Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Response to Gloria Steinem
January 9, 2008
Ms. Steinem,
In your op-ed, " Women Are Never Front-Runners," you claim that a woman with Barack Obama's record, experience, and biography would not be considered a viable candidate for the presidency of the United States, and you call for a feminist movement in support of Hillary Clinton. You declare, "What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system." As one of the countless younger women inspired by and active in Obama's movement for change, I feel compelled to respond.
Let me begin with an expression of my gratitude. Thanks to the tireless efforts of your feminist generation, I am fortunate to have lived a life, thus far, almost entirely free of the economic, legal, and social barriers that would have prevented me from attaining the rights, benefits, or opportunities afforded my male counterparts. I received an outstanding K-12 public school education alongside male classmates, and the female:male ratio of Brown University, which I now attend, is 53:47. I have never known a time before Title IX, and my mother watched with pride over my four high school years playing Varsity Womens' Volleyball. I have applied for jobs and internships alongside competitive male applicants and discounted gender as a factor in my ability to attain such positions. I have been blessed by the fight and courage of those of you who came before me. Still, I realize that our fight, as women, is far from over.
For this reason, I feel compelled to use responsibly the rights that I have. This year marks my first year eligible as a voter in a presidential election. One might assume that I am presented with a difficult task: Do I-a hyper-political young feminist-vote for a woman under the assumption that Hillary (back) in the White House brings all women to the White House? Or do I-a socially-conscious activist dedicated to the pursuit of racial equality-vote for the first black man considered a front-runner in a presidential primary?
You see, it's really not that simple, and I resent, Ms. Steinem, the manner in which you pit race against gender in your op-ed. To your credit, you aim to avoid this juxtaposition, writing, "The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together." But the very premise of your piece ("Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life") contradicts this cursory warning. Using Obama's Iowa victory as evidence, you say, "Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women."
But we both know that black Americans lacked any real political power until the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts of 1964. We both know that, even after this legislation, the political establishment subdues the black vote through gerrymandering, voter ID laws, felony disenfranchisement, and countless other measures aimed at silencing African-Americans. And we both know that race and gender are not independent of one another but are, rather, entirely interdependent. We know that Hillary might not have gotten to Wellesley or Yale Law or the White House had she been black. We know that the Civil Rights Movement led to serious conflicts over the role of women in its positions of power and respect, and that feminist movements have always led to questions of which women deserve which rights.
Perhaps it is true that a female version of Obama would be unable to rise to his current position. But this is not a defense of Hillary Clinton, whose early life sounds a lot like mine: suburban white girl leaves the nest and becomes socially-conscious at liberal arts college. What is most striking about Hillary's rise is not the hardship she has faced as a woman seeking power; what is striking about Hillary is what she has done with the power she has accrued. She has become the candidate of the machine. She represents an old, established, well-funded politics. During her Iowa concession speech, Hillary stood with Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright over her right shoulder, and Bill Clinton over her left...an image worth one thousand words. Ultimately, your defense of Hillary Clinton comes, not with your explanation of sexual caste, but with your applause of Hillary's experience and resume.
Barack Obama is a candidate of a different mold. He is international, interracial, and inter-party. He has captivated the minds and hearts of a cross-section of Democrats, Independents, Republicans, men, women, blacks, and whites with his call for change and grassroots politics. In my lifetime, I will have lived under 1 year of Reagan, 8 years of Clinton, and 12 years of Bush before our next president takes office. Hopefully, you understand my desperation for a candidate of a different ideological and experiential breed. Hopefully you understand that women of my generation who support Barack Obama do not do so because we take sexism lightly; we do so because Hillary neglects to fight a sexist establishment. Hillary, like Queen Elizabeth, operates under the motto "If you can't fight 'em, join 'em." We support Obama because we are women, but we are also members of a generation hungry for hope and hungry for action.
This is why I have been paying my own expenses to travel from Rhode Island to New Hampshire since September to talk to voters about Obama's candidacy. This is why I lead weekly meetings of some sixty Brown students dedicated to the Obama campaign. This is why I drove to New Hampshire on January 3rd and worked the streets and the phones nonstop until the results came in last night. This is why I'm not done yet, and why I look forward to canvassing and calling the voters of nearby February 5 states Massachusetts and Connecticut. This is why I'm ready for change. I am not, as you suggest, hoping to "deny or escape the sexual caste system." I am fighting to dismantle caste and inequality, which is why I am fighting for Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton.
I began with an expression of gratitude for all that you have done and continue to do for the feminist cause, and I will finish with a request. Please do not pretend to speak out on behalf of my generation of women. Please do not imply that my support for Senator Obama is suggestive of my denial of the sexual caste system. Please do not forget that my generation is a new generation: we realize that to be a feminist does not simply mean to have a right to do something, it means to use that right responsibly.
