you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Running for President While Female

I can add a little, but not much, to what Alex Leo at the Huffington post has said:

Over a year ago, Rebecca Traister wrote what I still consider the definitive piece on Hillary Clinton and women. Traister was the first to delve into the deep distaste of Hillary amongst the female intelligentsia, exploring the idea of Clinton as a Rorschach test. She was prophetic in her understanding of how this would play out for women voters (who still favor Obama 36% to 34% over Clinton), but I am more concerned with how it affects women who set the national agenda. There has been such an intense double standard in the media that has gone unexplored by mainstream outlets and it scares the crap out of me.

In the beginning of her campaign, Hillary was stalwart, strong not only because that seems to be who she is but also because the biggest fear of a female candidate must be being painted as overly emotional. In response to this she was called wooden and cold. This is a carry over from her time as first lady when she was mocked for keeping her own name, not baking cookies, etc. But then the scandal hit and Hillary was again an archetype — this time of the scorned wife. As Maureen Dowd aptly put it “She couldn’t move up until she was pushed down.” This didn’t stop the press from mocking her — would anyone have dared mock Jackie Kennedy for her husbands indiscretions? No, because Jackie was demure and fragile and fit into the narrative of what we expect from the emotionally bruised wife of a great man with a known vice. It didn’t break Hillary; she wouldn’t let it.

Despite being the first first lady in American history to have a postgraduate degree, Wellesley’s first valedictorian, a graduate of Yale Law, and a dedicated public watchdog who worked on the Watergate Committee and monitored Black Panther trials for abuses of power, there were websites dedicated to her changing hair styles, and (more recently) articles devoted to her cleavage. What was upsetting about this was not only the demeaning nature of reducing a woman to her looks, but also the fact that anytime Hillary changes her clothes there is a deep emotional resonance attached to it in the press. People mocked John Edwards for his haircut, but no one called him emotionally unstable for getting it and that’s exactly what Robin Givhan of the Washington Post did when she wrote:

To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d’oeuvres is a provocation. It requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever.

This more than subtly portrays Clinton as unstable, unsure of herself and her sexuality. No one ever says McCain is ambivalent for wearing sweater vests.

…After Iowa everything changed, and not for the better. She went from cold to histrionic with one welling of the eyes. And that was it. We got headlines saying we finally saw the real Hillary, that cracks began to show. And that’s the ball game. Hillary was not the strong leader we thought, but the weak emotional woman we always knew her to be. I’m not saying she doesn’t bear blame for invoking feelings at the last debate, and welling up on air, but where was the outrage at this media coverage? The issue here is not that these things happen, but the women we depend upon to speak out against these practices have been noticeably absent. Gloria Steinem’s OpEd in the Times today was the first time I’ve seen a seriously respected and intellectually prominent woman come to her defense, and I’m proud she did.

Things have gone downhill fast. Mark Rudolph proposed on FOX News that Hillary lost Iowa because she reminds men of their nagging wives, and conservative blog Hot Air agreed with him. Joel Achenbach said in his Washington Post blog that “she needs a radio-controlled shock collar so that aides can zap her when she starts to get screechy.” We let people walk on her in the beginning of her campaign and now we’ve lost control. This is offensive to me as a woman, a voter, and an American. Even if you don’t support Hillary, how can we let these attacks that so debase us all continue?

Bolds mine.  What I’d add is that the intense double standard Leo is talking about doesn’t scare the crap out of me.  To me, it is old news, same old same old.  When it comes to women — including prominent women like Hillary Clinton — anything goes.  Sexism?  Misogyny?  Insulting her appearance? Pontifications about her boobs? Endless scrutiny for possible motivations and manipulations?  Creating endless double binds so that nothing she does is right?  Par for the course.   I mean so what if a snot-nosed male punk hollers from the crowds, “Iron my shirts!”  Where’s your sense of humor?  It was just a prank!  Then this sentiment about the Iowa caucus on a blog holding itself out to be feminist-friendly:   “I would rather Clinton got destroyed “.  (I removed the link to this sentence which can be found at Alas, a Blog.  See this post to find out why.  Amp made the statement that he would rather Clinton got destroyed in the first sentence of a post entitled “A thread for discussing the Iowa primary results,” dated January 4. )   That doesn’t raise so much as an eyebrow over there amongst progressives, liberals, feminists.  Can anyone imagine Amp writing, “I would rather Obama got destroyed.”  What would happen if he did?  What would be the response? 

None  of this is anything new, it is just life under male supremacy, and so women and girls are inured to it.  Most don’t even hear this stuff, it goes right over their heads.  Some figure if you can’t beat ’em, join em, maybe hoping if they behave as  hatefully towards women as most men do, they, themselves will be spared, kind of like an offering to the sexism god.   Some laugh with the guys, hoping maybe they’ll be viewed as one of the guys, as opposed to — gasp — a woman, like the woman who is the target du jour.  Some figure they need men more than they need women and hence, they’re one with the guys in viewing women (besides themselves) as dispensable.

Well, they won’t be spared.   No woman is, blindered or not.   We are attacked in our daily life as we go about our business, we are attacked on the blogosphere, we are attacked in the media, we are attacked if we defer and comply, we are attacked if we are outspoken and if we resist, we are attacked by the left, the center, and the right.  To be female is to be attacked by males and their supporters.

I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton for President.  For one thing I am running for President!  For another thing, I don’t want Bill in the White House.  I could list many reasons; this isn’t the post for it.

But the way she is being treated — in the media, in the blogosphere, in the feminist blogosphere, by leftists — is, to me, disgusting and despicable and Exhibit A of the long, long, execrably long road before us if we are ever, as women, to be recognized as fully human.  

There is talk about Gloria Steinem’s Op/Ed article in defense of Clinton in the mainstream media and what happens?  Steinem is next.  She is making excuses for Clinton.  She is playing the women’s card.  She and Clinton are the vagina litmus test.  And who does she think she is, some kind of “feminist icon”?  Quick with the quotation marks around those words, jeezus, she’s only 73!  She’s been a feminist activist  for, what, 44 years, helped to found Ms Magazine, has written countless feminist books, articles, newspaper essays?  That’s it?  How dare someone call her a feminist icon?! 

Then the predictable accusation:   “She said sex trumps race.”  Even if this accusation were true — and it isn’t — what goes unremarked, always, is the despicable treatment of Hillary Clinton (and other visible women) by the media.  All that happens is Steinem now is targeted for this same treatment, with everybody nodding solemnly or hooting and  hollering, depending.

