons I’m dissatisfied with radical feminism are these:[snip]

    And yet, one can identify with radical feminism in a consistent and intellectually honest way while disgreeing completely with every last one of your stated characterisations of it.

  43. Bird

    I also played the feminist hedge game for a while until I realized that it was all a sham. Women’s rights are in an atrocious state around the world, not just internationally but here in North America. Just look at life for the average Native woman, for example. In Canada, First Nations women are oppressed on a horrifying level, to the point that international organizations such as Amnesty International have called out Canada for allowing it to continue.

    In the light of that, I see how my position as a white, educated, ciswoman, het-privileged (bi but partnered with a man) woman should be used, which is to take what power that gives me and use it to be an ally to other women fighting in my own country and around the world. This means speaking out against the feminization of poverty, the abuse of Native women, and the plight of women anywhere and everywhere (and yes, in my books, transwomen are women).

    Feminism should matter the most for those of us who are reaping the rewards of earlier feminists who fought so hard for us. I should be taking the gains my mother and grandmother made and honoring them by making gains for my daughters and granddaughters, and anything less is spitting on the contributions they made to my life.

    This is why the fun feminists, the “I’m a feminist BUT” crowd, and the “I’m not a feminist because I like men” sorts, who are so often women my age, make me crazy. Feminism isn’t just about your life and your corner of the world. It’s about seeing beyond your little corner and thinking about how you can make greater change.

    As for Hillary Clinton and her radical credentials, would she be where she is if she was more radical? To see women in leadership, we will have to accept that they are not likely, at this point, to be radicals, just as we do not tend to elect radical men, either. Obama’s not exactly a figurehead of the revolution either, people. Even he reads centrist at best, and right of centre in general (like most mainstream US politics). Why do we hold her to a standard that is so much more stringent? I think we’re doing the same thing that the anti-feminists do to her and to so many other women: expect her to be twice as good before she gets half the rewards.

  44. Elinor

    his islamic links are suspect.

    Seriously? You’re trying that line?

  45. mearl

    Re: Elaine Vigneault: *tears hair out in chunks*

  46. panoptical

    Hillary is not a good role model for anyone. She displays no integrity whatsoever. If we want to teach more young women that they should do anything and everything in their power to appease the patriarchy so that they can get the highest nod of white male privileged approval in the land, then sure, Hillary is a perfect fit. However, joining the patriarchy is not an example of feminist success.

    When did Hillary sacrifice her integrity? Was defending a rapist by attacking a 12-year-old rape victim the first time? Probably not. Was standing by her husband as he habitually sexually used women over whom he had power – an activity that many radical feminists would characterize as rape – the last time? Probably not. In what world is Hillary Clinton a feminist? Okay, she has a vagina. So does Ann Coulter. Does that make her a feminist icon?

    Of course Hillary’s not happy to simply enable the sexual abuse of women – like a true patriarchy-lover she must also help the men to prove their dominance over one another by fighting wars on foreign soil. Where was Hillary when Clinton’s Iraq policy was starving millions of Iraqi women and children by habitually bombing infrastructure for eight years? Right there with him. Where was Hillary when the Senate was approving funding for Bush’s adventures in Iraq? Right there with them.

    Maybe Obama won’t do anything for women, and maybe he’ll turn out to be as much of a warmonger as our last n presidents. Who knows? What I know is that unlike Clinton or McCain, Obama hasn’t proven that he lives only to reinforce the oppressive structures in our society by destroying the lives of women and foreigners. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but at least with him there’s a betting chance.

  47. Spits the Dummy

    Re: Elaine Vigneault: joins Mearl in the tearing out of the hair.

    Elaine said: 3. Radical feminism hates Las Vegas, happy strippers, and lots of other people, like motel maids. Basically, radical feminism tends to ignore the needs and wants of working class women. Really, even Ms. Clinton visited Vegas… … They wrote off an entire city and its residents; something they’d never even think of doing if it were another, eastern city (like NYC) with just as much prostitution, stripping, and other sex work.

    Wow. Someone forgot to send me the memo about hating Las Vegas. But if it makes you feel any better, I feel just as disinterested in any eastern city in the US as I do in Vegas, although truthfully I’d probably have to have some help in remembering which US cities are in the east other than New York. Does that help?

    The rest of the things, even in this small snippet quoted above, that Elaine thinks I’m supposed to hate as a radical feminist – motel maids, happy strippers, working class women – just makes me boggle and want to know what she’s been smoking. Seriously.

  48. Ryna

    Elaine Vigneault- Happy strippers? Women who are not members of the sex class? I’ve known plenty of women and plenty of strippers without ever meeting either. Also, NYC does not have as much sex work as Vegas.

  49. Sean

    Twisty, I’m so so glad you’re back to regularly posting, especially since Feministing has just started a new segment called, “(Un)Feminist Guilty Pleasures,” where they extol the virtues of television shows like “Millionaire Matchmaker,” a development that has nearly led me to abandon the site completely.

    At Pervocracy, I’m trying to do my best (which is surely not as good as you do) in trying to convince Holly of how there is so much more to the issue of prostitution than she has taken into consideration, but when she writes, “Also frankly I don’t see what any of this (capitalism and economic exploitation) has to do with the status of women. Seems to me someone could be liberated from coerced labor and still hate women. I don’t see the connection,” I just feel hopeless.

  50. Anne X

    Saying that radical feminists hate motel maids and strippers is as asinine as saying vegans hate slaughter house workers and fast food fry cooks.

    Hating the system is different than hating those that are enslaved by it.

  51. Rachel

    Hello, delurking to leave a comment. Love your blog, Twisty.

    I have no doubt that a lot of people hate Hillary because she’s a strong, smart, and unapologetically strong-minded woman, and will vote against her because of that. But I can’t help but feel that her campaign strategies over the last couple months have hurt her more than helped her. These strategies, which strike me as a “kitchen sink” approach that involves using whatever tactics she can to appeal to popular sentiments of the moment have give her a flip-flopping image that does not help her, and has eroded my confidence in her ability to handle dissent in congress and get stuff done.

    One question I’ll ask, and it sounds flip, but I assure you it isn’t: what legislation has Hillary participated in, and what issues has she championed, that specifically address women’s issues? Would her healthcare plan fall under that category? I’m honestly curious.

    Thanks for listening…I learn a lot and get a lot to think about by reading this blog and the comments.

  52. Sascha

    Gayle: All the HRC voters I know supported her because she’s stunningly smart, she doesn’t back down and her proposed policies are extremely well crafted–and more liberal– than those of her opponents.

    Debby, quoting an interview: Jim: Hey, Bob, would you say that Americans rejected Hillary because she is a bitch, or because she is a cunt?

    I was surprised to find so much woman-hating expressed by women here. As Gayle points out, it feels like they’re doing it because HRC is everything men hate in us — “oh, I hate her too, will you love me now?”

    Debby rebuts perfectly the women who said (or rather screamed) here that they won’t vote for someone because of her genitalia. It’s not about her having a cunt, it’s about her being a bitch — a term generally reserved for any woman who stands on men’s toes. Yet again, “I hate her too. Will you love me now?”

    How will we ever get out of the hole we’re in while even so many women who think they are feminists (what are they doing here otherwise?) hate women?

  53. Anastasia B.

    Bird, thank you for saying what kept me up all night thinking until I could get to my keyboard to say: we’ve got to stop holding women to a higher standard. Why does that keep happening? Why do we expect one of the most powerful women in the world to try and change the rules of the game before she’s won it? This is a patriarchy, and we can’t just blame it we have to fight it. She’s doing it, with the best tools she has at hand at this time. That’s right, at this time, in the here and now of this patriarchal society. Is she perfect? No. Will she ever be? No. Do I think she has my best interests at stake? Yes. Yes, I think so, and I’m willing to back her. Will there be another woman candidate in the future that could be a better leader? God, I hope so, but that chance will get beat down and a long time coming if we don’t act on this moment now. Right now.

  54. BadKitty

    Yup, nuthin’ more fun than being told you aren’t a real feminist unless you vote for Clinton. {eyeroll} That’s another reason I won’t vote for her – because her camp is constantly accusing me of not thinking for myself and/or being misogynistic. With all due respect, screw you.

    THIS is why we’re going to get our asses handed to us in November. We’re too busy hating and insulting each other while the Repubs are stealing our country.

  55. Egberta

    If you are looking for reason to dislike Clinton, you can find them. She is not particularly progressive on many issues. But the same is true of Obama. He is even less progressive on health care and reproductive rights. And part of his Southern strategy has been to employ socially conservative, exceedingly sexist and homophobic clerics of black churches in large numbers. Maybe he is no worse than Clinton. But he is no better either.