Respectfully,
Ariel Werner
Brown University, Class of 2009
Brown Students for Barack Obama GOTV Coordinator
70 Comments so far
Show AllFor Rockerbabe who couldn't find any legislation with Obama's name on it, have you heard of google? The first result I got for the search "Obama sponsored bills":
You'll have to copy this into your browser:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Obama++Barack))+01763))
a list of 152 proposed bills/resolutions that were either sponsored or co-sponsored by Barack as reported by the Library of Congress.
I suppose you can take out the one congratulating the White Sox on winning the world series, but that's still a pretty good list for someone whose "record in the Senate is uninspiring and not all that effective".
Also I think that you underestimate men when you say they prefer "Cute, giggly, blonde, big-chested, "free", not to[o] smart girls who don't ask too many questions and will go away after awhile". Men might like that in a one night stand, but many men (and there are always exceptions) wouldn't want that kind of woman as a coworker whom they need to depend on to get stuff done. Businesses are still out to make a profit and if a worker is "not too smart" they are going to lose their job. You speak in wide generalities that only describe the section of the population that you want to target to accomplish your motives. No doubt that women are discriminate against, but that is nothing that having a female president will fix.
You also speak as though Obama is some rabid anti-feminist. You sound as though you are supporting Hillary merely because you believe, as a woman, that she will do the most for women. I say that Obama is the one who will do the most for everyone. Just because others think in terms of gender doesn't mean you have to. Why don't we become part of the change and think American first and gender second. I believe this is what Barack means when he says he is for change. Stop thinking Republican, Democrat, Black, white, male, or female, in the end it's all the same so why don't we come together and work for the common cause of a successful America.
Brava, Ariel! As a 50+ year old Anglo female feminist, I couldn't agree more. I didn't fight for women's rights in the early '70s so a female candidate for president could call herself a "girl". I knew when she said that that she was going to make gender the issue - and I am ashamed of her for doing so (and for the Gloria Steinems who applaud her actions). We did not fight so that women could receive preferential treatment because they were females; we fought so they would be treated equally.
For other commentators: getting into an argument about whether life is tougher for women or blacks doesn't address why we should vote for someone because of their gender or race.
Pretend Hillary and Barack were Anglo men. Pretend one had been the spouse of a former president of the US and a US Senator for 7 years who voted for the AUMF and supported a constitutional amendment to ban burning the flag and voted for Kyl-Lieberman and who takes more money from federal lobbyists and PACs than anyone in either party and has passed no significant legislation as a senator. Pretend the other one had 3 years in the US Senate after serving 8 years in the Illinois senate and had worked as a community organizer for displaced steel workers and had worked as a civil rights attorney and opposed the AUMF and just sponsored and helped pass the most far reaching ethics reform in the US Senate since Watergate and who takes no money from PACs or federal lobbyists and who has more contributions from individual donors than any candidate in a primary - ever. Who would you vote for?
"Also, the line "Please do not pretend to speak out on behalf of my generation of women" is a low jab."
Why? Gloria Steinem is older than John McCain, and yet she still claims status as spokesperson for the feminist movement. She has done little to relinquish her claim as someone who speaks for "all women". And frankly, her insensitivity to the racial history of the U.S. is shameful.
Gender is a construct designed by the patriarchy to divide humans. Race is a construct designed by the patriarchy to divide humans.
Don't play the game and you won't ever lose. Equality begins with you and me humans for decency.
There is no pure woman or pure man there are thousands of variations of chromosomal, hormonal, phenotypical variations of humans.
gender is not a straight line with male at one end and female at the other. gender is a sphere with many variations coming out from a central point of human.
Gender is a construct designed by the patriarchy to divide humans. Race is a construct designed by the patriarchy to divide humans.
Don't play the game and you won't ever lose. Equality begins with you and me humans for decency.
There is no pure woman or pure man there are thousands of variations of chromosomal, hormonal, phenotypical variations of humans.
gender is not a straight line with male at one end and female at the other. gender is a sphere with many variations coming out from a central point of human.
"To vote for a candidate solely because she is a woman is as sexually bigoted as to refuse to vote for a candidate just because she is a woman." [Opinionated]
If your thought processes run: "This action fits this label" and "That label is on my 'Bad Thing' list" then that is probably true.
However, if step up your level of thinking a notch, you may arrive at an "if/then" level. And it is quite useful, in fact one might say wise, to analyze thusly: "If I vote for a woman, this may contribute to opening politics to other candidates than old white men in suits, which will benefit the country."
Sorry Ariel its back to the drawing board. You obviously have not been there or done that.
more reading: Gloria defends Hillary's bid for NY Senator back in 2000
http://www.msmagazine.com/jun2k/gloriasteinem.asp
Hillary Clinton can't win. That's the overriding issue here. If we really want to remove gender and race from our thinking, maybe we should simply consider electability.
