anythings.org

Rebecca Walker really just wants me to hate her, doesn’t she? I feel like she’s playing an immature game where she pisses off feminists across the globe in a desperate plea for attention and wealth. Here’s a tip: you’ll never be your mother, so just let it go. Alice Walker is a far better writer, and a much more likable person overall. On the bonus side, Alice Walker doesn’t hate feminism and blame it for everything she sees wrong with the world.

After her ridiculous article for the Daily Mail where she blamed feminism for women’s lack of babies, she found a way back into the media spotlight by publishing an article on CNN calling Clinton’s female supporters “reverse-sexists.”

But with a Democratic house divided, now is the time for healing, and this can only happen if Hillary’s staunch female supporters let go of the reverse-sexist ideology that women are inherently better, wiser, and more compassionate leaders.

They will have to acknowledge that sometimes the best woman for the job is actually a man — if it’s the right man. Obama’s vote against the war, marriage to his female mentor, outstanding record on reproductive choice and a host of other progressive issues, and his uncanny ability to inspire people all over the world suggest he’s just that.

It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility.

I really thought we’d gotten over this whole thing about women voting for Clinton because she was a woman, and black men and women voting for Obama because he was African American, but apparently Rebecca Walker doesn’t agree with me. While I’m sure some women voted for Clinton because she was a woman and some African Americans voted for Obama because he was, I’m sure the majority of them were motivated by their political views, and not their similarity to their candidate of choice, whether it be race or gender. I really thought the feminist movement came to terms with this awhile ago: people are so shallow and stupid as to vote for the candidate that matches their personal identification, and accusing them of doing so is downright offensive and patronizing.

I didn’t even need to get to the need of the article where she admits to being an Obama supporter before I figured out that she was one. It’s almost like she’s trying to prove to the world just how bad-ass of a feminist she is by saying “see, look at me, I rose above the female greed and voted for the male candidate!”, as if that somehow makes her better than the feminist women who voted for Clinton.

I’m sorry, but where is her feminist solidarity? Does she really think she is so much more superior than the women who voted for Clinton because she didn’t engage in “reverse-sexism?” For a woman who is striving to encourage empowerment of individuals across the lines of race, gender, etc, she really doesn’t think highly of her fellow women.

She accuses women of voting for Clinton simply because of gender, but pens no response to the men who have voted for her, harking back to the stereotype that men are logical thinkers, and women are irrational and emotional. Why is it acceptable to call women out for voting for Clinton, but say nothing to the men who did? Were all women who voted for Clinton motivated by her gender, and the men motivated by her political views and campaign promises? If she’s going to continue playing such an immature game of blaming feminism for society’s problems, maybe she should make the jump and find a way to blame feminism for all the white men and women who voted for McCain, as well as all of the African Americans who were blinded by their race and voted for Obama.

But she won’t. And you know why? Rebecca Walker hates the feminist movement and she hates empowered women. She blames it for everything that was wrong with her childhood, and she blames it for her terrible relationship with her mother. Why not blame it for her ambivalence regarding motherhood, or the way women voted in 2008? One can only imagine what else she’ll find to blame feminism for. Higher clothing prices because we dare to demand non-sweatshop clothing? Global warming because feminism encouraged us to be the women we wanted to be, so we used aerosol hairspray and put a hole in the o-zone layer? Really, Rebecca, let it go.

Hating the feminist movement from the inside does nothing to increase its effectiveness, no matter how you try to mask your hatred of other women and the movement.

And BY THE WAY, there is no such thing as “reverse-sexism.” Sexism is discrimination based on gender, and while more women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis than men, it can cross gender boundaries and create problems for men as well.

Via Feministe.

This is amazing. The women in Kuwait are taking some huge steps towards personal freedom. From Women’s eNews:

If Salwa Al-Jassar wins an election on May 17, she could become one of the first women to win a place in Kuwait’s 50-seat National Assembly.