Does anyone see Barack Obama being subjected to race-based insults in the mainstream, leftist, liberal and progressive media/blogosphere?  Do you see him slammed, trashed, taunted because he is a person of color?  Can anyone envision hecklers getting away with hollering at Obama to shine their shoes, say, with horrified onlookers told  it was just a “prank”?   Or liberals accusing him of planting the suckers, i.e., staging the thing?  Or bystanders told they just couldn’t take a “joke”?

You do not and you cannot.  

Do you see Hillary Clinton subjected to sex-based insults everywhere you look — among conservatives, progressives, leftists, liberals, independents,  mainstream media, blogosphere, you name it? 

If you have eyes and you read,  yes, you do.

I like what Steinem says here:

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what. …

 what worries me is that Obama is seen as unifying by his race while Clinton is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

This worries me as well.  Hillary Clinton is being openly and unapologetically trashed because she is a woman, including by “progressive” men so-called who claim to be friends to women.  This is a shot across the bow by an establishment which perceives a woman running for President as a shot across the bow.  This is men, terorrizing a woman as a woman for daring to get out of her place by running for President.   We can hope this might be a heads up at last to every woman in this nation and to women throughout the world of what we are still up against, as women under male heterosupremacy.   Maybe women will at last rise in unity to say, “Enough.”  One can only hope.

Kitty Glendower is also right on the money.

Heart

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Discussion

32 thoughts on “Running for President While Female

  1. You know I had no intentions whatsoever to involve myself in this election, not even voting, which is something hard to imagined, but there it was. I didn’t want to consider Obama or Clinton. I didn’t want to dive into racism and sexism in politics. I just did not want to do it. Because in all honesty, they all, ALL, belong to corporations, corporations that are raping my sacred mother, EARTH! But then the nuances started popping up, and incidentally it was that very comment that you cite here, from amptoons about wanting to destroy Clinton that pissed me the fuck off. I commented about it over at Hecate’s. It is not enough to beat her, she needs to be destroyed, —annihilated, silenced, you know, like raped, then murdered, take that bitch down after making her go down. I’m sure I will be accused of jumping a wide gulf, going from politics to rape and murder, but there it is, in the minds of misogynists, if they ever actually took a hard look inside. You know what I want to say when they are talking about “destroying” Clinton, I want to say, destroy this you little prick!

    Posted by ekittyglendower | January 9, 2008, 10:48 pm
  2. Over here in the UK the media reported Hilary Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire as due ‘to women voting for Clinton.’ In a word -rampant misogyny. I have yet to hear the phrase ‘men voted for Obama.’ But of course women are not human we are sub-human. Which is why racism is not the same as women-hatred or misogyny because racism affects both women and men of colour whereas misogyny is women-hatred only.

    Of course even the mere threat of a woman (horrors never never!) becoming president is enough for men to write reams and reams of misognystic bile. This is what men’s hatred of women looks like when there is even the merest hint of a woman daring to step out of her subordinate, inferior place. Which of course is always underneath a man.

    Posted by jennifer drew | January 9, 2008, 11:40 pm
  3. You know, kitty and jennifer drew, maybe this is what it’s going to take, this kind of throwdown, to get women back into the streets again. That’s the only possible good I can think of that will come of it.

    Kitty, I had that same response re wanting Clinton “destroyed”. This is a man who, in my opinion, openly hates the one category of woman he is still free to openly and public hate– women like Hillary Clinton. When he has that opportunity, he goes for it.

    Posted by womensspace | January 9, 2008, 11:49 pm
  4. great points, from everyone here as well as alex leo. i wrote a whole post on robin givhan’s washington post article about hillary’s cleavage back in july- so, so ridiculous.

    “Kitty Glendower is also right on the money.”
    yeah, what else is new?🙂

    Posted by ladoctorita | January 10, 2008, 2:46 am
  5. I’ve edited out some comments I’d approved and apologize for any confusion. I also edited my post somewhat in response to the discussion in the comments.

    Posted by womensspace | January 10, 2008, 6:39 am
  6. If women all go out and vote for Hilary, then it doesn’t much matter what men say, now does it?

    Tired of the sexism? Then it’s time for women to put our differences aside and start acting like the feminists we claim to be and put our money where our mouth is. It is time for women en masse to vote in a female president and send a powerful message to the boys. Women are the majority vote. It is women own the polls. It is women will decide who will be our next president. Not men.

    Men’s level of misogyny is directly proportional to their fear. So take heart, women. The more misogynist men become, the more assured women can be that we’re becoming a force to be reckoned with.

    Hilary isn’t my ideal candidate. But I’m voting for her anyways. Because she has the best chance of ending the 230+ year monopoly on leadership and power that men have held. It is up to us. We, the people of women. We can choose to unite and rise up and put an end to this long running sexist, male chauvinistic dynasty, or we can choose to stay right where we are. The butt of sexist jokes and misogyny. It’s our choice.

    Heart, I’d vote for you in a second if I thought you had a chance. But let’s be realistic here. If I knocked on every door in this town, I doubt I’d find a soul who’s ever heard of you. But if I asked them about Hilary Clinton, I doubt I’d find a soul who hasn’t heard of her. People just aren’t in the habit of voting for names they don’t recognize and people they don’t know. But that’s ok. With time you can change all that. And when you do, I’ll cast my vote for you.

    Posted by Luckynkl | January 10, 2008, 7:14 am
  7. Heart,
    I was wondering if you would write about the primaries and the thorough trashing of Hillary by the press, the blogs, the left, the right, etc. It had been strangely quiet on this site about the elections.

    You know, an interesting comment was relayed by an NPR reporter on election night in New Hampshire. He said that a middle aged female voter said to him, “I wasn’t sure who I was going to vote for, but then I realized that Hillary needed me.”

    Yes, front-runners from the establishment don’t appear to need all of us little people. But in the end, they do. And they need us to stand up to others who reel off one cheap shot after another. Gloria Steinem is a brave woman. So is Hillary, even if you don’t agree with her.

    So thanks, for beginning to cover this mess. Perhaps in another generation the misogynists will be forced to whisper their hate. Maybe it will become just as unacceptable in public to shout “Iron my shirt!” as it would be now to say, “Shine my shoes!”