  56. Catherine Martell

    Elaine Vigneault, it is completely untrue to say that radical feminism does not consider transwomen to be female. It’s true that there is a subset of feminists who only consider ciswomen to count as female, but in my experience their voices do not dominate radical feminist discussions.

    In my radically feminist opinion, the class “woman” is defined by the patriarchy, and the only thing we all necessarily have in common being in it is that we are all oppressed by that patriarchy. Like most radical feminists I know, I consider transwomen and intersexuals to be my sisters.

    I don’t hate Las Vegas, happy strippers, motel maids or working-class women, either. I consider all of those things to be my sisters, aside from Las Vegas, which I consider to be a large town in Nevada. I’d be interested to know what on this blog has given you the impression that hating those things is part of radical feminism.

    Also, could you enlighten me as to which women don’t form part of the sex class?

  57. Anastasia B.

    Yes, BadKitty, respect. Which is why I don’t believe I mentioned anything about anyone hating anybody. But you did.

  58. j.

    Also, radical feminists hate puppies and applepies and sex and rainbows.

  59. Hattie

    As I remarked on the blog under discussion, young women of her kind believe that they will not end up like their mothers. Ha ha ha.

  60. tinfoil hattie

    She just sounds depressed to me, and maybe hanging out with real life feminists would help with that.

    Ha. Have you ever read this blog before?

    Also, Hillary Clinton did make “that speech.” At United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, Plenary Session in Beijing, China. Thirteen frigging years ago, people. Where did it get her? Where did it get women?

    Text here (cut & paste, change “xttp” to “http”)

    xttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm

    But, she hasn’t done “anything” to advance women’s plight in the world, has she.

    Or has she — and it’s just been ignored, like most things women say and do?

    Twisty’s right — we are invisible. Unless we’re serving men in some fashion. As long as we’re fuckable, we count.

  61. Mehitabel Moody Moss

    “Unjustified sense of entitlement’? I can’t get that phrase out of my mind – it makes me think of Obama. Really. Anyone who is vying to be Leader has a sense of entitlement. Justified – well Ms. Clinton is experienced, smart, and has survived the vast right-wing conspiracy. Yes she plays the game. But she is the best still in the race (I was a Gore and then Edwards supporter before now).
    Obama is running at least as destructive a race, has little experience, no record of leadership, and while not a DLC member they love him as much as Clinton, maybe more. He’s opportunist, has made horrible choices for mentors, plays the sexist game, and….republicans are largely responsible for his delegate count. He gives great speech but I can’t trust him.
    At least I know Hillary has women and children near the top of her list, I know who and what I’m getting.
    I’m astounded by the sexism exposed in this race. I loved what Robin Morgan said – I’m not for Hillary because SHE has a vagina but because I have one.
    I’m a feminist and I’m have Hillary’s back. All the way. Of the three that might still be choices, she’s the best on almost any meter. And she’s the one I’d most want to have a beer with……

  62. Kali

    That’s another reason I won’t vote for her – because her camp is constantly accusing me of not thinking for myself and/or being misogynistic. With all due respect, screw you.

    So, you won’t vote for her because her camp is questioning your feminist credentials. But you are totally on board with the Obama camp which employs misogyny against Hillary and the women who support her, that calls women bitches and cunts. Too bad you have those priorities.

  63. Elinor

    when she writes, “Also frankly I don’t see what any of this (capitalism and economic exploitation) has to do with the status of women. Seems to me someone could be liberated from coerced labor and still hate women. I don’t see the connection,” I just feel hopeless.

    That’s because she’s a vulgar right-wing libertarian in feminist clothing. You might as well save your effort.

  64. Twisty

    “Twisty’s right — we are invisible.”

    It was quoted blogger Unitari who made that point in the post, not me. Although I agree with her completely. None of these candidates can even mention women’s issues or they’ll come off looking like wussies, and it drives me nuts.

  65. delphyne

    It’s amazing how many women will be really angry if Clinton wins the nomination. That definitely smacks of misogyny to me.

    She’s no worse than Obama, and to her credit at least she doesn’t do sneaky things like getting all her opponents wiped off the ballot in order that she can get a clear run, the way he did when he ran for the Illinois State Senate:

    http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

    “Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

    Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets — to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district — to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.”

    If we’re calling people assholes here, a politician who uses the “rules” in order to wipe out all democratic opposition certainly seems to fit in that category.

  66. goblinbee

    lucy stone: “OK, goblinbee. Here’s something to hate: in December 2005, Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a flag-burning bill. As in, a bill that would criminalize flag-burning.”

    At least she was against a constitutional ban on flag burning, unlike my senator at that time (Orrin Hatch), and others. There was a lot of hysteria at that time.

    I do not expect a president to reflect all my views. I would love it, but it’s not going to happen. Myself? I burn U.S. flags every chance I get. Most politicians (and people!) hold views I do not relate to.

  67. delphyne

    How do feminists for Obama feel about the fact that he was prepared to support John G. Roberts the anti-choice, anti women’s rights judge to the Supreme Court, and needed to be reminded by his aides that it would be a mistake to support a conservative anti-choice judge?

    “It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator — still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office — was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts’s intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn’t want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601446_pf.html

    http://www.now.org/issues/judicial/roberts.html

    Do you trust this man with US women’s reproductive rights?

  68. BadKitty

    So, you won’t vote for her because her camp is questioning your feminist credentials. But you are totally on board with the Obama camp which employs misogyny against Hillary and the women who support her, that calls women bitches and cunts. Too bad you have those priorities.

    I don’t expect any better from some of the frat boy morons who are supporting Obama. I do expect better from other feminists. Excuse me for holding you to a higher standard. At least the misogynistic crap isn’t coming from Obama’s campaign. Just many lies and racist slurs am I supposed to overlook to vote for a woman whose ethics I seriously questioned in the first place? I’ll support her if she gets the nom, but I’m not going to like it.

  69. mearl

    I am not 100% up on American politics and the underhanded doings of political candidates, and I don’t watch every debate. But I have to make this observation: I think Hillary Clinton is playing the game as well as she can for someone in politics, and as a major potential for the first woman President. Given the current climate in politics and society, it’s unsurprising that Hillary wouldn’t rage forth with feminism as the main banner of her platform. I simply think she is attempting to be strategic. Does anyone here think that if she put women’s issues first and foremost, that she’d get any attention at all, let alone be in the running? Correct me if I’m wrong in assuming that Obama is well aware that race politics are less inflammatory than gender politics, so he can play that card openly. You can’t flippantly discriminate against black people these days, but everywhere I look, women are getting discriminated against on more levels than we were 20 years ago, hell, even 10 years ago. My final say about being female and voting for Hillary is this: she’s not Faith Popcorn. She’s a Democrat, whatever that means these days, and she’s a liberal woman. She could very well be hiding her full intentions, same as old George W did before election, for the sake of competition. Obama might be many good things, but he’s a man first and foremost. So if you’ve got the choice between electing a woman and a man as ruler of the patriarchy, why the hell would anyone choose the patriarch? Thoughts? Arguments?

  70. Kali

    I don’t expect any better from some of the frat boy morons who are supporting Obama. I do expect better from other feminists. Excuse me for holding you to a higher standard.

    So, you will go with the frat boy camp because you expect less from them? You will go with the guys who hate Hillary because she is a feminist woman, who will rejoice in her defeat because she is a woman? The men who hate women are relying on women like you to defeat a rare feminist female presidential candidate.

    At least the misogynistic crap isn’t coming from Obama’s campaign. Just many lies and racist slurs am I supposed to overlook to vote for a woman whose ethics I seriously questioned in the first place?

    Obama has himself made sexist comments. Hillary herself has not made racist comments. And what makes you think Obama is more ethical than Hillary when the evidence points in the other direction? Is it because he is a man and she is a woman, so you are holding her to a higher standard?

  71. goblinbee

    mearl, I love everything you said.

    I have been excited in the past when supposedly progressive people have taken office (Scott Orton in Utah, Vicente Fox in Mexico, Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic)). The machinery of politics wears most people’s good intentions clear off; all of these people were able to accomplish very little of what I would consider real change once they got in. Havel was the most disappointing (a writer! a revolutionary! an intellectual!). He had been previously jailed for his political activiities, but that all got watered down once he was The Man.

    I like Clinton AND Obama. I love that either would be a first–the first woman or the first black (more accurately, the first bi-racial), but, since I don’t think Obama can deliver any more than Clinton, it is more exciting to me to break the gender barrier than the race barrier. But, I want the Republicans OUT, which means I want whichever Democrat can bring that about.

  72. thisisendless

    Sean, I am sort of taking issue with your comment about Feministing. It is my understanding that the point of that series is not to “extol the virtue” of crappy TV shows, but to admit that sometimes we can’t all be perfect feminists all the time, and sometimes we like things even though we KNOW they aren’t feminist. I felt your comment misrepresented that site and series, not to mention entirely missed the point.