But the 49-year-old Al-Jassar emphasizes that a woman’s right to run for office–legalized just three years ago–and her ability to do so are two different things.

A standard qualification for any politician in the heavily clannish process, she says, is membership in one of the country’s prominent families.

And for the 28 women running in this election–which will replace a government dissolved by the emir in March–that’s doubly true.

“My family’s support will take care of 70 percent of my campaign since I come from an elite but a traditional family of Kuwait that has the social power,” Al-Jassar said in a recent interview in her office in Hawally as she fixed her black headscarf on her Persian blue shalwar suit. “If a family does not support, then voters’ common argument is why should we support?”

You should definitely read the full story. One bit I found to be interesting was how they connected family support to our presidential election:

“I ask why Mr. Clinton stands beside Hillary Clinton during her speeches,” she says, referring to the presidential candidate. “It is because if you want to appear strong, you have to be strong from within; within your family.”

I think it’s interesting to see how family support plays a role in elections across the globe, and not just here in America where it’s about picture perfect political families.

I wish all 28 women the best of luck in the May 17th elections!

I couldn’t have put it better myself:

If I had a time machine and could go back to 1968 or 1972 to chew over a thought experiment with one of those old pros, the conversation might go like this:

Violet: Okay, hypothetical situation. Let’s say we’ve got two strong candidates. Candidate A wins the Iowa caucus. Candidate B wins New Hampshire. Then Candidate A catches fire and in February wins a bunch of caucuses and small primaries in mostly Republican states. Racks up the lead in delegates. But then Candidate B comes roaring back and wins New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania. Who’s the front-runner?
Old Pro from 1968/72: Are you kidding me?
Violet: No, really — who’s the front runner?
Old Pro: Candidate B, of course. What’s the matter with you?
Violet: But Candidate A leads in pledged delegates!
Old Pro: Candidate A is the guy who had a good February? But then loses in all the big states?
Violet: Right.
Old Pro: You’re actually asking me this question?
Violet: But don’t the pledged delegates count?
Old Pro: You’re talking about nominating the guy who lost New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Florida? Jesus! You’re outta your mind!
Violet: But what about his delegates?
Old Pro: Fight it out at the convention if you have to. Geez. That’s what conventions are for. Look, you don’t get to be the nominee because you were popular in February in Utah. For chrissake, if you can’t win the Democratic primaries in California or New York or Massachusetts or Florida or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, you don’t get to be the Democratic nominee. Unless you’re Hubert Humphrey. Wait a minute, Humphrey isn’t still alive, is he?
Violet: No. But the party bosses really love Candidate A. They say Candidate B needs to drop out so Candidate A can be the nominee.
Old Pro: They want the winner of all the big states to drop out so the party favorite from February can be the nominee? Goddamnit, it is Humphrey, isn’t it? Christ, he must be like 100 now.
Violet: No, he’s dead. See, the two candidates we’ve got are both strong. They both have a lot of devoted supporters and they’re really close in pledged delegates and popular votes.
Old Pro: What do their numbers look like against the Republican?
Violet: Close, though when you look at the state-by-state polls and the exit data, Candidate B looks stronger in a match-up against the Republican than Candidate A.
Old Pro: And you’re still asking me who the party needs to nominate?
Violet: Well, the supporters of Candidate A say that if Candidate B will just drop out, then the party will be able to get behind Candidate A.
Old Pro: It is Humphrey!

Me, personally, I don’t understand why everyone is so eager to declare Obama as the Democratic party “front runner.” I don’t want the Democratic presidential candidate for 2008 to be weak in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania… need I go on? That just spells yet another recipe for disaster for the Democratic party, and success for McCain. You’d think the Democratic party would have learned from their mistakes over the past 8 years - but no, they haven’t. What I would absolutely love to see on this year’s ticket would be Clinton for President, and Edwards for Vice President - hell, I’d even go for Obama as VP, especially since that would for sure lock in the vote. Obama isn’t ready to be President, and I think the states he’s won show that he’s not as electable as the fervor surrounding him would like you to think he is.