    I’m voting for Hillary. Not because she’s a woman (though I like that), but because I truly think she’s the best candidate left standing. I think she’ll make a terrific president.

    Posted by twitch | January 10, 2008, 7:35 am
  8. You know that this is THE battle of battles. The bottom line is this: women are the majority in America. Not the minority, the majority. And yet, women don’t vote. The woman next to me at work doesn’t vote, women post on here saying they didn’t want to deal with sex or race, but then again, the bottom line is this: we do have to deal with gender and race every damn day.

    So here’s the deal: why don’t all the women in America get some self respect, and vote for Hillary Clinton? Why are they whining about her damned husband, and judging her based on what some damn man did?

    Just what is it going to take for women to get by a fairly liberal and feminist woman who has put more work into the rights of women and children and into a feminist agenda that a lot of late comers to the table of the left? I don’t get it.

    Why should you be surprised that men are reacting this way toward the prospect of a woman running this country? Didn’t you see all those newsmen and their shocked commentary after the New Hamphire primary? Yes, they were stunned, because for the first time in history, a woman wona major party primary. This is it folks. Now get the hell out and vote for her damn it, break the spell of women supporting other women! I don’t know what is wrong with a lot of women on this blog! I don’t get your hemming and hawing and vacillating and not wanting to vote. Geez.

    You have no idea how frustrated I get over this simple issue. Do you want women to smash the glass ceiling? Just what does Hillary Clinton have to prove to the feminist women of America before they finally give her the benefit of the doubt.

    I have no ambiguity on this issue. As a radical lesbian feminist, I know men are my arch enemy, I know how they hate women, and I watch every day as other women cook dinner for, clean up after and curry favor with my enemies. Every damn day I watch this slavelike behavior. Every damn day I see women listening to those pigs in pulpits insulting women to their very face, and the women sitting and listening to these bloody enemies lap it up.

    What is it about feminists? What stops you from getting real about what this election is really all about? It is about the very power of women, it is about women as the majority finally waking up and acting like it!

    Men are counting on the eternal stupidity of women who don’t want to vote, who can’t stay the course, and who can’t seize the opportunity.

    I get so damn mad at this! I get so damn mad at the waffling heteroreality of it all! What will it take? Don’t you want those men to finally be kicked in the teeth, don’t you want to see all those girls at Hillary’s inauguration?

    I saw something new on the news after New Hamphire! I saw those smug looks on those goddam anchor men crumble. I saw them hush their tones. I heard even the right wing pigs on talk radio in hushed tones trying not to sound “sexist” the same conning pigs that con women to support right wing anything. I saw their looks of fear and confusion! I saw for a split second the end to male rule on a symbolic and a momentous beginning.

    Hillary Clinton represents an opportunity now. All you women who hate the rule of the fathers, NOW is your chance!! I’m not going to have any sympathy for any of you, and I’m not going to be pleased if you line up and vote for the goddamned boys yet again, or if you bloody “radical” idiots can’t go to the damn ballot box and vote!

    I am so angry at this idea that we are so close, and yet still you waffle, still you are unsure, still you are never satisfied!

    What is it going to take women? Those men out there are counting on you to continue to cook their meals, feed their children, shuffle and bow and scrape to the rapists, the pornographers the bosses the jerks the oppressors. Now women have a chance to say loud and clear, “We are backing a strong woman candidate who has brilliant credentials, NOW we are going to DO something, we are not going to complain about the men the enemies, we are finally going to GET IT!!

    Never in my life have I been as frustated as I now am, because the women who think they can’t vote for her are still going on about the bashing Hillary is getting from the very men you cook and clean for at home! And I’m sick of it. Now not the women here, but women in the larger world!

    If I can back a straight woman, even though you know my opinions of straight women, if I can see this opportunity for what it really is, what is preventing everyone who comes here from understanding what is really at stake here!

    I don’t know what else I can say. Those who don’t vote, you are spitting in the face of Susan B. Anthony, and the women who were force fed in prison. You are giving it up to the enemy! In your silence and your high and mighty “too radical to care” mentalities, you are once again letting patriarchy win the day. Yet again! I know a lot of you on here think that Hillary isn’t perfect, or that she is not radical enough, but from my view point any woman who even sleeps with a man is committing an abomination! So my standards are even higher than the average leftist straight woman, and yet, even I can see that Hillary is worth fighting for, and worth supporting.

    Because Obama isn’t going to care about women, and neither is any other man running. They don’t give a damn, never have never will. And yet, you’ll sit home on election day, and you’ll write about the men who attack Hillary, but you had a chance to DO something to change that. You could, but will you?

    Posted by Satsuma | January 10, 2008, 9:06 am
  9. I for one am going to vote for Clinton in the upcoming New Jersey primary. Obama is already in our state trying to gather votes. He had a big rally yesterday, attended by many and receiving a lot of news coverage but my vote will go to Clinton.

    One other thing – I think we unconsciously trivialize Clinton when we refer to her as “Hillary”. There is Obama, Edwards and…Hillary?

    Posted by Branjor | January 10, 2008, 1:46 pm
  10. Branjor,
    I, too, vacillate between using “Senator Clinton” and “Hillary”, because “Hillary” is the title of the campaign, all over the posters, website, etc. Maybe her organizers did this to distinguish her from her husband’s prior campaigns. Maybe they decided to take a relative disadvantage of anti-feminists calling her “Hillary” when they had no right to do so and were making her that WOMAN we claim to know, and so reverse it to subtly reinforce her uniqueness as the only electable female candidate. I don’t know.

    Posted by twitch | January 10, 2008, 5:11 pm
  11. I think you’re right, but also that it’s kind of unavoidable because Bill is still popular enough that you have to be specific in the same way (although not to the same extent) George. W. Bush’s “W” is necessary. That she’s a woman makes it easier though. My dad has some book called “Hillary’s Scheme” that really taps into that.

    With all the talk about racists at polls (but no one is sexist at polls?), I find it interesting that no remembers how worthless the “energized youth” is when it comes to — you know — actually voting. So yay, the kids all love Obama, so what. They’ll be watching South Park marathons in their dorm rooms on Super Tuesday.

    Last time around, the kids were supposed to give Gore that big push. Hell, Eminem was credited as the energizer by the liberal dudes that time. Oops, didn’t work, they didn’t show up, Bush won the popular vote.

    Posted by Rich | January 10, 2008, 5:35 pm
  12. Well, the first order of business is to thank you, Branjor, for that so cute avatar! What a cutie pie! Brightens my morning!