Clinton has the highest negatives of anyone running. Pollsters say that high negatives are far harder to overcome than low positives. In addition, her endless triangulation has put in her in the position of not having a dimes worth of difference with the corporate Republican establishment. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is close to Blackwater, to the homeland security establishment, to the same people who run the Bush cartel. She is a longtime member of a right-wing religious group in DC that includes Lieberman, Ashcroft and other Bushies.
Both Edwards and Obama do better in polling against every Republican rival. The Republicans are ANXIOUS to face Hillary. Hence her "inevitability" that's been touted by the MSM for months.
Steinem isn't even wrong.
Right now, according to Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm), the U.S. spends $623 billion. The rest of the world combined spends $500 billion. Below are comments from
Barack Obama on military spending and objectives (courtesy of Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/02/military_spending/):
"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . . "
"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. . . . "
"I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened."
"We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."
Not my choice for president (not saying, in any way, that I want Clinton, BTW).
As a woman who has recently retired as a Manager of a Fortune 500 company and has broken through the 'glass ceiling', I do NOT believe that Hillary Clinton has the character traits to be the first female President. My business experience has shown that there will be a big responsibility set forth for the first female President. If they employ a 'confrontational' means or the 'feminine card' in the job of being President; women that follow will be hurt for decades. Hillary Clinton's actions/words (and Bill's) during the NH Primary gave my fears of her lack of capability conformation.
Our problems are with corporate-fascism ---
which weigh heavily on everyone's equal rights ---
Let's start there, Gloria --- !!!
And, obviously a HRC-DLC candidacy isn't going to do it!!
NATHANIEL . . .
Thanks for reciting the Gloria Steinem background.
Additionally, Betty Friedan was pushed out and sidelined by Steinem ---
I think with the help of Bella Abzug!!
The movement was then co-opted.
Betty Friedan was a political leader ---
Gloria Steinem was a good writer --- that's all.
It should be very eye-opening for many people that what I would humbly declare the most honest and bang on analysis of the Clinton conundrum is coming from a young woman. Like others have suggested, much hope should be gained from this. May the new feminists unite!
I agree with Buffalo Ken.
Vern - not to get too far off topic, but the frustrating thing is that facts speak for themselves. Much of what the "boomer politicians" (yes I know this is an over-generalization) have done is so counter to what the "boomer generation" supposedly railed against. It is ironic and sad at the same time.
I'd be thrilled to vote for a baby-boomer who advocated concepts such as those posted by dlnelson7 (January 10th, 2008 12:27 pm), but this sure as heck is not HRC.
Actually, as a boomer myself--keep in mind that many of our most commmited activists are still from the same generation. Something you younger folks may not be aware of but there was a vast "silent majority" touted in the boomer years that eventually evolved into either the Religious Right or embraced selfish values of the Yuppie years--now reflected in the Clinton crowd.
It is also interesting to note that not only does Hillary polarize between partisan politics, now she threatens to polarize on gender and race issues.
Oh yeah--and the generational divide as well.
matti - I don't have a gripe against boomers collectively by any means. Its just I'm tired (that is the nice word for it) of the ones who have managed to "rise to the top" of the political ranks....to me the boomer politicos as a whole seem ruthless, conniving, pompous, ludicrously ambitious, self-absorbed, elitist, and egotistical to an extreme. It is time for something better.
There have been instances of ageism promoted by the Obama movement that I have found offensive, however when it comes to yesterday's feminists who traded in their credibility for insider status during the Clinton years, the shoe fits.
They are now establishment dinosaurs who equate feminism with victimization and greater equality with men as mimicing men.
It is interesting to observe that Clinton's strong points are victimization and sympathy: Those boys are bullying me, picking on me- and it is sooo difficult for me, poor me, have compassion for me. Feminine wiles. It is the trump card she first discovered with sleazy Bill's whoring around on her that welled up the sympathy of the people. That and the rude man who invaded her space running against her for the senate. Everything Clinton has gained has either been on the coattails of her husband or through sympathy for the poor weak woman. In what way does this represent progress for the way women are viewed? Clinton either fall back on the weak woman model, uses men to get ahead or tries to emulate the worst bravado of men, so in what way does this present a new paradigm that women can relate to as progress on the gender identity front? Unfortunately that progress has stalled with the sixties era feminists who made their mark and now are establishment figures of the monied class. These feminists shot their credibility when they defended Bill Clinton against the women he abused. Let us not forget that this sisterhood of elite feminists sneered at the women and Hillary herself sought to damage the credibility of these women to protect her husband.