What kills me the most is when people say “we’re so fucked if Hillary gets the nom.” But, wait, really, are we? She can carry the big states, and if she selects her Vice President carefully, she can get the vote - she already has - without tht much more effort. Barack hasn’t put up a strong showing in any of the states with the most electoral votes. What does that have to say about this strength as a candidate?

Of course, none of this matters to anyone reading this blog, because I’m sure most of you are already for Hillary.

Clinton 2008. Obama 2016. That’s my new platform.

With Hillary winning last night’s primary in Pennsylvania, I think the naysayers who told Hillary to leave the race should be feeling a little more than stupid right now. While I’m sure their decision to ask her to remove herself from the race was based on their opinion that Barack is a better candidate, I feel it’s unfair (and immature) to ask someone to remove themself from a Democratic process just because you don’t like them. Maybe there is even a little fear in them asking Hillary to remove herself - maybe, just maybe they’re afraid she might win and that their golden boy will have lost.

Quite frankly, I will get behind whichever candidate is up for the general election in November. I’ve stated time and time again that I prefer Hillary because of my personal political motivations. I understand why some people don’t agree with her politics, but the biggest problem I have with anti-Hillary people is that they dislike her for other reasons not related to her abilities as a candidate or her political opinions.

The bottom line is both Hillary and Barack are not liberal. They are liberals when you compare them to McCain, but they are still both fairly conservative politicians. I know that my dream candidate will never run for president of this country because I am far too liberal and left-wing for enough Americans to get behind a candidate that I can whole-heartedly support, without any reservations.

This election has, without a doubt, put stress on a lot of my friendships. Many people in my age group and in my office are pro-Barack and anti-Hillary - which I think is an important distinction from being a Barack supporter. They are anti-Hillary in that they attack her for reasons that I don’t feel are relevant to her abilities as a potential president of our country. While I accept some things as humor and as attempts at jokes, the problem is, the majority of the negative things said about Hillary aren’t funny: they’re sexist, rude, and downright irrelevant in a presidential election. I have very few negative things to say about Barack, and I feel that they negative things I do have to say are relevant to his abilities as a presidential candidate. I spent a long time reviewing the issues and abilities of each candidate before I made my choice. I am comfortable enough with my choice that I have donated to Hillary’s campaign several times.

While this election is far from over, it is still a competition, it is still a race. There is no clear winner right now, despite the fact that Barack’s camp is using the argument that they have more of the popular vote. That’s the way the Democratic caucuses and primaries work: you can’t blame your party’s procedures for your own lack of a clear victory. I don’t like the winner-take-all mentality behind Republican primaries and the general election: it makes an individual feel like their vote counts less and less.

The bottom line for me, as a Democrat, is that I know we won’t have a candidate until August. And I’m ok with that. I can wait.

Regardless of everything that will happen after today, you have to admit Barack’s “loss” in Pennsylvania despite spending twice what Hillary did makes the victory only a little more important for the Clinton camp.

No, in case you were wondering, this is not ok. In fact, it’s downright embarrassing that a human being would find it acceptable to create and publish this.

There are no words!

I mean, even if you aren’t a Hillary supporter, you have to be able to get behind how ridiculous this is. An article - and a cover, no less - devoted entirely to “Hillaryland’s Fatal Psychodrama”? You’re joking, right? Are we 12?

Larger image here.

Via.

Courtesy of Shakesville, I found an absolutely disgusting story on ABC News today:

Hillary At White House on ‘Stained Blue Dress’ Day
Schedules Reviewed by ABC Show Hillary May Have Been in the White House When the Fateful Act Was Committed

Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been in the White House when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.

I have to say that I am completely shocked that ABC would even consider this as news. This story was published to embarrass Senator Clinton, plain and simple. This is not news! In now way, shape, or form is this news! I also like how they call her “Hillary” in the header: almost as if it doesn’t matter that she’s a Senator or a Democratic presidential candidate.