    Kitty over on her blog in a comment to her post about Clinton says this:

    I predict a Republican will be the next president of the United States. Here’s why. Senator Obama will get the democratic nomination because it is “bros before hoes.” Then the racists will come out en masse and vote for the white male who happens to be a Republican, because there is no white male democratic contender. White male supremacy will live on. By chance, if Senator Clinton gets the democratic nomination, people will come out en masse to vote against her, which will mean, a white male Republican, –white male supremacy will live on.

    This is EXACTLY what I’ve been thinking. Also, I think it’s a pipe dream to think that Clinton might get the nomination and Obama the V.P. or vice versa, because EITHER WAY, whether Clinton gets the nomination or Obama gets the nomination, the Democrats are going to want a WHITE DUDE somewhere in there. The Dems are NOT going to risk having a woman and a man of color because they know what Kitty says is true. Which says SO goddamn much about this country, I just want to freaking move to Norway as fast as I can get a passport.

    Because what’s going to end up happening is some lackluster offering again, JUST so the dems make sure a white guy is on the democratic ticket, because I am sorry, but ALL of the white guy candidates ARE lackluster. You can do whatever you want trying to work up some enthusiasm for them, but in the end, none of them is a good candidate. If we could combine the best features of the frontrunners and eliminate the worst features we might have something, but that’s always the way.

    The result will be two lackluster tickets, because everybody the Republicans have is lackluster right now. Isn’t it interesting that we all know the Republicans will NEVER put a woman up, ain’t going to happen. It’s white boys all the way with that crowd.

    Anyway, the wild card might be, given two lackluster tickets, that a third party candidate might suddenly seem to be the best choice. I really believe that could happen.

    Lucky: Heart, I’d vote for you in a second if I thought you had a chance. But let’s be realistic here. If I knocked on every door in this town, I doubt I’d find a soul who’s ever heard of you. But if I asked them about Hilary Clinton, I doubt I’d find a soul who hasn’t heard of her. People just aren’t in the habit of voting for names they don’t recognize and people they don’t know. But that’s ok. With time you can change all that. And when you do, I’ll cast my vote for you.

    Yeah, Lucky, and thanks! I know that in the end, all the women here would vote for me if it looked like I had a prayer. Well, I might still have a prayer, who knows? I’m not giving up. I will get my platform up here pretty soon just to get everybody looking and thinking, “Jeez, that’s good!” It was funny, during the attacks that took my website out last summer, there were all of these bulletin board discussions going on and a lot of the mostly men who took out my sites did say they thought what they’d read of my platform was pretty good. HA! Well, they didn’t like the Man Tax much. But we’ve got to start somewhere, you know? We’ve got to begin, and work for change.

    I keep thinking about what Sonia Johnson wrote about her own bid for the presidency and how entirely badly she was treated by feminists, who refused to take her seriously and just did that wierd thing women do to strong, powerful women– just dissed her. Tried to ignore her. Treated her really poorly so she’d go away and not bother them with her strength, her energy, her determination to change the world. We have such issues, as women, so far as our loyalties to one another and respecting each other. Sometimes it gets to me so, so deeply, the way women mistreat each other, pick at each other, criticize, criticize, criticize. I had this discussion with my buddy Karla the other day. It’s like, what women can get *really really good at* — and get lots of props for it — is *criticizing* what other women do. This is as true of feminism as anything else. Maybe more true. The way it ends up is, they don’t do anything themselves — most women, the critics — because they don’t want to be criticized and they know they will be! Since they can’t do whatever they want to do perfectly enough, they do what they can do perfectly enough to satisfy large numbers of people, men and women: they criticize women. From a safe perch of doing nothing themselves, the perfect, of course, being the most formidable enemy of the good and so they are too scared to try, and reduced to criticizing women who do! And that is, of course, always praised by men, the criticizing I mean, the picking and nitpicking and so on. And yeah, I’ve done it, we all have, no need of telling lies, it’s something we have to be so aware of, this willingness to view all other women as unworthy of our trust, respect, admiration.

    Satsuma, I know you are speaking out of your gut there, but watch where you aim that thing! Come on, we don’t want to run good women off, see paragraph above!

    I haven’t voted until four years ago because I’ve always been an anarchist, not a mainstream person, not interested in mainstream/party politics. I’ve been that through every reinvention of myself, shape-shifter that I am. I don’t think there is anything radical or revolutionary about mainstream politics, and in general, voting has meant so little for women, the options are between the bad and the more bad every time. I hate what our government does, I think our history as a nation is HORRIBLE, I am a pacifist, always have been, and anti-racist, anti-colonialism. It’s not that I’m too radical to care, it’s that I have had no evidence to believe that “caring” in the form of voting and participating in the mainstream is going to make any substantial difference in the world. To me, voting and participating in mainstream politics is as much an opiate of the masses, or has been, as religion is, the smoke gets in people’s eyes, they think they are participating and making a difference, when really they are just choosing between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum just about EVERY time.

    Now before you read me the riot act, Satsuma,😛, note that I DID vote in the last election because I believed it to be a tipping point moment in that the Greens emerged as a possible, viable, third party, offering a viable candidate in Ralph Nader. Because I felt that to be a historic election — and I still do — and because I felt my vote would make a difference, not so far as the Presidency was concerned, but so far as deconstruction of the two party system in this country, I voted. And I’ll vote this time too because I think the tipping point continues, we are in an important time in history right now. BUT I will never put my faith in party politics, Republicans, Democrats, the mainstream, etc. as agents of change! These are the face of white, male heterosupremacy and that will not change any time soon. Even if we get a woman president — which I believe would be fantastic from the perspective of breaking through that particular glass ceiling — she will still be largely hamstrung by the overwhelmingly white, male power structure she is leading. For that to change, we have to make real revolution, which has always been my dream, and I’ve made revolution in my life in some ways, and will continue to make it.

    I think it was necessary for Susan B. and Elizabeth and Alice Paul and all of them to give their lives to getting the vote for women — even if after it was all over they didn’t vote themselves because they had feelings like mine. In the same way I think it’s important for gay and lesbian people to get the right to marry, even if I and they don’t believe in marriage. I think we DO have to work on breaking down these male heterosupremacist barriers and limitations and regulations inside the system, even as we are agitating for a real revolution that reframes and reorganizes our entire society. I think that Elizabeth and Alice and Susan B would completely hear me here.