    If you want to completely write off and entire blog for that then it’s your loss.

    If I wrote off entire blogs because I didn’t agree with every single thing on them, then I wouldn’t read Twisty’s blog.

    Sorry I just wanted to address that.

    On the candidate issue,I really and truly like both candidates, and don’t understand why more people on the left feel the same way. I will be excited if either Obama or Clinton win, but for different reasons. I think either possibility is exciting.

  73. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    Here’s a reason to hate Hillary:

    MONSANTO.

    It’s been awhile since I posted a comment here, so it took last night to remember what it was like to have complete strangers inform me of my motivations and/or ulterior motives for doing and feeling things. To those of you who derive pleasure from these pseudo-analyses and pseudo-deconstructions, it’s fecking annoying. Please stop.

    I loathe Hillary because she is a loathesome human being. It really is that simple. Her vagina is not a get-out-of-contempt-free card, not at the lair of the Hedonistic Pleasureseeker, no Ma’am, no Sir, no way.

    For the record, I’m more than a little wonkish and I’ve been following this developing train wreck for approximately three years.

    These days I describe Hillary Clinton as a Lieberman-Rove hybrid. Meaning a narcissistic, Israel-FIRSTer, thieving, amoral dirty-trickster and extortionist. She’d stab each and every one of us in the back if it advanced her agenda. If it’s good for Israel she doesn’t care if it’s bad for the rest of us. If it’s good for globalism and a one-world-government, she’s officially committed to supporting it no matter WHAT she says to the rest of us (let me see if I can find that videotape from that CFR meeting).

    Instead of representing what the PEOPLE want, Hillary is a TOP DOWN elitist eager to impose her Bolshevik (Okay, Fabian Socialist) values on our unwitting population. Somtimes the desires of We The People overlap the Communist State apparatchik: Health care, for instance. Just about everything else, unfortunately, you’d probably hate if you knew about it: House-to-house confiscation of legally owned firearms, the pulling of life support from dying patients who never asked to be euthanized (to “save tax money”), NAFTA, telling you where you can and cannot live, limiting the number of pets you may own, etc. Unless you’re a Marxist who thinks The State Knows What’s Best for You, this is crap. Fascistic, invasive, globalist, crap of the worst kind.

    So there phhhhhhbbbbbbbbbblt.

  74. BadKitty

    Kalli -
    No, I’m going with the “frat boy camp” because I vote according to my values and my ethics. If there are moronic frat boys who agree with me, well, so be it. There are moronic frat boys who support Clinton, too. There’s not much either of us can do about that. Just be glad they aren’t voting for McCain.

    BTW, attacking me and twisting my words isn’t helping your case. It’s a very Clinton-esque strategy and one of many reasons I didn’t vote for her.

  75. Sean

    thisisendless wrote: “It is my understanding that the point of that series is not to “extol the virtue” of crappy TV shows, but to admit that sometimes we can’t all be perfect feminists all the time, and sometimes we like things even though we KNOW they aren’t feminist.”

    OK, so we admit that we aren’t perfect feminists, why then do we have to spend time praising things that not only have little to do with feminism, but are anti-feminist on a website called “feministing?” Nearly half of the commenters from that post agreed with me that they were sorely disappointed in the uncritical way the new series is being crafted, including a guest poster on the site, Anna. I doubt I even have the power to misrepresent the site, since every one of us here probably frequents feministing. Please tell me how writing a paragraph like this one does not excuse the show’s patriarchal qualities:

    “In the end it definitely makes my feminist alarm bells ring at high volume, especially when I found the link to the service’s site. Talk about leggy blonds. But it’s fun to be outraged by Patti and her crazy techniques, to poke fun at the awkward bachelors and at this same time hope that someone might find love.”

    It’s not simply that the show has “leggy blonds” on its site that makes it so offensive, but that we care that the super-rich, who can afford everything else in life, now have a right to be in love. Seriously? It’s simply a glorification of the upper-class male, who we, by watching the show, encourage to commodify women and love as something to be bought and sold. People who have every privilege in life, and now we want to give them even more privilege by helping them find a “soulmate.” That does more than “ring my feminist alarm bell”–that makes me upset and ashamed that somehow a feminist website would find such a prospect “fun.” This is the type of acculturation and “fun feminism” that Twisty (I think) keeps talking about–our refusals to even TRY to change ourselves in preparation for the revolution.

    In any case, I wrote “nearly,” a modifier that qualified my hyperbole, meaning I still venture the site, but am disappointed in such an editorial choice.

  76. Laurel

    Sascha wrote: “Debby rebuts perfectly the women who said (or rather screamed) here that they won’t vote for someone because of her genitalia. It’s not about her having a cunt, it’s about her being a bitch — a term generally reserved for any woman who stands on men’s toes. Yet again, “I hate her too. Will you love me now?””

    “Screamed?” Sascha, I don’t think you’ve been studying hard enough. You should have called us “hysterical” or “shrill” if you really wanted to do justice to the kind of patriarchal dismissiveness your post emulated. A quick review of the posts and the lack of exclamation points makes clear that nobody “screamed” anything. Speaking for myself, I made several direct statements to the effect that I don’t like Hillary Clinton, that I don’t like being told that I’m not a “good” feminist because of it, that I thought she was every bit as arrogant and entitled and full of shit and professionally political and cynical and calculating in her actions as Dick Cheney and that nowhere in her public servie history did I see anything even remotely resembling a passion for the rights of women. I stand by those statements and have no intention of voting for anyone simply because she’s a woman. If you want my feminist creditials because of that, you can have them. Just let me know where to mail back my badge.

  77. delphyne

    Laurel when you talk about entitlement, what do you think of Obama’s belief that he was so entitled to his state senate seat that he got his opposition removed from the ballot, including the female incumbent, Alice Palmer, who had previously supported him? Would you call that cynical and calculating?

  78. thisisendless

    Sorry Sean. I wasn’t trying to attack you. I do understand the point. I suppose it just seems like I often leave this site (IBTP) feeling as though there is some standard of feminism that I can never live up to.

    What I like about that particular series on Feministing is that I felt relieved, in the sense of “I’m not the only one.” I don’t always have to be a perfect feminist all the time. And then lo and behold I come here and once again something I enjoy (the blog series, not that particular TV show) is criticized for being “not feminist enough.” At least that is how it felt. A feeling I seem to get often when reading this blog. (As much as I respect and enjoy IBTP and Twisty) And I suppose my response to you was a defensive response to my own imperfections, and for that I apologize.

    I do understand and respect your feelings on the subject.

  79. Gayle

    “I thought she was every bit as arrogant and entitled and full of shit and professionally political and cynical and calculating in her actions as Dick Cheney and that nowhere in her public servie history did I see anything even remotely resembling a passion for the rights of women.”

    Are you voting for Cynthia McKinney? I’m not judging that choice, btw. I like Cynthia. I’m just trying to figure out where you’re coming from with that statement. I haven’t read her position papers so I don’t know if McKinney’s policies are more feminist than Clinton’s; she’ s certainly much more liberal.

    Of the three remaining candidates in the Dem and Republican primaries, HRC is the most passionate about women’s rights.

  80. Gayle

    This is from her website so I know it’s going to be regarded as suspect by some; however, the facts listed are consistent with my research on HRC and it consolidates her work on women’s issues in a nice, neat, easy to read fashion.

    FWIW, here it is:

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/womenfactsheet.pdf

  81. mearl

    Thanks, goblinbee. I also forgot to comment on this: we all know that Obama, as a male, will be accepted into politics without much question in a way that Hillary will not. So she’s in that situation again where she’s doing twice the job for half the pay. It doesn’t surprise me that women aren’t standing up for our gender and a possible sea change in American politics if Hillary got into the Democratic leadership and ran for prez. I’m simply echoing Gumleaf, Curiouser, Bird, HypeJersey and others, anyways. Who put it best upthread? Oh, yeah, Somebody with problems:

    “In a perfect post-feminist world, we could vote for a candidate without caring about their gender. But here’s a newsflash, which apparently is a big shock to an awful lot of the commenters here:

    WE AIN’T IN THAT WORLD YET. CHRIST ON A FUCKING CRUTCH.”

    Sing it, SWP! I don’t doubt the intelligent feminism of my co-Blamers, but it’s true that we can’t be sitting square in the middle of another massive backlash and not take the big picture into account. What came first, the female politician or her policies? As long as she ain’t Republican, and as long as she ain’t blowing hot air about either fulfilling her christian role as an obedient wife and mother, or shaking her ass in a thong around the Happy Stipper Pole of Freedom, I’m inclined to make “getting a woman into power” my doctrinal priority.