From Shakesville:

Susie Madrak says, “In all my years in journalism, I’ve never seen anything quite as disgusting as this,” while Brad Friedman notes, “A more shameful display of ‘journalism’, we don’t believe we’ve ever seen.”

Meanwhile, Lambert offers dryly: “Some people are of the opinion that misogyny has been pervasive in this campaign. How could they have gotten such a crazy idea?” Indeed.

And it doesn’t matter whether you support Hillary or not; letting the media get away with this tactic against her only legitimizes and tacitly encourages it, which means they’ll inevitably use it against everyone.

You can contact Brian Ross of ABC (the genius behind this spectacular piece) and the Executive VP of ABC News Dave Davis from the information Susie Madrak has here. Make sure to be concise, polite, and to the point in any messages you send their way. We don’t want to stoop to their level!

You can also check our more at Salon, Gina Cobb, Feministe, Slate, Glenn Greenwald, and probably dozens more.

Sexism in media is kind of a big topic. A lot of people research it for a living, and quite a few people have gone to painstaking efforts to observe the sexism that is occurring in the Democratic presidential election and all the publicity that surrounds it. Feministing even has an entire section devoted to Hillary Sexism Watch. I really don’t think there is anything wrong with this, it’s quite nice to have the media’s blatant sexism blasted into the average Joe’s face. The problem is when mainstream media asks the “is the media treating Hillary Clinton different because of her sex” question, they never seem to do it without sexism.

When John Cafferty asked that question, he said Clinton “whined” at the debate. I don’t think he needed to ask that question - he answered it himself. Whined? Seriously? Has that ever been applied to a presidential candidate prior to Clinton? I’m doubtful, and if it is has been, I will eat my words. Cafferty isn’t the only one who has done this, many other media outlets have described Clinton as snide or whiny when trying to determine if the media treats her unfairly.

The problem, of course, isn’t just the media. That’s too simple. It’s a classic battle of societal expectations for women being played out in the media. Society stereotypes women as emotional whiners who cry at the drop of a hat and can’t be relied upon to make decisions in times of stress, we all know this. When Clinton got emotional on the campaign trail, every single media outlet latched onto the story and said she cried. For those of us who watched the video clip, it was evident that she got choked up… but she didn’t cry. The difference between what is being reported and what really happened is sometimes this easy to distinguish, but most of the time it isn’t.

My local paper, the Sacramento Bee, had the Ohio debate on the front page of their paper. Each candidate had a picture of them speaking at the debate with a quote underneath it. The story was taken from the Boston Globe.

Obama, when asked if there was a question Clinton needed to answer about her worthiness to be president:

She would be worthy as a nominee. Now, I think I’d be better. That’s why I’m running.

Clinton, no explanation needed for those of you who watched the SNL clip:

Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.

How are those two quotes comparable? Why would you run them side by side on the front page of a newspaper? Are you telling me that in the entire debate that night, the only thing Clinton said that was worth reporting was a remark about the SNL clip? What about the snide remarks made by Obama? They were both particularly snippy in that debate, and yet, the Boston Globe only depicted Clinton’s snide remarks, while they showed Obama as responding to a legitimate debate question. They aren’t reporting news when they talk about Clinton, they are using quotes that reinforce their already negative opinions about her as a candidate, as a person, and as a woman. I call it bad reporting fueled by sexism.

I am sick and tired of people running around accusing the media of sexism in the presidential election, but I can’t help but get ridiculously pissed off when I see things like this. Yes, the sexism is there. And yes, people are more than happy to point it out every single time it happens. So yes, I am sick and tired of people talking about this - we’re beating a dead horse into glue at this point. However, if we’re talking about it this much and it’s still happening, we need to keep talking about it. More importantly, we need to start writing articles that aren’t sexist.

[Image]

When verbally assaulted at a rally by anti-choicers, Bill responded, and I have to say, I am impressed by his response… and not just because he’s Bill, but because it’s an awesome response. Yes, he got angry, and yes, he may have yelled more than a little… but he did get his point across and (I hope) filled the anti-choicers present at this rally with a more than a little embarrassment.

Anti-choicers have done NOTHING to reduce the number of abortions being provided in the United States, but pro-choicers have. Pro-choice activists have lobbied for more available birth control and other family planning methods to be made available on a wide spread range at extremely low cost. These efforts have only been discouraged by anti-choicers, who refuse to make the connection that more contraception means fewer abortions because they aren’t just anti-abortion, they are anti-contraception. The anti-choicers know that the anti-contraception stance is an extremely unpopular one in America, which is why very few of them publicize it. But if you look at their motives and their rhetoric, it’s very clear: they are against contraception, abortion, and sex for any purpose other than reproductive.

As Bill put it:

“We disagree with you. You want to criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth! Tell the truth! If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother, as an accessory to murder, in prison, and you won’t say you wanna do that, because you know that you wouldn’t have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is, you can’t name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions, instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally.”

My favorite part, of course, has been bolded for your reading pleasure. For those dying to see the video, click here.

[Via every feminist blog I’ve read today.]

From Alternet/Huffington Post:

Obama, grave-faced and sympathetic in tone, opined that when Senator Clinton was ‘feeling down,’ she went on the attack to make herself feel better; that is, she committed an error in judgment because she was in a bad mood. That was the moment when I, and other women of a certain age, all over the country, winced.

The change candidate had embraced one of the oldest clichés in the book — that women are held hostage by emotion, that we can’t be trusted with the big decisions because, depending on our age, we’re either on the rag or having a hot flash. The overtly sexist position used to be that you didn’t want to entrust the red phone to a woman because women are unpredictable and irrational; a fit of hormonal pique and kaboom, we all glow in the radioactive dark. The ones who aren’t instantly vaporized, that is.

The kinder, gentler version? A soft-spoken observation about what a female candidate does when she’s “feeling down,” the implication being that Hillary’s distress over the delegate count had impaired her judgment, and that someone who loses her way like that is not strong enough to withstand the rigors of the presidency. If you think that I and the indignant gal friends I’ve polled are overreacting, try the acid test: Imagine any major candidate making that kind of subtle put-down about a man’s psychological fortitude. In 1972, Thomas Eagleton had to have shock treatment to get us to raise a national eyebrow about his mental health, ending his brief tenure as George McGovern’s running mate. Short of that, we tend to assume that the boys are steady enough to handle the job.

[…] If it wasn’t a spontaneous comment — if someone in Senator Obama’s camp thinks it’s wise to use code to address and exploit our primitive fears about whether women can cope — then whoever came up with it ought to be ashamed of himself, and the man who uttered it needs to rethink the strength of his opponent and her supporters. Beat her on better ideas, or oratory, beat her with passion and energy, but beat her fair and square, if you can. Don’t talk about change and then quote from a 1950s playbook on the battle between the sexes. (Emphasis mine)

Now I’m sure everyone has heard about this but now, but I couldn’t agree more. It was a ridiculous comment to make. While it is not my goal to analyze every single thing that comes out of someone’s mouth in regards to Clinton, this is pretty ridiculous. Relying on the accepted idea that women are out of control and can’t be trusted to make sane decisions, especially if they’re upset. Heaven forbid the leader of our country get emotional or have a menstrual cycle! Maybe, just maybe emotions are what our country needs to fix all of its ridiculous problems.

I don’t feel that this is a personal attack on Barack - although more than one person has told me that my past posts are “personal attacks” rather than legitimate questions regarding his politics and abilities. He said something, he made a mistake, and he’s being scrutinized for it. The same thing has happened time and time again with Hillary - the key difference being her getting “emotional” is suddenly described as a tear-fest and Barack’s words and actions being taken as they are and for what they mean.