    Well, I should have made this a blog post.

    Twitch, inspiring thoughts as usual, all you women, inspiring me.

    Posted by womensspace | January 10, 2008, 5:43 pm
  13. One other thing – I think we unconsciously trivialize Clinton when we refer to her as “Hillary”. There is Obama, Edwards and…Hillary?

    When I wrote my above post, I did hesitate and think about whether I should call Hillary Clinton by her first name or by her last. I first used “Clinton” and it just didn’t sound right to me. “Clinton” is her husband’s name, her slave name, not her name. It is men who use last names so they can pay homage to the patriarchal lines of the family.

    I don’t know about you, but I hate being called by my last name. And when they put “Mrs.” in front of it, I really feel nauseous. Because I am being addressed as the property of a man. One of the first things to go when women marry is their identity. It is also done to slaves. Slaves are also stripped of their identify and given the master’s name. As are children. The root of the word ‘family” comes from the Oscan “famel,” which means “servant,” “slave;” “a possession.” “Father” comes from the Latin word “pater,” which means, “owner” or “master.” So “pater familias,” or “family man” literally means “the owner of slaves.” This is what we pay homage to when we address people by their last names.

    In summary, when we address men by their last name, it is considered an honor and a compliment. When we address women by their last name, it is an insult.

    Calling someone by their first name also depicts familiarity. Hillary Clinton is a household name. We are all familiar with her. And when running for president, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

    Posted by Luckynkl | January 10, 2008, 7:24 pm
  14. …Hi, I’m glad I found your place today. For the first time in days, I feel a bit less alone. I wish I could say I feel some hope too, but I really don’t. I think we’re in for a lot more pain, and our lives have just been set back decades because all of this will embolden even more public misogyny (Clinton’s a U.S. senator and this is the way she’s been spoken about and to? this is being condoned, by the media, by her own party and many so-called members of the “left”? can you imagine how hard it might be now for women with more common jobs, with no money, with extremely hard personal lives and therefore very little power?); misogyny is becoming even more acceptable.

    I think that for a time, things got a bit (only a bit) better for both misogyny and racism, moreso for racism; I think misogyny has been and is more widespread and pervasive, as Clinton’s running has demonstrated. And I also think the environment has been collapsing and will continue to collapse; when that happens, it seemingly has psychological effects on animal brains, and people will often weaken and fall back onto their old terrible behaviors. In my opinion, both misogyny and racism have been on the rise again now since The Bush Age Of Unreason in particular.

    These things probably won’t go away anytime soon because, for example, people can go into any library even and find so-called “literary classics” loaded with barbarism and discrimination. Works containing this content are still being promoted as being ideal written works, and the conversations about them often do not point out the barbarism as being barbarism. (Note that I’m largely a nihilist–I can’t stand most traditions.) When I hear people implying Obama’s getting elected will cure racism and make things better, I want to scream. I HAVE been screaming. I want to see a woman (of whatever race) be elected to president first before the first black man–that’s the way I feel (before anyone wants to comment on that and make accusations, please read my blog’s recent posts for the reasons why I feel that way–right now, I’m angry at everyone’s behavior, not discounting some black people, I see no point in putting on a false face to this stuff and letting my feelings fester into something worse, which is also why I think Samsuta should express her anger, see the next paragraph). Yet I’m not stupid enough to think Clinton’s possible election will change anything for women in general. It probably won’t change much if anything. Yet I still want to see that happen because I can’t be sure of the effects till it actually does become a reality, so I’ll probably hold my nose at the system, at The Misogynist Party (the democrats), and go vote for her.

    By the way, I’m heterosexual and I’m not bothered by Samsuta’s comments about heterosexual women. She’s entitled to her feelings toward other women, and toward males, which I think are misandry–a “backlash” state to misogyny (see my blog again). I adore the “male genitalia”; that’s not something I’m willing to give up. Not gonna let the behavior of misogynistic sexist males deny me a pleasure of mine, which is having sex with males. But I know that’s not everyone’s cup of tea. And there’s been an association with lesbianism and feminism for a while–that’s usually where I split off with some feminists.

    I also do think that because many females like the male anatomy, like “male bodies,” THAT’S the primary reason why too many keep putting up with misogyny. They want to continue getting laid–it’s as simple as that. But I wish more of these women would see that being tough, outspoken and feminist doesn’t mean you won’t get laid (though you’ve gotta be careful because some misogynists are looking to have sex with feminists so they can beat them down). Finding at least some men who are interested in me has never been a problem. Not every man is a barbarian.

    Keep making noise, everyone–don’t stop. And I hope you all can hang in there for longer. Maybe I’m wrong and good things will come out of all this misogynistic madness,

    Fran

    Posted by Fran | January 10, 2008, 8:15 pm
  15. Hey, Fran, welcome.

    Everyone should read Fran’s post— very provocative:

    Stop ignoring her qualifications, you sexist knuckledraggers. Stop claiming her “crying” did it, she didn’t even cry. Even Pat fucking Robertson decried the way she’s been treated. There’s no way she would have received this much discrimination if she were a man. And I expect this nasty shit from the right-wing nutcases, but from the so-called left? Come on. They ain’t no left.

    And, anyway, if a potential president can’t cry–THEN we’ve got a problem here if that person’s in office. Look at Bush: cold as the arctic. He’s one of the ugliest people I’ve ever seen. He’s got a vacant emotionless face unless he’s scowling. This country doesn’t need another psychopath.

    I guess I’ll have to amend my post up there and say that Pat Robertson denounced the sexism– ha. Bitter ha.

    Lucky, great thoughts re Clinton being Hillary’s slave name.

    Posted by womensspace | January 10, 2008, 8:26 pm
  16. No Heart I’m not going to read the riot act. I believe voting is mainstream and grass roots eventually gets to be made into policy. Not everything works all at the same time.

    So voting doesn’t “change” things in a big way, but it does influence.

    The main thing at issue here is can women support other mainstream women for the big one. Does a majority ever finally get its voice at the ballot box? Do women punish dumbhead men at the ballot box? E.G. if you cheat on your wife and give divorce papers to your wife in a hospital bed, does that mean women should ever ever vote for you?

    Women are big on talk talk talk, but I’m talking about a real live moderate feminist running with a very good chance of winning, if women would say “oh women can’t support women!” The hell they can’t.