There needs to be a new ideal for women to carry into the future--a model that embraces nurture, compassion justice and decency. If women champion this model time will reveal the winning alternative to restore the equilibrium of Mother Earth.
Sigh. How long until the Boomers die?
God damned health food.
But seriously, what if we somehow tracked down any Boomer who personally owned any object adorned with the slogan "Don't trust anyonne over 30" and make them, just them, shut the fuck-up already?
Had your chance. Blew it. Give us a Try.
Or at least stop listening to people like Hillary Clinton or Gloria Steinem, there fooling you, and it hass stopped looking funny and is starting to look like early-onset Alzheimer's.
The Kids are getting worried Mom,
-matti.
As a woman who has had to fight her way through a male-dominant profession, and have had to put up with sexist jokes, and try to compete with the male brotherhood closing ranks against 'the interloper', put up with "all she nees is a good f---" attitude, I sympathise with Clinton. I see the brotherhood putting the same squeeze on her now! She is equal to, or more intelligent and competent, than all the others. I urge all women to get out and support her.
Bravo, Ariel. Let's just say that I'm older than your Mom, maybe even than your grandmother! I'm thrilled to see your commitment and well articulated response to Gloria. Keep up your activism. This gives my generation hope!
warmly, jean
Gee, and I was under the impression that a writer of an op-ed piece was speaking out on no one's behalf but her own.
So much sound and fury...
I'm looking forward to the day we don't even mention race or gender in our discussions of candidates..for anything...and we can focus on issues, proven competencies and track records.
Basher,
There is no reason for you to become so rude. It was distasteful for you to write:
"Never take anything written from anybody named 'Ariel' very seriously, folks."
Your point was received loud and clear without that statement.
Happy Trails
Lilleth
A lot of you said it. It is the record that is weighing down support of Hillary.
Wouldn't Steinem be more valuable if she found a position Hillary supports that is good or gets Hillary to support an additional good position?
It is a waste of time to tell racists and sexists that they are racist and sexist. Convince them they are wrong or that a more important thing makes their belief counterproductive.
Someone tell Gloria that its not about gender , but class. How can somebody that votes to keep troops in Iraq, support funding for Guantanamo , her and her husband pushing WTO,and nafta ever represent the working man or woman?
I have proudly called myself a feminist since the early 60s! I respected Gloria for her journalism and for Ms. Magazine. But I take great exception to her endorsement of Clinton and her reasons for doing so. I have resigned from NOW because of their early endorsement of her and now may have to discard Ms. Magazine. This 70+ school teacher agrees with those young vibrant women who are working for Obama - he is proudly liberal when it comes to women's rights and social programs, and proudly practical & centrist when it comes to uniting and energizing this country. He will serve as a shining symbol to the world of the nation we want to be!
MCDEE: Short and accurate quote!
ANNEY: Would you argue that extreme militarism, a form of psychological machismo is a feminine trait? I recognize the continuity of the soul, that is, each of us has lived lives as both genders. However, the socialization process for males is definitely more aimed at demonstrating brute force. All kinds of contests (mostly in sports, but also in combat) encourage aggression in males. Some women, like Hillary, identify with this mechanism, and that's borderline tragic. Certainly ONE facet of US imperialism is the influence (and profit motive) of the military-industrial complex, and many who would seek the highest office must cater to this coterie.
I would much rather see a society based on honoring the contributions of both genders, and equally, there are men in touch with feminine components and women in touch with masculine. Each of us is a galaxy of archetypes within; but the basic contexts of Yin and Yang are distinct. A woman trying to be Yang is not doing society or the evolution of humanity any service. (That's Hillary)
Ahh Ms. Werner, you are a rose, with thorns, very best kind...long life....prosperx7x7...
Peace.
Steinam is not someone to be taken seriously.
Ms. Steinam's article was not written in a vacuum. Explicitly sexist comments from many members of the media and other candidates, particularly from John Edwards, have been very damaging not only to her campaign, but also to the cause of gender equality. But still more damaging are the more subtle sexist attacks, such as the press accounts describing Edwards as "fiery," and Clinton as "angry," in Saturday's debate. Obama's suggestions that Clinton's experience was obtained by "osmosis," and that she spent her travels as First Lady having tea, exploited the power of subtle sexism. Matt Bai was at least honest enough to admit to practically "recoiling," in response to Clinton slightly raising her voice.
One can reasonably argue that race is the most restricting force in American life - although the deep inequalities between African-American men and women lead me to think otherwise - but it's clear that in the political media, gender is the more restricting force. Acknowledging that fact does not require denying the interdependent relationship between racism and sexism. Shining a light on sexism (or racism, or homophobia) weakens all prejudice. Early 19th century feminists understood that when they stood up in the fight for abolition. And after the Civil War, when white men abandoned women in their fight for equality, many African-American men understood the need to fight for women's rights. Let's not fall into the trap of forgetting that fighting one form of prejudice weakens all forms of prejudice.