  82. mearl

    Too bad I can’t vote in the U.S…

  83. nobodyinparticular

    To “Somebody with problems” -

    Your commentary reminds me so delightfully of a woman who used to post here under the nick of LMYC.

    I hope to see more comments from you.

  84. uh huh

    I also posted some of what she has done for women’s issues upthreat, but Badkitty et al do not want to hear the data. They just want to say that she is “an asshole” or isn’t going to attend to women. I weary of arguing the facts and getting something else in return.

    No-one is asking you to return your feminist card, but you are not making a good faith effort to argue your position from data.

  85. Ryna

    thisisendless- I don’t particularly care that this vapid self-centered rich annoying lady feels the need to tell everybody about how she thinks she invented sex. The reason I think she’s anti-feminist is because she tries to label her patriarchy-supporting behaviors as feminist, redefining feminism into something that is, you know, not actually feminist. Oh, and she spends her time trash-talking feminists for shit they didn’t actually do. This behavior is not “not feminist enough.” It’s antifeminist. Period.

    That said, why you should feel personally slighted or as if someone is calling you a “bad feminist” just because you read the fucking blog is completely beyond me. To my mind, this indicates nothing except bad taste.

    If you really interpret so much of what radfems say as a message that you aren’t very good at feminism, this is either because a part of you already believes that yourself or because you are very insecure. If you need written proof that other self-identified feminists occasionally do unfeminist things in order to feel relief, you need to chill out. Of course we do. We just don’t feel it’s productive to write about our unfeminist side and the naughty rebellious feelings it stirs in us at great length.

  86. miss crabby pants

    “As long as she ain’t Republican, and as long as she ain’t blowing hot air about either fulfilling her christian role as an obedient wife and mother, or shaking her ass in a thong around the Happy Stipper Pole of Freedom, I’m inclined to make “getting a woman into power” my doctrinal priority.”

    Yes, yes, yes!

    Thanks mearl – you said exactly what I’ve been thinking but couldn’t put into words.

    Happy Stripper Pole of Freedom indeed.

  87. thebewilderness

    I despise what the corporate media has done to this political campaign. Not that I didn’t expect it, but after all these years of being a news junkie, the asshattery has reached new heights of racist misonynistic madness.
    Keeping a properly cynical view of all politicians, I am still heartened to have seen a time when a woman or a black man could have a real chance to win the nomination, and possibly the presidency, in this sad excuse for a democracy.

    I do have to say, though, that this was the last place I expected to hear propaganda substituted for reasons.

  88. BadKitty

    Uh huh – Thanks for the link, but I know Clinton’s data just like I know Obama’s. I understand the issues and understand the candidates’ positions. I voted on the ISSUES and my VALUES and my ETHICS. How many times do I have to say this? I just reached a different conclusion and support a different candidate than you.

    Do you have any idea how patronizing and insulting you sound when you keep whining that women who didn’t vote for Clinton don’t know what they’re doing? I have a reasonably high IQ and have been following the campaign very closely. I think I can make an informed decision about which candidate I prefr, thank you very much.

  89. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html
    Clinton’s 1993 NAFTA Meeting

    March 19, 2008 4:58 PM

    One interesting event in Sen. Hillary Clinton’s just-released schedules from the 1990s comes on Nov. 10 1993, when the former first lady was to serve as the closing act during a briefing on NAFTA, the trade agreement she now assails.

    11:30 am -
    11:45 am

    NAFTA BRIEFING DROP-BY
    Room 450, OEOB
    CLOSED PRESS

    PARTICIPANTS: Approx 120 expected to attend
    (See briefing book for further info)

    FORMAT:
    - Alexis Herman intros HRC for brief remarks
    -HRC concludes program

    (pp. 1375 and 1376)

    Two attendees of that closed-door briefing, neither of whom are affiliated with any campaign, describe that event for ABC News. It was a room full of women involved in international trade. David Gergen served as a sort of master of ceremonies as various women members of the Cabinet talked up NAFTA, which had yet to pass Congress.

    “It wasn’t a drop-by it was organized around her participation,” said one attendee. “Her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy. There was no equivocation for her support for NAFTA at the time. Folks were pleased that she came by. If this is a still a question about what Hillary’s position when she was First Lady, she was totally supportive if NAFTA.

    That first attendee recalls that the First Lady’s office in the East Wing put together “the invitation list, who was invited authorizations and all that stuff.”

    And what is this attendee’s response to Clinton today distancing herself from NAFTA? “For people who worked hard to pass NAFTA and who support the importance of markets opening for the economy in the long term, they’re very upset. A number of the women who were there are very upset. You need to have some integrity in your position. The Clintons when Bill Clinton was president took a moderate position on trade for Democrats. For her to repudiate that now seems pretty phony.”

    Recalls a second attendee, “they were looking for women in international trade who supported NAFTA. Senator Clinton came by at the end. And of course she asked for our support and help in passing NAFTA.”

    Women who attended that event, the second attendee says, have been incredulous to see Clinton distance herself from the trade agreement as she campaigns today. “They’re all saying, ’What’s this all about?’ We all heard it firsthand.” She says Clinton isn’t being honest with voters today.

    - jpt

    “Protocol of White House Conference November 11, 1993″

    Participants: The President, HRC, TFM, RN, IM and GS

    [HRC = Hilary Rodham Clinton]

    Regarding the Health Security Act:

    HRC: If they will swallow NAFTA, they will certainly pass this as it stands . . . Perhaps if the alcohol and tobacco people realize we can cripple their businesses, they might see their way clear to donate substantial sums to help us secure passage of the Health Act…

    Regarding the National Identity Card:

    HRC: We all know this has to be done…just like total gun control. People simply do not realize what has to happen to make their lives easier and safer.

    TFM: I think that if we can’t get a National Health Card through, we could always turn to the INS issue and fabricate the excuse of preventing illegal aliens from taking U.S. jobs or getting free medical care.

    HRC: Well, I agree with that. After all, if all the provisions of the Health Security Act are passed, as they must be…unaltered in any way…every citizen must by law be registered with the program even if they have no intentions of using its services. That must be made a law…a very important part of this program…

    Regarding federally funded abortions, which this gang is in favor of:

    HRC: …the religious right is our worst enemy, and we should deal with them directly…Things would be a lot more pleasant without their fascistic screaming anyway…

    White House Intent on Sex Education; the Catholic Church:

    HRC: For me, this is a dying religion in this country. They have no power and, if we cannot arrive at a mutual agreement on this, we can proceed against them by increasing the number of priest-pederasty charges… …And I’m sure the issue of female priests can be solved in the same way and at the same time. A package deal. The born-agains are most irritating problem. The neo-fascists here are allied with some of the religious right… If we do this a little bit at a time, the public will get the impression that all churches of the right advocate killing abortion clinic people, stockpiling deadly weapons like the Koresh nutties and eventually plan to attack or fight government agencies . . . like in Waco. We can make the connection in the public mind.

    Regarding gun control and the Brady Bill:

    HRC: We have to approach minorities with caution. We cannot appear to be picking on them or singling them out for punishment. I suggest we fist [sic] use records to confiscate all legally registered weapons from white citizens to show the inner city residents that the white population will be disarmed before any minorities are. Keep in mind that of the fifty-odd deaths in the Los Angeles riots, most were caused by Korean shop owners defending their property. These Koreans should merit special attention in the initial roundup.

    Regarding living wills and the Health Act:

    HRC: . . . Simply unplugging a dying person is the easiest and most economical way. These people are not ever going to recover, so why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case on them?

    Last but not least, regarding restructuring of education policies:

    HRC: …If we have to be severe or even cruel in the furthering of this doctrine, we must realize that the end is certainly worth whatever means we have to employ.

    ********************

    Read the whole thing at http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2644.htm

  90. thisisendless

    *sigh*

    So I will just say that I am not insecure about my feminism, even though I wear lipstick, high heeled boots, like BDSM, eating chickens, and I voted for Barack Obama in the primary. Because I also hate patriarchy, pay disparity, slut shaming, proscribed gender behavior, and men who call me “sweetheart” when I bring them their 5th side of ranch dressing at the restaurant where I work. I just sort related to the idea of that blog series. I found it cathartic and therapeutic. I will keep it on the appropriate blog, however.

    Sorry to derail this thread.

  91. Gayle

    BadKitty,

    Nice try.

    The link wasn’t for you. Your posts on this thread are vile and your hate filled assertions are backed up by nothing.

    It’s not all about BadKitty.

  92. BadKitty

    Gayle, if the link wasn’t provided for me, WHY WAS IT ADDRESSED TO ME??????

    I also posted some of what she has done for women’s issues upthreat, but Badkitty et al do not want to hear the data.

    Vile? Hate filled? I’m the one being insulted and patronized! I’m the one who’s being accused of being “secretly misogynistic”!

    I cannot believe the bullshit going on here. Out of respect for Twisty, I will not say what I really wish to say to you, dear Gayle, and the others who have attacked me & the other Obama supporters on this thread. Thank you, however, for doing a wonderful job of proving my point.

    Have a lovely evening.

  93. uh huh

    I did address Badkitty specifically, so blame me.

    I wanted to know what those issues upon which (s)he voted were. I suppose it feels like an attack that I keep asking for data. When people question me about my choices, I often feel attacked too.

    I’ll just end with this note: I am excited about both choices for the Dems this year, but I still have not seen evidence from any avowed feminist who supports Obama, that they have a feminist reason for picking him. Those reasons could exist, but I haven’t heard them. Without that explicit data, I still believe that patriarchy plays into the mix to choose Obama (how could it not?).

    Be well.

  94. smmo

    Regarding federally funded abortions, which this gang is in favor of:

    HRC: …the religious right is our worst enemy, and we should deal with them directly…Things would be a lot more pleasant without their fascistic screaming anyway…

    And this is supposed to make me not like Hillary Clinton? This makes me like her MORE.

    Of COURSE the first female candidate with a real chance at the presidency is a sell-out. Does anyone really think it would be otherwise?

    As long as she ain’t Republican, and as long as she ain’t blowing hot air about either fulfilling her christian role as an obedient wife and mother, or shaking her ass in a thong around the Happy Stipper Pole of Freedom, I’m inclined to make “getting a woman into power” my doctrinal priority.

    Oh YEAH.

  95. Laurel

    Are you voting for Cynthia McKinney? I’m not judging that choice, btw. I like Cynthia. I’m just trying to figure out where you’re coming from with that statement. I haven’t read her position papers so I don’t know if McKinney’s policies are more feminist than Clinton’s; she’ s certainly much more liberal.

    Of the three remaining candidates in the Dem and Republican primaries, HRC is the most passionate about women’s rights.

    Cynthia McKinney? Are you serious? No. I’m certainly not voting for Cynthia McKinney. At this point, I’ve decided to stay home this election cycle. I’m not voting for anybody. After being taken to school by a bunch of third wavers who know shit from shinola (“vote for the “bitch who fucks it all up because she gets in the face of the patriarchy”?” Um. No thanks. I now feel very comfortable about my choice to let you all knock yourselves senseless over this shit — and frankly? I’m old enough to look forward to being dead by the time any of this shit matters and since I have more than put in my time on each and every issue that you’re all going berserk over I have the luxury of wishing you all good luck and good night. What. Ever. The only thing I’m more sick of than Hillary Clinton in this bullshit discussion about voting for someone because she’s female instead of because she’ll do something for women is the ways that the current crop of pseudo-feminists will try to make it sound reasonable to do so.

  96. mearl

    ?? Someone PLEASE enlighten me as to how Hillary Clinton is less about women’s rights and issues than any past or present presidential candidates.

  97. Liz

    “Sexy feminism (aka sex-positivism) isn’t about appealing to men and thus perpetuation the patriarchy through internalized sexism….It’s about using our bodies for our own pleasure or to express our own thoughts, despite how you or anyone else interprets our bodies. We’re saying, “It’s my body and I get to decide how to use it.”

    It’s interesting that you mention Clinton and fun feminism in the same post, because people criticize Clinton as “more of the same,” and that’s exactly how I feel whenever a feminist tries to convince me that “sexy feminism” is about having control over your own sexuality. You know what would make me feel like I had control over my own sexuality? Having the same rights as guys to walk around topless on the beach without feeling afraid or ogled as some kind of sex object, or being able to breast feed my baby in public without that being offensive or risque or any kind of issue at all, or being able to walk home at night alone without being groped by some drunk asshole.

    Instead, “sex positive” feminists focus on is the ability to accept themselves as sexual, which they only attain by presenting a version of themselves that others readily find acceptable and have since way before I was born. Would you feel so empowered by your sexuality if you didn’t have a receptive audience? Nothing new here. Nothing challenging.

    I think our desire to gain control over our own sexuality is important (and hopefully possible), but this whole “sexy feminist” movement completely misunderstands what that means. I’m “sex positive,” (stupid term) by the way, and I think that this label is completely misused by practically everyone as a way of insinuating that those who disagree with their self exploitation are somehow anti-sex.

    We already have the ability to use our bodies to turn ourselves on and others on. What we don’t have is the control over showing our bodies in a non-sexual way, because whenever the clothes come off, we’re sexualized. Being able to control that distinction is central to having true control over your body, yet “sexy feminists” never talk about that, and they just present us with more lame burlesque acts and sad porn sites.

  98. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    SMMO: If fighting a toothless fundy fringe is what you think is important during this campaign, then mazeltov, vote for Hillary, in her own words “She’s your gal.”

    I wish I could hold a mirror so everyone could see: It would save me the typing. To the “I vote my vagina” crowd:

    Why is your feminist street cred higher on your list of priorities than the LIVES of innocent Muslim women and children? We’re in the middle of a GENOCIDE – DEPLETED URANIUM, HELLO – and Hillary Clinton supports it 100%, never mind what she SAYS on the campaign trail. Her original statement on Iraq is that she’d start pulling the troops out in 2013. Her term would be up in 2012. Do the math.

  99. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    Short essay: http://sheilastuff.blogspot.com/2008/01/cals-straight-talk-jumping-off-change.html

    I’m no Obama fan. I like him fine as a person, but he’s a CFR/Bilderberg/Trilateral stooge. A marionette, and Zbigniew Brzezinski is the puppetmaster. Obama is absolutely inspiring onstage but look at what he’s peddling: WE need to change. WE need to do better. WE need to “feel good” about ourselves. We need to “hope” things will get better. Is “It’s Morning in America” the next cliche?

    Bottom line: Obama won’t be able to implement any of those things that make us “feel” good about ourselves, which is a shame because feeling good is what it’s all about to Americans. Never mind our soldiers overseas, never mind the mini-nukes and the carpet bombs of depleted uranium, and never mind the Muslims and their deformed babies. “It’s all about ME,” indeed. (WTF?).

  100. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702440.html

    “The role of the President of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and chose from among political parties”

    - Ann Lewis, former White House official, a most cherished Clinton representative and campaign adviser

    Which is why our kids are fighting THEIR wars.

  101. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    ONE MORE THING.

    It almost doesn’t matter as our fates are sealed. The USA is no longer a sovereign country, and our “choices” were never real choices.

    For instance: Senator Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are two peas in a pod, politically speaking. Ditto Clinton and McCain; their families even vacation together. They invest in each other’s offshore banking scams (Cayman Islands). Google MARVELOUS INVESTMENTS. Google QUEEN MELUSINA: It was Hillary Clinton’s code name during Iran Contra when she ran the money. Both Clinton’s were CIA during the Reagan Administration, working for Bush Sr.

    Clinton has already gone on record to say McCain would be better in the White House than Obama. Look at ALL THREE of their voting records: They are virtually identical. Look at who is BEHIND their candidacies: New World Order globalists. One lie after another, exposed on the internet, have destroyed Clinton’s credibility. Meanwhile the fact checkers are having a field day over Obama’s autobiography: It’s a work of fiction. McCain is just befuddled, the dementia sending him to Neverneverland. There’s a reason McCain hasn’t named a VP candidate yet: He’s probably going to be our next president.

    QUESTION: If McCain and Lieberman had their peenies removed, started hormone therapy/counseling, and ran for president as transgendered people would their vile politics all of a sudden become acceptable to you? NO? Then why are Hillary’s politics acceptable to you? They’re no different; these assclowns even cosponsor legislation together. Look at their voting records. Is it any surprise that they’re doing their damndest to distract us with race and gender politics? The only thing different about them is the surface bullshit.

  102. phio gistic

    Please be cautious about believing anything that comes from http://www.tbrnews.org/
    If you are curious, search for “Walter Storch,” the person that runs the site.

  103. Mar Iguana

    I voted for Clinton in the primaries but the more I find out, the more she scares me. I want with all my heart to vote for a woman but I fear she will be much like other female heads of state I’ve seen in my lifetime who declared wars to prove how tough they were: Thatcher, Meir, Gandhi, three women who did little for women and children in their countries. I think she’s a war-hawk in women’s clothing.

    But, it’s her religious affiliation with The Family that bothers me most:

    “With Santorum, Clinton co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act; she didn’t back off even after Republican senators such as Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter pulled their names from the bill citing concerns that the measure would protect those refusing to perform key aspects of their jobs—say, pharmacists who won’t fill birth control prescriptions, or police officers who won’t guard abortion clinics.”

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillary

    And:

    “Clinton’s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or “the Family”), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to “spiritual war” on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship’s only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has “made a fetish of being invisible,” former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.”

    Then, I find out she defended the Monsanto monsters as an attorney, and she sat on the board of WalMart. Still, I go back and forth between Obama and Clinton. I want women in power that much.

    This is a miserable situation. One of my best friends isn’t talking to me right now; hung up on me the other day arguing about this bullshit.

  104. Kali

    QUESTION: If McCain and Lieberman had their peenies removed, started hormone therapy/counseling, and ran for president as transgendered people would their vile politics all of a sudden become acceptable to you? NO? Then why are Hillary’s politics acceptable to you? They’re no different;

    Because she is far more supportive of women’s rights than they are, not perfectly so obviously, because we are not living in a perfect world, but *far* more supportive.

    Here are some excerpts from her campaign site: (In case you object to quoting from her site, please feel free to find anything from Obama’s or McCain’s sites about their work for women’s rights. In fact, feel free to find anything from anywhere about what Obama or McCain have done for women’s rights.)

    “As a law student, Hillary represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. Following graduation, she became a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund.

    Hillary ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first got to Arkansas and handled cases of foster care and child abuse. Years later, she organized a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When she was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor.

    When Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas, Hillary continued to advocate for children, leading a task force to improve education in Arkansas through higher standards for schools and serving on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital, helping them expand and improve their services. She also served on national boards for the Children’s Defense Fund, the Child Care Action Campaign, and the Children’s Television Workshop.

    She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm. She led the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession, which played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues like sexual harassment and equal pay. Hillary was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.

    She traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the powerful idea that women’s rights are human rights.

    In the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly. Thanks in part to her efforts, the number of children who have moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatically.

    As everyone knows, Hillary’s fight for universal health coverage did not succeed. But her commitment to health care for every American has never wavered. She was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.

    Her strong advocacy for children continues in the Senate. Some of Hillary’s proudest achievements have been her work to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and her legislation to help schools address environmental hazards. She has also proposed expanding access to child care. She has passed legislation that will bring more qualified teachers into classrooms and more outstanding principals to lead our schools.

    Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. Her fight with the Bush Administration ensured that Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, will be available to millions of American women and will reduce the need for abortions.”

    Obama, on the other hand, who is supposed to be no different, wanted to vote for the arch-conservative, anti-women’s rights, super-patriarch Roberts, until he was warned about consequences for a future presidential bid. He followed the weaselly strategy of voting “present” on reproductive rights. He has voted to support corporate power even more so than Clinton. He has given wink-wink-nudge-nudge under the table support for NAFTA. He has followed cynical, devious and agressive strategies to elbow out his female mentors. He has used sexist talking points and right-wing lies to attack Clinton. On the one issue where he is considered better (the Iraq war), he is no different.

    Yet there are women, even self-proclaimed feminists, who support Obama over Clinton. It’s mind-boggling. The only explanation I can think of is the patriarchal double standard where women are seen as more evil and punished more harshly than men for similar or lesser transgressions, and are rewarded and recognized less than men for similar or greater service and acomplishments.

    Please be cautious about believing anything that comes from http://www.tbrnews.org/
    If you are curious, search for “Walter Storch,” the person that runs the site.

    People are so eager to hate Hillary. They will believe any crap coming from anywhere about her.

  105. Kali

    I want with all my heart to vote for a woman but I fear she will be much like other female heads of state I’ve seen in my lifetime who declared wars to prove how tough they were: Thatcher, Meir, Gandhi, three women who did little for women and children in their countries. I think she’s a war-hawk in women’s clothing.

    Mar, Gandhi has been demonised just like Hillary Clinton. She has had stuff ascribed to her that she didn’t do. I’ve seen the archived interview of Indira Gandhi about the Bangladesh war. She was shaking with anger and with tears in her eyes as she spoke about the large scale rapes and torture of Bangladeshi women and children by the Pakistani army. One can argue that it was still wrong to get involved, but she didn’t go to war to prove how tough she is. Also, it may or may not mean anything, but female/male ratios in India were highest during the time she was prime minister. The symbolism of having a woman in power itself matters. Also, the family planning programs started and implemented by her government contributed a lot to women’s empowerment. In most rural areas, these family planning clinics are the only access to healthcare that women have, even today.(She has been accused of supporting forced sterilizations. That is another lie.)

  106. Nell

    I think Obama should have a website called the Purity Evangelical Ladies Society. Please.

    I think the more astute writers and readers here are laughing to themselves at the innocence of the Obama supporters who say something along the lines of “I would vote for Clinton if she wasn’t so evil.” For balance, check this out: http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/ It also has links to Obama’s less than pure face to feminism.

    For balance, I’ll mention that Obama gets more money from Wall Street and Bear Stearns than Clinton. He also supports sending money from Social Security to Wall Street. Coincidence? This is one reason older people don’t support him. Obama also voted to deeply restrict class action suits so that the “Erin Brockovitch” type of suits, where the common person often can get justice from large corporations. Clinton voted against the restrictions. The restrictions passed. Yea! Obama! Wow, he really is free of corporate lobbyists, when he gives them the lockout on class action suits that they wanted. Of course, lawyers are higher financial supporters of Clinton, while stock brokers and bankers are for Obama – gee…I wonder how much Obama will crack down on the financial industry….hmmmmmm…..

    Listen, neither candidate is your personal friend, your savior, a pure and sweet heart. They will only go as far as we demand if that, so cut the worship. Given the two, if you are going to get a politician in either case, Clinton is progressive and a feminist and a woman, so that’s a three-fer in my opinion. And the joy of seeing the knobs who get flustered in the presence of a woman in power.

    When will we hear what strong measures they’ll put in place to combat war profiteering? I hear crickets from the savior Obama, frankly, when he rides his trip of Iraq purity, despite his votes. What about the recent meltdown of our financial institutions? crickets. And why is the Obama campaign blocking revotes in Ill and FL? Why can’t these states vote? Do they not believe in democracy – or only when it suits them?

  107. Anastasia B.

    Laurel, who’s been “taken to school by a bunch of third wavers who know shit from shinola,” do you think this is an appropriate response to the debate here? I’d venture to say that a good portion of the blamers here are well past the age of supposed third wavers, which apparently you think is an insulting label. Au contraire, without a second or a third or a fourth wave of anything, you have stagnation and lack of inclusiveness – who do you think is going to keep moving feminism forward? Past, current, and future generations of feminists all play equal and important parts.

    And for the record, I’m closing in on the half-century mark myself. And I proudly wear the feminist label in any of its incarnations.

    As for who I blame for all this infighting? The Patriarchy of course.

  108. Tigs

    delphyne – Challenging petitions is par for the course in any election, particularly state seats.
    If his opponents didn’t care enough to make sure their signatures were valid, they shouldn’t have had the seat anyway.
    First step in any campaign is petitions, it’s not underhanded or anti-democratic of him to challenge them. It’s the way it’s done. If Hillary had ever run a grassroots campaign, I can bet you that she would have been challenging petitions too.

  109. smmo

    If fighting a toothless fundy fringe is what you think is important

    I only wish they were toothless. The Presidency, the former Secretary of State, the current one, several Supreme Court justices, a passel of federal judges, etc. The current administration has hardly been shy about its religious goals.

    That Dr. Paul is supposedly “anti choice” doesn’t even cause me to flinch.

    Ain’t no supposedly about it. From the man himself: The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

    In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

    You don’t get to claim feminism and vote for this man. The end.

  110. peanutbutter

    I’m a feminist. Absolutely and completely. And I’d love nothing more than to have a woman for a president. And it utterly, absolutely, thoroughly KILLS me to conclude that of the two, Clinton is NOT the best candidate for the Dem nomination. Her campaign and her tactics at this point more resemble someone from the GOP than from the Dems. I mean, ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!

    If she’s on the ballot, I will vote for her. But up until I have a choice, it’s Obama.

  111. RP

    Kali, the whole “present votes mean that Obama isn’t pro-choice” thing is a lie. Planned Parenthood Illinois asked state legislators to vote present on some bills that were only introduced as forced-birther grandstanding. Now, if you have some inside scoop on PP Illinois being some sort of pro-life front, please share that information. But note that he has always gotten strong support from Planned Parenthood and other reproductive rights organizations here in Illinois.

    I’m a middle-aged feminist. I hate the misogynistic attacks against Clinton. I’m voting for Obama, who has earned my trust more than Clinton has and who has been consistently against the war in Iraq. In November, I’m voting for whichever one of them gets nominated.

  112. Nine Deuce

    PhysioProf – Yes, people bleach their assholes. I’ve been thinking about it for about a week now, and it’s nearly caused me to lose my mind. If you care to think about this absurd concept any further, there’s a blog about it on my site. As for the “sex-positive” “feminists” arguing that the procedure is just a matter of making themselves feel good about their own sexuality, I say bollocks. I really don’t see how anyone can give this sort of thing any thought whatsoever and not realize that there’s a problem when our idea of feeling good about our sexuality requires us to cause ourselves physical harm in order to appeal to men who don’t find actual human women attractive, but rather prefer plastic dolls.

  113. delphyne

    Really Tigs? If that’s the case then why didn’t his opponents make sure they had everything in order if everybody knew they could expect that? I think the reason it’s being reported on is that it was unusual. I’ve certainly never heard of all opponents being wiped off the ballot before one vote has been cast – it seems profoundly undemocratic, grassroots or no. After all you’re talking about a man who is preaching political change with call to end to the old way of doing things, yet here is someone who used questionable tactics in order to gain his first foothold on power.

    As for smearing Clinton with the “Well she would have done it too”, Clinton has taken part in two Senate races. Could you point me to the court proceedings where she used the law instead of the democratic process in order to get her seat. Maybe you could do the same for Bill Clinton as that gives you a wider range of examples to draw from.

    I feel pretty sick at the awful attacks Clinton is having to face whilst every political and moral misstep by Obama is brushed aside. I’m not even a USer, but the stink of misogyny is reaching all the way to this side of the Atlantic.

  114. Elinor

    Instead, “sex positive” feminists focus on is the ability to accept themselves as sexual, which they only attain by presenting a version of themselves that others readily find acceptable and have since way before I was born. Would you feel so empowered by your sexuality if you didn’t have a receptive audience? Nothing new here. Nothing challenging.

    Exactly. Exactly exactly.

    I’m in my 20s, straight, petite, have long hair, like to dress up, and probably qualify as “conventionally pretty” — at any rate, I’m pretty enough to get compliments from men on a fairly regular basis.

    I enjoy this, especially since I was a “late bloomer” and remember when I didn’t have it. It’s fun. It’s validating — who doesn’t want to be considered attractive? But I know I’m in for a letdown the day I cease to be a “pretty little thing,” and anyone who mistakes the pleasures of “pretty little thing”-ness for real power is in for a shock.

    You cannot fuck and flatter your way to freedom. Generations of women have tried.

  115. BadKitty

    I’m not going to school people in Obama’s positions on Twisty’s blog. There are web sites aplenty doing that. Go to his site. Go to On The Issues. Look at his voting record. It’s not my job to educate you about the candidates. That’s your job as a responsible voter. If you read all the info on both candidates and decide to support Clinton, go for it.

    Just remember, we need your vote and we’re all going to have to come together later this year behind whoever gets the nomination. The fight against McCain is going to be ugly. We are behind in the polls right now, despite the fact the he’s been hinting at another war in Iran, despite his strong pro-life voting record, despite his links with Bush, Hagee and Parsley. Not voting at all because we’re pissed off at half the Democratic party is a vote FOR McCain.

    Take a moment, breathe, and come November, come to the polls. We’re all getting way off track in this Obama vs Clinton battle. Winning the battle this summer could cost us the war in November.

    Let’s keep our eyes on our real enemies, OK?

  116. delphyne

    Isn’t November the month when you’ll be being carried kicking and screaming to the polls if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, BadKitty?

    Maybe it’s you who’ll have to be taking a bit of time out to breathe after your tantrum.

  117. BadKitty

    delphyne – I’ve already stated, repeatedly, that I will support Clinton if she gets the nom. I won’t like it, but I will support her. May I ask, why the hell do you care so much about this election when you’re Canadian? Why are so invested that you’d follow me home and attack me on my blog? That’s just bad manners, sweetie.

  118. delphyne

    You do know that people can scroll up to your first post BadKitty, don’t you, and if they do they’ll read you saying this:

    “I used to say that while I preferred Obama, I’d happily vote for Clinton. No longer. I have lost all respect for her and will have to be dragged to the polls kicking and screaming if she gets the nomination.”

    As for the rest:

    1) I haven’t been near your blog.

    2) I object to sexism which is a global sport, one that you appear to be participating in.

    3) I’m in the UK.

  119. delphyne

    Sweetie.

  120. BadKitty

    Delphyne, yes, I realize that people can read all of my posts and I stand behind what I’ve said. Of course, I probably won’t have to vote for Clinton since there’s no way she can legimately receive the nomination at this point, but even if she gets it illegimately, I will vote for her.

    If you did not post on my blog, I apologize for the false accusation.

    Sexism? Oh sweetie, you couldn’t be more wrong. I simply don’t believe in voting against my values. You know, my feminist values?

  121. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    I don’t get to “claim” myself as a feminist? HA!

    I respect Dr. Paul’s religious beliefs though I disagree with them. His stance on abortion has been misrepresented, however.

    Dr. Paul is a strict (to the point of whack I’ll be the first to admit) Constitutionalist, and he’s been CLEAR (if only people would listen) that it’s NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS what goes on in the private lives of individual citizens. He would leave it to the states to decide how invasive we (the PEOPLE) want to be with EACH OTHER and regulate accordingly.

    I’m 100% in agreement with this stance. It has something to do about how this American Republic was set up in the first place – - – bottom UP governance, as opposed to some political elite making the decisions for us. WE THE PEOPLE have been subject to a coup, plain and simple. The Supreme Court, elites all, should not be involved.

    Rove v. Wade established a Federal “interest” in abortion after X weeks of gestation. Frankly I think the Feds should feck off.

    The fundy fringe is OUT of power. If the power to regulate abortion returned to the states the majority of this country would remain prochoice. The fundies couldn’t even take over SOUTH FREAKING DAKOTA for cripes sake.

    It’s time for me to drive to work. However, I could harp on this for days.

  122. goblinbee

    The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker: “and he’s been CLEAR (if only people would listen) that it’s NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS what goes on in the private lives of individual citizens. He would leave it to the states to decide…”

    I don’t think it’s any of a state government’s business either. States are also huge government entities. I lived in a state for years that would have been the first to toss out legal abortions–a state that puts the conservatism of South Dakota to shame. Dear ol’ Utah!

    This is not to argue against Ron Paul, it’s just how I would want the world to work — with no one deciding about a pregnant woman’s choice except the woman herself.

    I like a lot of what Ron Paul says; he’s an interesting guy. And I’m a rad fem.

  123. Kali

    Kali, the whole “present votes mean that Obama isn’t pro-choice” thing is a lie.

    The present votes scheme was a way for Obama and his buddies to cover their butts politically. You are free to support a guy who will support women’s rights only if and when it is politically expedient for him to do so, while kicking to the curb a feminist woman who actually cares for women’s rights. It’s your country and your choice. But don’t expect me to buy the ridiculous argument that it is about feminist values and ethics.

  124. smmo

    I respect Dr. Paul’s religious beliefs though I disagree with them. His stance on abortion has been misrepresented, however.

    You know what I’m sick the fuck of hearing from people who should know better? How they respect the religious beliefs of wackos. FUCK religious beliefs, and fuck religion while we’re at it.

    Ron Paul was an OB/GYN who claims never to have found it necessary to perform an abortion, or even considered performing one, in 40 years of practice. I’d be very interested to know how many pregnant women died in his care, on the altar of his religious beliefs. Very interested.

    He would leave it to the states to decide how invasive we (the PEOPLE) want to be with EACH OTHER and regulate accordingly.

    I don’t really how a smaller government entity having domain over my uterus is any kind of improvement.

    The fundies couldn’t even take over SOUTH FREAKING DAKOTA for cripes sake.

    Go try to find an abortion provider in South Dakota and let me know how it goes, ‘kay?

  125. smmo

    Fucked up. Second paragraph should not be in italics, as those are my words.

  126. smmo

    Third paragraph too.

  127. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    Phio Gistic: HM. I know very little about the TBR webmeister, except he’ll post it if it’s authentic, even if he thinks the information in it is nutty. For instance, he just posted some recently declassified information from a CIA “psyops” group on mind control, despite the fact he thinks psychism is hogwash and that using tax dollars to pay for “remote viewing” research is criminally wasteful. As for the rest I wouldn’t know. I’ll look into it!

  128. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    More about that secret fellowship called “The Family:”

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525

    Jesus plus nothing: Undercover among America’s secret theocrats

    “The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men . . . The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.”

    (etc. etc.)

    ” . . . In the process of introducing powerful men to Jesus, the Family has managed to effect a number of behind-the-scenes acts of diplomacy . . . Such benign acts appear to be the exception to the rule. During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between . . . (see list of the world’s worst torturers, mass murderers and dictators). . . We work with power where we can,” the Family’s leader, Doug Coe, says, “build new power where we can’t.”

  129. RP

    The present votes scheme was a way for Obama and his buddies to cover their butts politically. You are free to support a guy who will support women’s rights only if and when it is politically expedient for him to do so…

    You mean that doing what Planned Parenthood asked pro-choice legislators to do is politically expedient? My mind is boggling. Obama has gotten 100% ratings from PP Illinois, so I think he should honestly be counted as a supporter of reproductive rights. If you can dig up an example of when he actually voted against women’s rights, I’d be interested to see it. I don’t think you can.

    I believe both candidates are for women’s rights. If we get a Democrate elected in the fall, we’ll lose the global gag rule. We won’t get any more crazy pro-lifers nominated to the Supreme Court. The prospect is exciting! But hey, I’d like to end the war in Iraq, too. So I’m an Obama supporter now, and will be voting Democratic in November no matter what.

  130. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    GAH!!!!! More!

    “There they forge “relationships” beyond the din of vox populi (the Family’s leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride) and “throw away religion” in favor of the truths of the Family. Declaring God’s covenant with the Jews broken, the group’s core members call themselves “the new chosen.”

    (etc. etc.)

    Three women from Potomac Point, an “Ivanwald for girls” across the road from The Cedars, came to help serve. They wore red lipstick and long skirts (makeup and “feminine” attire were required) and had, after several months of cleaning and serving in The Cedars while the brothers worked outside, become quite unimpressed by the high-powered clientele. “Girls don’t sit in on the breakfasts,” one of them told me, though she said that none of them minded because it was “just politics.”

    *******

    I feel as if I contracted cooties from reading this article:

    “You guys,” David said, “are here to learn how to rule the world.”

    Goddess HELP US This is GLOBAL FAMILY????? Google it. Then Google it with “New World Order.” Google it with ROCKEFELLER or ROTHSCHILD. Google it with “First Contact (minus medicine).” Google it with Transhumanism. Then stock up on VODKA, hoard a year’s worth of food and fortify your basement, this is the big ‘un.

    Thanks Mar Iguana, now I’m going to be off my feed for a week.

  131. Gayle

    “I’m a middle-aged feminist. I hate the misogynistic attacks against Clinton. I’m voting for Obama, who has earned my trust more than Clinton has and who has been consistently against the war in Iraq.”

    He most certainly has not been against the war– he’s voted for every god awful funding bill Bush pushed into the Senate. Conveniently for him, he wasn’t in the Senate when the Authorization bill came up.

    Peanut Butter, I can’t disagree with you enough when you say Clinton has been more negative than Obama. Frankly, they’ve both been pretty negative but, IMO, Obama has been worse. The difference is that Obama’s been enjoying a free ride by virtually all the news networks and by the internet boyz, while any gaffe by the Clintons makes for days and days of fun filled, HRC bashing talking points.

    RP, that’s simply not true. Obama approached PP; they did not approach him.

  132. Kali

    RP, that’s simply not true. Obama approached PP; they did not approach him.

    That’s right. PP made a *compromise* so that Obama could cover his butt. And he wanted to confirm Roberts and didn’t want to oppose him “simply for ideological reasons”. Let me remind you what those silly, unimportant ideological reasons are – basically they are women’s reproductive rights that Roberts is opposed to, anti-discrimination laws that Roberts wants to gut, and the minimal legal protection that the little people have against corporate/state exploitation that Roberts wants to do away with. The only reason Obama voted “no” finally was to save himself a future presidential bid, not because he thought women’s rights are important.

    http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=845

    As for the Iraq war, Obama has voted for funding the Iraq war and his plan for getting out of Iraq is no better than Clinton’s. In fact, according to NYT, Clinton has a much better thought out plan for leaving Iraq (and NYT is not some uncritical fan of Clinton).

  133. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    Truth be told there is only one antiwar candidate still in the race, and I’m turning in my “Feminist Street Cred” Card to vote for him.

    I figure saving a couple million women’s and children’s lives is more REAL, more beneficial, more walk-my-talk than voting for someone who theoretically OUGHT to be in my camp but isn’t. Their voting records are what’s important to me.

    Another thing: These people are package deals. Look at their advisors: What are they about? Are they nationalists or globalists? Progressives, neocons, or classical conservatives? Who’s donating to their campaigns? Where are their priorities and loyalties? Who is the press slobbering over? Who gets blackballed by the media, and who gets the free publicity?

    (Hint: If the corporatist press loves him/her, RUN!)

    I don’t even watch the primaries anymore. Pretty is as pretty does, so the saying goes; “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

  134. smmo

    Back away from the box of tinfoil, HPS, because Ron Paul is not, will not, can not, be elected President. Thankfully, because on every single issue except Iraq he absolutely sucks. I uphold your right to vote for whatever wackadoo you want to, but know it is essentially a vote for McCain and 4 more years of the same. McCain who wants to increase troops in Iraq. Obama or Clinton both have a plan to get out.

    “Feminist Street Cred” – where is this feminist street anyway? How long have we been told to set aside our principles, our issues, for the greater good? Every damn election? Enough.

  135. Mar Iguana

    Sorry, The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker, but if I’m freaked I want everybody freaked. Have I mentioned lately how much I hate religion, the last refuge of woman-haters?

    At least the lame-stream-media is fin al ly reporting on this evil bunch:

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steve_br_080326_msnbc_opens_the_door.htm

    “Shortly before 2 p.m. Eastern today, Andrea Mitchell interviewed Joshua Green of The Atlantic regarding Hillary Clinton’s participation in The Fellowship (a/k/a The Family).”

    Yet, she has the nerve to bash Obama’s gaudbag. Which is worse, gaud damn America or gaud damn everybody on Earth who is not one of the New Chosen People? Christ on a stick.

    By the 60s, religion was pretty much fizzling. Funny how many of the boys have found gaud in the last 40 years, about the same time women told them fish don’t need bicycles.

    Cock the patriarchy!

  136. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    Mar Iguana:

    How interesting. Divide and conquer, Hegelian Theory at work, STILL WORKS. People still think there is a difference between an elite in the Democratic party and an elite in the Republican Party (groan).

    I’m not confused as to why Hillary would be so deeply involved with rightwing religious control freaks, because I got over the lie of the False Opposite years ago (it was Wicca and a strong whiff of coffee that did it, truth be told). All this frothing at the mouth about “GOD” is self-referential. Their truths are twisted up, upside down and backwards (in fact it’s the definition of Satanic). These people treat Orwell’s 1984 as an instruction manual rather than the cautionary tale that it was meant to be.

    Coffee, anyone?

  137. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    I’m splitting up my rants to avoid the Spamulator. Next, I apply this whole whackadoodle lie to general politics.

    The REAL parties (sorry but I’m not having any fun at these “parties”) are the Bottom Up Barebellied Sneeches and the Top Down Star-Bellied Sneeches. However, even the individual/collective or freedom/slavery or release/control or autonomy/authoritarianism dichotomies are simplistic and (by definition) false.

    For intance, “Progressive” and “Elitist” shouldn’t (in theory) coexist exist in the same person, but they do: Every progressive I’ve EVER met has been an elitist snob, myself included, regardless of personal income. That we deign to know what’s “best” for the “little people” or “humanity” or women or children or the “third world” or what the F*CK? Somebody just SHOOT me please, before I help again.

    At this time in my life I see nothing more insidious than false populism, expecially that of the Hillary-Bots who are ready and willing to kneecap their way into the White House. Perhaps this is because THIS is going to be how America is going to be duped THIS time as the so-called “opposition” takes over the government. Fascism is NOT “rightwing” or “leftwing.” Vultures use TWO wings to fly.

    This photo says it all:

    http://capitalismvscommunism.ytmnd.com/

  1. Vulgar, but entirely to the point : A Different Street

    [...] I Blame the Patriarchy gets my issues with third-wave feminists (or worse, those younger women who coyly disclaim the label): Sexy feminists, there’s a lot more at stake with American feminism than exercising your right to bleach your asshole. [...]

  2. The evangelical pro-life guide to sexy feminism at I Blame The Patriarchy

    [...] These remarks from reader Liz conveniently summarize, more or less, my own views on sexy feminism. She begins with quoted text from another commenter. “Sexy feminism (aka sex-positivism) isn’t about appealing to men and thus perpetuation [sic] the patriarchy through internalized sexism. It’s about claiming our own sexual pleasure and our own bodies. It’s about doing what we want despite the patriarchy. It’s about using our bodies for our own pleasure or to express our own thoughts, despite how you or anyone else interprets our bodies. We’re saying, ‘It’s my body and I get to decide how to use it.’” [Context] [...]

  3. Sex-Neutral Feminism « Editorializing the Editors

    [...] what good does it do to claim over and over and over again that women are free to make whatever choices they [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>