    Women have a hard time signing on the dotted line, making a real ballot box commitment. It’s all about “oh I’m too radical, I’m green, I’m Ralph Nader (no feminist in my book), I’m everything but delivering the goods because Hillary (and I use her first name because I have met her and she did personally tell me to call her that btw).

    Now I don’t believe straight women are ever going to do much for lesbians. Straight women hibernate for 20 years in hetero marriages, then assured of the spousal social security benefits, suddenly “discover” their lesbian identity at age 50!
    So then they might get lesbians.

    So I am supporting a straight woman feminist, because overall, I want women to win elected offices — liberal women, mildly progressive women, women who definitely have lived a life no man is ever aware of… that’s what I’m talking about here. Do I think I’m going to get anything in return from straight women? No. I have zero expectations here, but I wish you well. I think you’re selling your body to the man, but hey you’ll fight back and say you’re not. So we’ll just have to disagree here and that’s ok.

    Do I support straight women in their quest for freedom and power, you bet I do! Do I see you as allies? Yes, I do, but again I don’t expect you to pay back. You like to reneg on debts owed, and you’re always going to do this in my opinion. I know you’re like this, and that’s ok too.

    You want real social change, well, you’d have to create that somewhere. There are 500,000 lesbians in Los Angeles County– enough for a huge town, for example.

    Single women and lesbians and women centered women could all create one hell of a town somewhere, and that would be the beginning. Get women’s money acts together and it could be an excellent well furnished town and not an eco-toilet nightmare🙂

    That’s real change. The election is about access, and getting the symbols to shift. I personally think women on this blog are actually highly conflicted. You all know that you are probably not going to vote to begin with, because you are too radical for that. You all know that you’d rather sit this one out and let white males have it again. You all know women are the majority and that millions of single women with children don’t vote. Hillary has done a lot for these women, she has done a lot for children, and she said she’d end the war.

    I really don’t know what else you all want. Radical is not about our political process, radical is the creative front runners. Radical was being an out lesbian decades ago — three cheers for all the women here who did that! Radical is sacrificing your entire career for the truth about who you are, risking losing ALL your social security disability benefits in front of a judge for taking the “risk” of being an open lesbian. Yeah, that’s right, I know lesbians who did this. Fortunately, the judge was not a homophobe and the benefits were granted, but the risk and fear were real.

    I guess I don’t get a lot about the feminism here or even Heart’s strange ideas about what an election is about — it is about women who are progressive or liberal or who have been long time feminists getting into power. That’s right women winning, and other women helping them to be winners!

    Men write checks at the drop of a hat. They support other men who ask for their support, and they get payback too. Women take forever to get that they are in charge of their destiny, hell, they go into therapy over the idea of saving for their own retirement because they had a bad childhood experience with money … I kid you not.

    We go on and on here about first names, last names geez louise… You all are a driving me to drinking if you don’t stop driving that hot rod Lincoln!🙂

    Why don’t you just get the separation of a mainstream reality and a radical strategy? To me, you have to do both. Yes, straight women irritate the living hell out of me, but I work with straight women because I believe we are in this together.

    I want all women to win, and with Hillary all women in America will stand up and be very proud of themselves. Yes, we will!
    When she wins, all of you purists no doubt will lie about how you supported her all along!

    As for Sonia Johnson, I’m also glad she ran for president. I supported that candidacy, and I found it inspiring. Did women give Sonia a hard time? Well I don’t know her whole story now because she hasn’t written a new book in years. I suspect she is holed up somewhere running a little business.

    There is the phenomenon of women being ambivilent about giving power to other women. But I’m at the point in my life where I’m not going to nickle and dime my sisters — write the check, show up, get the job done.

    Radicals, go out and create the towns and the businesses, go out and do this. Nothing is stopping women in America from starting their own towns, nothing. Nothing is stopping women from keeping their own last names! Nothing, but internalized rule of the fathers.

    I’ll never get this nickle and dime stuff– it’s this cheap lack of generosity in women that I find baffling. Studying political theory and history/herstory as long as I have, I see this lack of get out and DO it in women. What are we waiting for? The next “perfect radical” candidate. I don’t think so.

    Women the majority are in charge, whenever you want to take over the place is yours.

    Posted by Satsuma | January 10, 2008, 8:34 pm
  17. Spam acoming down the line…

    Clinton being a slave name — yes, all women who change their last names upon marriage create this within themselves. Young women are still doing it!
    Make the men change THEIR last names! See how they like that.

    Posted by Satsuma | January 10, 2008, 8:37 pm
  18. Simply preceding Hillary’s name with Senator separates her from former president Clinton. It was her choice to use his name and I’m going to respect that choice, if it is not his name it would have been her father’s name. If she wants to use her first name on signs, then I will respect that as well, but I will not take the liberty if I ever met her or when I write about her, in that regard I will show her due respect.

    I don’t care what the root of a word is, whether its original meaning meant slave or not. All root words are patriarchal, so what’s the point in trifling with it.

    My father is a part of me, if I dropped his name what name do you suggest I take up? My mother’s maiden name? Which is what? Her father’s name. It would be like a dog chasing its tail. My name is my name. My name represents me as an individual. It only includes my father literally if others want to include my father. Other than that, his inclusion is only an illustration of a historical method. If others see my father when dealing with me, it is they who are perpetuating patriarchy, not me.

    The baggage of having a father, since I was not born from a rock or without being the product of an egg and sperm, is part of my burden as well. Should I shirk my burden in a symbolic act of jettisoning the patriarchy, even though the current reality remains the reality? No, I carve my individuality out of the clay I was given.

    A woman can pick any known name out of the air and it will be patriarchal. Period. Perhaps a made up name would not, but in order for it to be legal, she would have to go through a patriarchal system to sanction it legally, and once it is regonised as legal, it will be in fact patriarchal.

    So, what I’m saying is, respect should be given to Senator Clinton, regardless of if it is a tightrope-y kind of respect. What do you think Senator Clinton would refer? Hillary on signs is just a campaign hook for the lazy, for the people who need sound bites, who need to feel familiar, who need to feel like they “could drink a beer” with their president. But in person, she will be Senator Clinton, or she is free to slap me in the face for disrespect. Besides who to say her daddy did not name her Hillary.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | January 10, 2008, 8:54 pm
  19. Satsuma, you’re pissing me right the hell off. I’m short tempered these days, I admit, nevertheless.