Very well written... SHE should be running for office...
Ms. Ariel Werner,
I salute you! A marvelous response to Ms. Steinem's reasoning for casting a vote for HRC.
As a 65 year old lesbian-feminist who was very active in the 60's and 70's (indeed one of those you so eloquently acknowledge) it warms my heart and makes me proud to see young women, such as you, active and strong in their beliefs. I hope there are many more of you as this country needs you if we are ever to recover from the disasters of the Reagan thru Bush administrations.
I will absolutely not vote for HRC. I will not vote for anyone who voted for Bush Co.'s war. Woman or no. Nor do I want Bill Clinton back in the White House. To vote for HRC because she is a woman is beyond reason. Our country is crying for change and HRC is ever so far from that change.
I personally lost total respect for Ms. Steinem in the 1970's in dealings with her and she has nothing since then to change my opinion.
Stay strong Ariel and many thanks to you.
It is too bad that an otherwise bright young person who said this: "She has become the candidate of the machine. She represents an old, established, well-funded politics." doesn't realize that Obama's and Clinton's policies are virtually indistinguishable. They are conservative, militarist candidates of the corporate regime machine.
Ariel, I hope you read the writings of Glen Ford and Paul Street about Obama's actual policies before you conclude that his worldview, and his professed policies are actually different from being a "candidate of the machine."
I hope you do yourself and your future a favor and do some more studying about the candidates "of the machine."
Recent Ford essay:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16163
Street's many essays are available on the same site. Here is his site there:
http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet
When it comes to candidates and predicting what they will do, facts matter.
History students know that Gloria Steinhem has never wandered too far from the center, and Corporate America.
She worked for the National Student Association, when it was a CIA front group and met personally with C.D. Jackson, the master of psychological warfare who ossilated between serving Henry Luce at Time-Life (later,he obtained Zapruder film in Dallas on behalf of said firm) and President Eisenhower in formulating Cold-War propaganda strategies.
Her work for the the CIA can be seen as a classic left-gatekeeping strategy. The goal was to counter Soviet sponsored World Youth Conferences in Vienna in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The NSA was liberal, but the CIA used it as a left-gatekeeping counterweight to the Soviets propaganda appeals.
http://www.amazon.com/Mighty-Wurlitzer-How-Played-America/dp/0674026810
For those interested there is a good book on CIA domestic front groups just published by Harvard U. press. This book mentions a lot of detaila about Steinhem's work for the CIA and tries to be "fair" about it. This is not to say that Steinhem has not changed since 1958, but she sure has come full circle if she is supporting the belligerent Clinton, who is a better Liberman than Joe.
HRC is much worse than Maggie Thatcher, as Thatcher was never an all out war monger nor would should go near as far with privatization as even Tricky Dick did here nor be as much against the unions as the GOP was back in the last 1940s when they pushed through the Taft Hartley slave labor law to get rid of the unions' power in this country.
HRC is, as Counter Punch has pointed out, a Goldwater Republican and always has been. Nobody should trust her itchy trigger finger on the nuclear trigger with her all her war mongering, neo con orientation.
I lost a lot of respect for Ms. Steinem back in 2000 when she joined corporate Dems in attacking Ralph Nader. She seems unchanged since then.
Ariel Werner sounds like she has the potential to be the first woman president.
Thank you, Ariel Werner, for that exceptional response to Gloria Steinem's op ed.
I, too, read the article from Gloria Steinem in defense of Mrs Clinton. And all I could think about was Thatcher. From the beginning I have been personally offended as a feminist woman by the claim that Clinton's mere womanhood will lead to greater gender equality.
Would Ms Steinem support, let us say, Ann Coulter for president? Ms Coulter is a national figure with much experience within the political arena and she is articulate and smart. She is also an horrible example of a human being. Now I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is the same as Ann Coulter. If I was ever alone in a room with the two of them, I would most definitely snub Coulter and talk only with Clinton. However, Ms Steinem's statements of support for Hillary Clinton for the sake that she is a woman could easily be applied in support of Ann Coulter for president. And that is not only appalling, but also smacks of - dare I say it? - sexism.
There are just too many ways in which Mrs Clinton is flat wrong on foreign and domestic policy for me to ever vote for her in the national election. I support Mike Gravel for president.
Happy Trails
Lilleth
Gloria Steinem is ignoring much about HRC which makes her such an undesirable candidate --- particularly when we are trying to end a war and reign in the MIIC.
Then there's the DLC in the Democratic Party ---
it's control is probably nearing 50% of the party now when we consider the Democratic "blue dogs" who confer with the White House and the GOP on their votes/decisions/posititons -- and the constant DLC rounding up of new "blue dog" candidates to run against Democratic liberals and progressives.