How amazing would it be if I could yell at someone and not get the response “geeze, are you PMS-ing” or “it must be that time of the month”?! How delightfully wonderful would it be if I could cry, be in an irritable mood, or just be downright irritated and not have to answer questions regarding my menstrual cycle? I think it would be downright wonderful. But, apparently, Obama does not.

It took me a little longer than Cate, but I was finally able to articulate in a coherent manner why I can’t support Barack Obama.

I’ve been feeling a lot of unwarranted political pressure in my office and my life lately. Everyone but myself in the office supports Barack Obama, and while a few people are supportive of my advocacy for Hillary Clinton, the majority of them are not. It is the same with my friends - most of them support Barack and are not afraid to be crude and insulting towards my candidate of choice. I try to maintain a level of respect with it comes to the upcoming Presidential election simply because, well, my opinion isn’t hateful, rude, or insulting.

I have several reasons why I have chosen Hillary over Barack, and most of them have to do with her policies on key issues, her experience, and my belief in her ability to do the job. I cannot support Barack because he has been consistently vague about his policies during his campaign, he has almost no experience, and I do not believe he can do the job as well as I believe Hillary can. I do not feel comfortable having someone who was a Senator for one term (regardless of their potentially shady past, all politicians are dirty) running the country I live in. We would not want someone who has only been a doctor for three years inventing experimental treatments and executing them with no supervision whatsoever.

Take it from me and Gloria Steinem, if Barack was a woman, his lack of experience would be a huge issue. People are used to men running the country, and they are willing to elect the far less experienced candidate because they want to keep things the way they are. And, personally, I couldn’t agree more with her. I am not a fan of saying “what if he were a woman…” in situations like this, but I think it’s time we take it a bit more seriously when it comes to Obama:

The woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

[…] I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.

Yes, Obama is an appealing candidate because of more than just his sex or race. But still, he is severely lacking in experience. Severely. While I prefer Hillary’s health care plan to Barack’s, there are still other issues with his campaign. Very rarely have I heard him state any concrete policies - except for the fact that he objected to Iraq from day one, something he mentions in every speech I’ve seen or read - other than his opinion on health care and the war. While these are two very important issues for me, I don’t like his policies. As far as my other pet issues, I know where Hillary stands without looking at her voting record or browsing through various websites containing political information. I know almost nothing about Barack’s issues from his campaign. While I have done the background research and looked at his voting record thoroughly, I learned nothing from his campaign regarding his plans. Other than, of course, that he wants to make change happen.

I am more than happy to get behind change. I am 100% about change. However, I am not happy to get behind change when I don’t know what will be changing. Barack isn’t a person running for President: he has changed his campaign and carefully shaped it so that he is a movement running for President.

I think Barack would make a wonderful President - someday. Not now, no way. His experience isn’t enough to be running the country. While I like both Democratic candidates, I feel that the President should be elected because of myriad factors, not just because he has ran a compelling campaign that people have fallen for. I think Barack needs the experience of being Vice President or at least another Senate term before I can comfortably get behind him as a Presidential candidate.
Of course, if it comes down to it, I will vote for any Democrat to keep McCain and Huckabee out of the White House. It’ll be a reluctant half-hearted vote, though, and that’s not the way I like to vote.

But no matter which candidate secures the Democratic nomination, I will still be disappointed in my political party. No candidate running, including those who have dropped out, supported all my issues. Federal funding for abortion, proper sex education, VAWA, LGBT marriage and adoption rights, the ERA, allowing polygamy (not in the creepy extremist Mormon way that involves brainwashing 12 year olds), health care, stopping the war, enhancing education and funding for college, repairing social security, rethinking and reorganizing the welfare system, fixing tax cuts for the upper class, and many other issues that no one seems to pay attention to or think are important. Which, hey, I wasn’t expecting. I doubt my dream candidate would ever run. I’m too liberal to have a dream candidate in the White House.