    First, it’s more than fair to say that your definitions of radical and mine are not remotely the same! But I don’t call your ideas “strange,” neither are my ideas “strange,” except in the ears of those who are not really very radical or interested in revolution.

    I don’t like the way you’ve — possibly inadvertantly — distorted a lot of what I’ve said. I didn’t support Ralph Nader, though I voted for him. I supported the deconstruction of the male heterosupremacist, patriarchal, two party system in this country, so I voted Green. I *did* like Winona LaDuke, very much. Along the way of course, I talked it up everywhere I could, it wasn’t just me quietly voting, it was about making as big a deal of it via writing and engaging in public discourse as I could at that time.

    A woman getting into a position of power doesn’t mean she is going to be able to help women to be winners; if that were true, our society would look much different than it does. The system doesn’t work that way. In fact, as a woman I greatly respect has said (in different words), the things we most need to do to change the system are the things we can’t do if we’re going to survive in it. Once a woman achieves a position of power in patriachy, she can expect that she will have to cut patriarchal deals aplenty in order to keep her position and not be out on her rear. That’s the way the system works.

    This is just a really shitty thing to say:

    Now I don’t believe straight women are ever going to do much for lesbians. Straight women hibernate for 20 years in hetero marriages, then assured of the spousal social security benefits, suddenly “discover” their lesbian identity at age 50!

    Right like the women who were the sole support of their family for those 20 years, or who, for example, because they were fundamentalists and believed they were obeying God, gave ALL of their social security credits from their own businesses to their husbands! Or who were single mothers for those 20 years. Or who were abused for 20, 30 years. I can darn tootin tell you you do not know many or any of these particular women personally, meaning women who were once het and married and have left their marriages and lived as lesbians. This is fucking tough. It is heartbreakingly, horrifyingly hard and most of the women who do it fucking LOSE EVERYTHING THEY EVER HAD including their children, their families, all of their friends, homes, money, half their retirements, you name it. You can talk this mean-spirited shit about these women if you like, but do it elsewhere, not here. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I KNOW these women. You don’t. I don’t care if you want to know them, don’t respect them, don’t get them, don’t care about them, whatever, that’s fine, please, just don’t insult them or dismiss or trivilize their realities. You watched women do it young, and yeah that took courage and was hard. They deserve credit and admiration. AS DO women who leave their marriages after 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60 years. That is HELLA hard, and especially if they are leaving abusers, and NO, they did not know they were marrying abusers, they got sucked into something because they were good, decent and trusting women who believed their men were also good, decent and trusting and found out otherwise.

    AS DO women who STAY in their marriages because it is the very best decision they can make in their circumstances. That also takes courage, and strength.

    Let us not dismiss or minimize the difficulties of ANY women’s lives.

    As usual, you say some good things, but criminy, some of what you say is so incredibly destructive and so demonstrates that you have zero idea — zero — of the reality of the lives of heterosexual women, what they go through, what they suffer, their courage, their strength, their perseverance, especially when everyone, including feminists, is talking smack about them and putting them down for their “choices.”

    You know, I do a slow burn, but when I get to the end of it, I’m there.

    I really, really do not want straight woman/lesbian wars in here. That’s not how we achieve the unity you say you want, Satsuma! Let me tell you! Neither lesbians insulting straight women nor straight women insulting lesbians. You say straight women irritate the living hell out of you, well, you and I both know, there are a hella number of irritating lesbians as well, so let’s not make that about who women love.

    If you want to insult heterosexual women, please, create your own blog and insult away. Please don’t do it here, especially in the same posts in which you are calling for women to be unified!

    Argh.

    Posted by womensspace | January 10, 2008, 10:39 pm
  20. Re names: I like what Shekinah Mountainwater did. She changed her names a bunch of times, never legally, finally deciding on Shekinah Mountainwater. You don’t have to legally change your name to use a new name. You can just invent one and start using it.

    Posted by womensspace | January 10, 2008, 10:41 pm
  21. Char just posted this article by Patricia Williams elsewhere, and I think it’s just great re: the sexist, racist way Clinton and Obama are media-ized.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/williams

    Posted by funnie | January 10, 2008, 10:45 pm
  22. What a great essay! I love Patricia Williams.

    Thanks funnie. Thanks Char.

    I hope that we Americans can resist the vicious vacuity of politics at the level of whether Tara Reid has hit “scarily skinny.” We will have enough to deal with as the right’s Rovian spinmeisters kick into action, wrapping both Obama and Clinton in sticky webs of hybridized stereotypes. She will be too “mannish,” he too “boyish.” She’ll be too familiar, he too foreign. He’ll be a wimp, she’ll be a pimp. Yet this is an extraordinary moment in American history–we have our first serious black and female presidential candidates. It is my audacious little hope that the two of them, in whatever order, will become running mates by November. They must not fall prey to those who would love to see them wound each other before then, in the scramble to be top dog.

    This is really good and wise. I don’t think they will be running mates, as I said up there somewhere, but I can hope. And I have no hopes that Americans will resist ANY vicious vacuity. I wish they would, but I’m plum out of hopes that way, at least these days.

    Posted by womensspace | January 10, 2008, 10:56 pm
  23. They must not fall prey to those who would love to see them wound each other before then, in the scramble to be top dog.

    That’s it right there. The pursuit has ruined more good people than war and famine combined.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | January 10, 2008, 11:06 pm
  24. ***Well, the first order of business is to thank you, Branjor, for that so cute avatar! What a cutie pie! Brightens my morning!***
    🙂 She brightens all my days.

    Posted by Branjor | January 11, 2008, 12:16 am
  25. Dang, she’s a DOLL, Branjor. Tempts me to begin to think about another dog. Maybe. Sniff. 😦

    Notice how in his list of blog posts in his latest post trashing Gloria Steinem, Amp includes Feminist Law Professors, as though FLP agrees with Amp about Steinem. But if you go to the link at FLP, the author says she doesn’t disagree with Steinem for the most part. She only really takes issue with Steinem’s hypothetical, i.e., what if Obama was a woman, because that hypothetical doesn’t seem to take into consideration the way men of color are differently situated from women of color, as well as the way white women are differently situated from women of color. I think that’s a good point and that she’s right (the FLP writer). She goes on to say that it doesn’t really work to do a sort of dry rendering of Obama’s background because the appeal of a candidate to supporters is a lot more complicated than that. I think she’s right about that as well.