Hillary is DLC ---
Bill was a co-founder of the DLC with Gore --
This is the corporate-wing of the Democratic Party --
This is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party -
And Hillary Rodham Clinton is part of that -- !!!
Hillary is going to take another shot at giving us national health care? Evidently, by starting off with taking the most money from the health-care lobbyists!
Let's also keep a sharp eye on the VP nominee this time around --- and ensure that we don't have another Liebermann who would have been a Fundie Trojan Horse.
Hi Truthteller . . .
QUOTE: Truthteller: I'm with Kucinich to the (probably) bitter end. After that, if anyone other than Edwards is the Democratic nominee, I will probably end up voting for a BLACK WOMAN for President, when the Green Party will most likely nominate the unfairly savaged, former GA Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney. For me, it truly is about what the candidate stands for, more than their supposed charisma, that matters. UNQUOTE
We're pretty much in the same boat ---
I'll vote for Kucinich or Edwards --- after that
I jump ship ---
I agree--I'm voting for the issues not for the gender. Clinton's connection with Bush and the monied system (see solari.com, webofdebt.com) is much too deep for me to be comfortable voting for another 4 years of the same old stuff. Heck, even Chelsea works for the Hedge funds--so you can see where the allegiance of this family has gone.
Bill might've once been a poor boy from Arkansas, but together the two of them have become part of the good ol' boys network. No thanks...
How about the fact that they both suck (obama and hillary)?
Holmes-Norton would be great though.
micah,
Yes, she would. Back in the 70s I admired her very much and then didn't keep up with what she was doing since she was so busy and not in the limelight as much.
Classy, educated, lots of government experience -- she's got a lot to offer.
hillary is NOT the first woman president this country needs....
what about eleanor holmes-norton?...(delegate from washington dc)....she would be great!...
Excellent piece!
I don't support Obama though and would only reluctantly vote for him -- he's too centrist for my liking. Edwards is my pick because he speaks to class issues and has a sound power analysis.
I'm reminded of another feminist I greatly admired (may she rest in peace), Molly Ivins. It was almost 2 years ago she wrote an article titled "I will not support Hillary Clinton for president" (see this link for the full read http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304 ).
I would LOVE to vote for a strong woman for President and may still do so, BUT, unlike a lot of others it will NOT be for Hillary Clinton. In the past I have done just like everyone else and voted for someone I did not support only because I didn't want the "alternative" in office. I don't know about you but that hasn't worked very well for me. I figured out part of the problem and want to share it here.
The problem is I HAVE BELIEVED THE LIE. I've been constantly told that my candidate "doesn't have a chance", that American isn't "ready" for him/her, that I'm (and my candidate) are "too idealistic", etc. And I'm sure after I write this someone will feel compelled to set me straight with more LIES. We are lied to every day in so many ways through so many sources. The DLC, and other corporate interest has a vested interest in being sure you don't hear Kucinich or Gravel and if, by some miracle, you have heard them you are told (as though it were fact) "they don't have a chance". They are the ones behind the LIE. If everyone I've ever heard say "yea, but they don't have a chance" were to vote for the person who most closely reflects their beliefs and ideals I have no doubt Kucinich would be our next President. It's only their belief in the LIE that holds them back. I would ask everyone to BELIEVE that you can have someone who reflects your values and interest. What do you have to lose?
As for me I will vote for Kucinich in the Primaries regardless of what the LIEING polls tell us on the LIEING media. And if Hillary becomes the candidate for the Democratic Party and is able to LIE her way into that position with the help of her LIEING friends like Rupert Murdock I will vote for Cynthia McKinney. Take that you LIEING SOB's at the DLC, AARP, MSM, NPR, etc!!!
I'm a 65 year-old-college educated-white-retired nurse. I have experienced gender bias my whole life. And I agree with Ms. Werner 100%.
Nothing is more important in the office of President than character, integrity and wisdom. If all of the candidates offered those qualities in equal measure, then I would vote based on affirmative action principles, and to my mind, racial bias is the more pervasive, insidious and pernicious. After all, white middle class women already "belong" to a favored group while women of color experience a double or triple whammy of exclusion.
I disagree with Ms. Steinem about Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president based on "....(her) community organizing experience...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..."
While I admire her talents, Clinton failed to achieve any health care reform, claims credit for decisions that harmed gays, poor women, and has supported the status quo in Iraq. I don't see how this suggests that she has more to offer than another candidate. And I am offended by the presumption that she didn't get most of her clout from her association with establishment men.
Is Hillary Clinton the candidate with the most integrity and wisdom and ability to build consensus? While I like her a lot, and I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, I think Democrats have a better choice available this time.
Gender change is NOT what America needs. A change of integrity and character are what we need at this time of crisis.
It's an insult to all women to call on people to vote for Hillary because of her gender, as though "malenesss" is devastating America. It ISN'T!!!!! It's the neocon character and contempt for the Constitution that is destroying America, and Hillary has supported them ever since GW Bush was elected.
Wow, an "educated" GenX-er. Too bad she drank the Obama KoolAid. Obama is status quo except for his skin color, just like Hillary is status quo except for her gender. If people wanted real change, and were educated enough to dig below the surface, they'd vote for John Edwards. He may have left NH, but he's still in the race. Too bad the Obillary show is all that people can manage to think about. It really is just "American Idol goes to Washington"...
A very, very fine article by an observant young lady only 20-21 years old. We should all read it again.
Well the younger generation is doing it thing. I remember with amazement all the fuss over Dubba, 8 years ago; he was chrismatic, little real political experience, no military experience, talked a good line and had the reputation as "the best candidate to have a beer with", etc. He stole the election with the blessing of the supremes and we have been paying for it ever since. Obama is an aweful lot like him; he ascended to high political office on basically charisma only. His record in the Senate is uninspiring and not all that effective; I have been unable to find legislation with his sponsoring name; I don't know how much service he has provided to individual voter in Illinois, but he hasn't been around long enough to have the horse trading skills needed to deal with the political machine. Let's not be foolish to think that the current crop of "movers and shakers" is going to go away because Obama is on the scene. They do not fear him.
I will vote for Hilliary because she has a proven record in the Senate; she provides her NY voters with services from her office, she was an outstanding First Lady, she is kind, smart, energetic, strong, calm, attentive to the needs of her NY citizens, she know how to play the boy's game and is effective against and for them. She is a LEADER and will further the cause of women in her administration. She is also a mother with a child and will probably be a grandmother in the future and she has expressed much concern over what the future holds and how the current government operates. Hilliary is the right person for the right reasons at the right time for this most right of elected offices.
I am sorry for all the young women and men who think gender and race do not matter. . .well they do and a when it comes to women, appearances are more important that even we would like to admit. . .why, because the boy's club is in control and that's what they like. Cute, giggly, blonde, big-chested, "free", not to smart girls who don't ask too many questions and will go away after awhile. That is why women do not hold much political power in the "land of the free". As for black men, well the boy's club talks a good line, but they support their own, irrespective of political party.
All I can say is, support your gender, support real change for once. Stop making excuses for failing to help the most electabl candidate, because f her gender or your perceptions of her in the past. Help Hilliary get elected and together we will have the power to improve life for everyone, not just the boys in the club.
Recommended reading:
http://www.oilempire.us/hillary.html
http://www.oilempire.us/obama.html
Ms. Steinam is a nitwit. Hillary got her first and current elected job as US Senator with ZERO direct political experience. Being married to the President doesn't cut it. I'm not worried about the 'glass ceiling' stopping her from going anywhere.
mercury
At least there is a constitutional amendment protecting race from discrimination. When will women get that equal right?
There is NO Constitutional amendment that protects people from being discriminated against because of their race. There's the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but the principles of race and sex discrimination had to be interwoven with this underlying principle and incorporated into law, and it took years and years. There was no Constitutional amendment passed pertaining to race and not gender.
Ms. Werner obviously lacks the life experience to realize that the major candidates being foisted upon us by the MSM are total tools of the established order and will not bring about any significant changes for the vast majority of the American people. We are constantly held out the 'hope' of 'change' (a couple of words being used ad nauseum by those candidates). It is a false choice. I even have my doubts about Edwards - too rich, too close to some hedge fund people - but at least he's talking about real, structural change.
I'm with Kucinich to the (probably) bitter end. After that, if anyone other than Edwards is the Democratic nominee, I will probably end up voting for a BLACK WOMAN for President, when the Green Party will most likely nominate the unfairly savaged, former GA Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney. For me, it truly is about what the candidate stands for, more than their supposed charisma, that matters.
Obama lacks the depth of experience and personal power base to be his own man. He is totally under and beholden to the Rahm Emanuel, Harold Ford, Al From DLC machine, which the Clintons still lead, and which sold the vast majority of the American people down the road to ruin in the '90's. They are part of the same team, and acceptable to the REAL powers that run things. Neither wants to truly upset the established order. You can see that by looking at who is funding them. Please, look at where the money comes from. It was true when Woodward and Bernstein were exposing Watergate, and it is even more true today.
I would urge Ms. Werner to take a close, objective look at what is going on below the surface, beyond the soaring rhetoric and attractive photo ops. If you're going to come out with a passionate essay supporting your candidate on a forum for people seriously interested in politics and issues, then it behooves you to have as complete an understanding of what is going on as possible. I've been there as a young political science major, and later as a long-time liberal activist. Look deeply, question completely, and never take these people at face value.
Yes, longingforsanity, I am 54 and feel the same way. I agree with Anney, above also. Obama is the one, at least for this time.
Yes, maemae is correct. Aeriel has fallen into the age old battle that plagues all minorities, gender or race. Separate and conquer, get them to tear apart each other. If those that seek to discriminate can get us to fight against each other, we are doing their dirty work.
As gloria makes an empassioned appeal to not blind ourselves to sexism, it is important we do not feel the need to dispute the sexism just to defend our differening positions.
Wait until you get out of college, sexism is alive and well and it will probably take you a while to really understand it and see how covertly it is applied and how accepted it is. Sure, no more butt-slapping, at least that was easy to point to as wrong.
At least there is a constitutional amendment protecting race from discrimination. When will women get that equal right?
Hillary should run for governor of New York. I'm an old-time feminist, too, and won't vote for Hillary at all, even if she's the Democratic candidate. That's because on all important matters, she has voted every single time to support Bush's illegal unconstitutional agenda along with the neocons. It was the character of the Bush administration, not their gender, that led us to this crisis, and it was Hillary's character, not her gender, that led her to support them.
So why on EARTH would anybody vote for Hillary because she's a woman? America is in crisis because of the Bush administration's destruction of our Constitutional government, and let me emphasize it: Hillary supported that destruction. Gender had nothing to do with it, and gender won't restore America. Only integrity will do that.
I appreciate the passion of this writer, but I think her energy is misdirected. Obama is as much of a politician as Hillary, and by that I mean pandering to the middle and corporations. I think that both Hillary and Obama are more about lip service than genuine change.
Also, the line "Please do not pretend to speak out on behalf of my generation of women" is a low jab.
Thank you, Ms. Werner, yours is an excellent retort to the crass appeal from Gloria Steinem. I heard her being interviewed on CBC Radio yesterday and what she seemed to be saying is that Hillary Clinton deserves support simply because she's a woman. WHAT!!! How sexist can you get? How brainless can you be? Mrs. Clinton may deserve support for a variety of reasons, but certainly not for just being female. Moreover, she has long sold out what may have been her idealism to the rich corporate/kleptocratic world which she now inhabits. Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, is a supreme triangulator but she suffers heavily if you spend a few minutes figuring out where she gets her support. Obama is compromised, too, and is too full of meaningless rhetoric for my liking but there is hope that he will be progressive because he is not yet fully in the clutch of DC power-brokers. Edwards might be the best bet and I hope he does very well. Going by Steinem's logic, reactionaries like Margaret Thatcher deserved support although such politicians laid seige to feminism and progressivism.
dlnelson7 - great post.
I think the issue of reparations (as thorny as it is) also needs to be studied and then the reparations need to be properly implemented. Might give this country a bit of humility which in my humble opinion is sorely necessary if we want to continue with any future integrity.
The clintons seem to be nothing more than the same old same old. Another baby boomer of unlimiited ambition based on over-inflated ego is not going to be helpful.
She isn't even from New York so why did they vote for her in the first place. Is there not any better leadership out there?
Peace,
Ken
I hope Steinem, and others at NOW etc. read this. I would only add, that I am a 55 year old white woman, and Hillary does not speak for me, or for my concerns.
Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama is the only option for the feminist cause.
I, too, have "problems" -- her voting record, while senator, is pro-Bush. All the time, all the way.
And the joy of seeing youth get involved gives me hope for the country. But I agree, I would love to be able to vote for a woman president, but not this woman. I prefer Obama or Edwards. But in reality there is no one in either party that thrills my socks off. I want someone who
1. Pulls out of Iraq
2. Cuts our military budget and directs the money towards roads, health care, updating our air control system, schools.
3. Dismantles the School of America
4. Establishes free or low cost universities
5. Gets out of Nafta
6. Encourages corporations to keep jobs in the US
7. Starts working with and not against the UN peace iniatives.
And I don't see anyone who has a chance (Mr. K does not) who is thinking that way.
The problem with Hillary Clinton is not that she is a woman. The problem is the woman that she is.
To vote for a candidate solely because she is a woman is as sexually bigoted as to refuse to vote for a candidate just because she is a woman.
Could use another Betty Friedan, maybe. I always supported Gloria, but wonder just what was she thinking, by expecting women to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. HOwever, by just posing Hillary into the main spot as Democratic candidate, the U.S. can show just how prevalent bigotry and hatred of women is still part of our culture. We came a lot further by embracing the Black segment of our population than by supporting and accepting women as equals. As for Obama, he just doesn't have the credentials that should enable him to forge ahead as our next leader. But then, look how many voted for Dumb nut Bush? Hope to see another more qualified women join the race.