    So also says that though she supports Obama, she’d be thrilled to see Clinton win.

    How is that a link that somehow is in agreement with Amps trashing (“I want her destroyed”) of both Clinton and today, Steinem?

    http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2784

    Posted by womensspace | January 11, 2008, 12:51 am
  26. Heart, you voted for Ralph Nader as the Green candidate in 2004? Are you sure he was not listed as an independent? The official Green candidate in 2004 was David Cobb, a proponent of the safe state strategy. The Greens split off from Nader that year, and that split has not yet healed, though Nader is running as a Green again, along with Cynthia McKinney and a few others with virtually no name recognition. The Greens are probably too riven by internal divisions to be a viable party.

    What happened to Sonia Johnson was similar to the reception NOW got a few years later, floating the idea of starting a new party for women. The reception was so chilly and derisive, from feminists as well as liberals, the idea never got off the ground.

    Women might be proud for awhile if Hillary Clinton becomes President, but I would expect her to feel compelled to act like one of the boys, which probably means starting another war. She may say now that she intends to end the war on Iraq, but she has been all over the map on that issue, and the war on terror is another story entirely. She invites the association with Bill. She is running on his record, to a large extent. I see very little in her agenda to distinguish her from any other mainstream Democrat, male or female. Let us not forget Nancy Pelosi is determined to keep impeaching the crooks in charge off the table. Are these women trustworthy friends of feminists, or of business as usual?

    I also have a problem with saying Obama and Clinton are our first serious black and female candidates. I had some issues with Carol Moseley Braun, but I would not say she was not a serious candidate. It was not her fault so few people took her seriously. Cynthia McKinney and Heart may not be taken seriously either, but if principles mattered at all, they would be. Obama and Clinton I see as typical politicians, not people of principle, vision, or fresh ideas. They are atypical primarily because they are not white men.

    Posted by Aletha | January 11, 2008, 7:46 am
  27. Argh. I always do that! I voted for Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke in 2000. 2000. 2000. NOT 2004! In 2004 I voted for Kerry, because I was absolutely revolted by the thought of another Bush Presidency.

    That’s interesting about NOW, Aletha. Wasn’t NOW dismissive of Sonia Johnson’s bid for presidency? I should go find that part of Johnson’s book.

    This is what Winona LaDuke said about why she ran for president (with Nader on the Green ticket):

    For LaDuke, and for all Greens, this campaign has everything to do with restoring American democracy. “My goal in the campaign is to change the content of American democracy and to transform American democracy so it’s actually functional. That will require building a multiparty system that allows broader participation and a wider range of ideas. It’s a two-party duopoly and those parties have become increasingly exclusive. My taxable income last year was about $4,800 and I worked very hard. You should be able to be engaged in politics if you’re not a millionaire,” LaDuke said.

    LaDuke’s political vision is shaped by the context of her own identity and life. “There’s a divide between politicians and common people. You’ve got to eliminate that mystique. Look at me: a woman who is a mother and a person of color who lives in a rural area. Those are four things that aren’t supposed to be in politics, and I disagree with that.”

    …LaDuke has no illusions about finding herself in the White House come next January… But she is dead serious about building a movement. She fairly erupts at the suggestion that voting for the Green Party is tantamount to taking votes away from the Democratic ticket.

    “Because people make decisions based on fear, Al Gore takes votes away from us. You shouldn’t run a country on fear. Look around the world. The U.S. is lagging behind in its democracy. Almost every other so-called developed country has a multiparty system. Most other countries that have had monarchies have struggled to enfranchise their people. People in this country died for the right to vote, and you should honor that.” …

    …LaDuke knows that building a multiparty system takes time, and she may be the perfect candidate to instill in voters a predisposition for the long view. She is the architect and chief proponent of the Seventh Generation Amendment, a principle based on the Iroquois Confederation’s adherence to making decisions based on how they would impact not just the present, but seven generations hence. She also promotes the Precautionary Principle, which maintains that the common good takes precedence over the private good.

    “I went to the Beijing Conference [in 1995]. You saw the women there from all over the world, and they said ‘get control of your country.’ The U.S. is a rogue nation. This country has immense potential that’s totally squandered. Incredible wealth, rich ecosystems, and we squander the potential in our own country and internationally….

    …”I feel entrusted with trying to do the right thing. A lot of people really want to try to change this system and I’m honored to be the person to help them. I’m also painfully aware that people will be angry with some of what I say,” she said, in reference to supporting the right of one tribe to hunt whales. “There are fundamentalist Greens who don’t like some of what I say. But this is not a single issue party, it’s a movement that has to include all of us.”

    Link

    There’s the spirit. I feel as though, we are all so exhausted and disgusted by what Bush and the Republicans have done, we are just very tempted to view what appears to be “change” with rose-colored glasses, because anything different is better than what we’ve had! But we *can* do better than the Republicans and Democrats.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | January 11, 2008, 1:18 pm
  28. And yes, Aletha! I was pleased to see Carole Mosely Braun running for President and had her photo up on the Women’s Space website front and center. Besides that, I think Shirley Chisholm was a serious candidate and that was back in the 70s.

    Posted by womensspace | January 11, 2008, 1:22 pm
  29. Nader is running as a Green again, along with Cynthia McKinney and a few others with virtually no name recognition.

    Huh. I hadn’t heard that yet, Aletha (how?!?) – thanks for the info.

    Posted by funnie | January 11, 2008, 1:35 pm
  30. Wowee! Hellzapoppin’ on this thread, no? Well, once again I will be the anticlimatic, bland relief to all the excitement going on. Sonja Johnson does indeed run a small business now. She and another woman run a womyn’s only retreat! If you are interested, click on http://www.casafeminista.com. I think we can all agree it’s a good thing to support feminist women who are trying to make a living.

    Posted by Level Best | January 11, 2008, 6:08 pm
  31. Ah, geez, it should be Sonia, not Sonja. I really HAVE read her books, I’m just bad with names.

    Posted by Level Best | January 11, 2008, 6:10 pm
  32. Funnie, Nader, McKinney, and others are debating this Sunday in San Francisco. Cindy Sheehan will be a moderator. I forget where I read that, but it is easy to find stories about it now. This is one:
    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/09/18471357.php

    As Susan Faludi described it in Backlash, it was NOW activists, as opposed to the leadership, who came up with the idea of starting a new party.

    Posted by Aletha | January 12, 2008, 7:17 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,563,261 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos