Shakesville - Latest Comments in For the Record

Re: For the Record

jennifer — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:53:43 -0000

she had her time to run the country when her husband was in office and she would have made a horrible president. she was a horrible choice...not because she was a woman.

Re: For the Record

Dana Seilhan — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:55:30 -0000

I know it's somewhat off-topic but as someone came in here and pulled the women-of-color card, I feel moved to say something about it.

White women have privilege. Definitely. On the other hand we are in a really odd place politically. Because we're women, white men have no use for us politically except as trophy wives. (What do you think a First Lady's for? Do you imagine an unmarried man can attain the Presidency these days?) Because we're white, we're viewed as out of touch or worse by people of color. Which leaves us where, exactly?

So we don't all have the experience of being in poverty? Well, actually, some of us do. So we don't have the experience of institutional discrimination stretching back thousands of years? Um... Actually, that's not right either. So what is left--are we to degrade ourselves to live in the conditions in which poor people of color all over the world, including the United States, already live? Why? What's the point? I thought the point was to elevate people of color, not to drag everyone else down to their intolerable living conditions.

So what is the purpose, exactly, of all this anger at white women? Are we the safe target? Is it easier to make us feel bad than it is to actually get white men to change their ways? Since they, y'know, ultimately call the shots and everything?

I think I know the answer.

I'll be voting for McKinney if she's on the Ohio ballot. If she isn't, I'll vote for Nader, and anyone who thinks that will be a "spoiler" vote can kiss my big fat pimply white ass. If neither is on the ballot and I don't know any of the other third-party candidates (we have no third parties on the ballot in Ohio, so they all have to register as independent), I'll skip the presidential slots and just vote state and local. And whatever I vote for, if I have something else to vote for besides the Big Two, that's what I'll do.

Because at this point I wouldn't touch the national Democrats with a ten-foot pole. What the hell were they THINKING, running a black man against a woman in the primaries? Way to encourage unity, there--and then to join in with the misogynist bullshit as well? Tell me why I should not instead support a party which actually has feminism explicitly stated in its values and its platform. Please, enlighten me. And I wish you luck--it's possible you could think up an angle that I haven't, but I doubt it. You can't even hold abortion over my head. As otherwise pointed out here, it's not like the Dems do anything useful to protect abortion rights in the first place most of the time, and I really think the only reason they ever do at all is they don't want to see Democratic men stuck paying child support. Honestly. I wish I could feel differently, but the evidence won't let me. So I'll lay in a stock of pennyroyal and blue cohosh, cross mental fingers, and vote my values for once. It's not like the Democrats ever do.

Re: For the Record

Mabelle — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:12:06 -0000

I've tried to find the words to say it, Melissa. You have just helped me along...

Thanks for your insight and unflinching honesty.

Re: For the Record

Magnolia — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:59:06 -0000

Last sentence should have been:
I say all of this to say thank you for saying what you did, in the way that you said it because it allowed me to set aside my notions of race and gender and walk a mile in someone elses shoes. Shoes that shouldn't have been that different than my own but were.

Re: For the Record

Magnolia — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:54:18 -0000

As an African American, when I read this post the first thing I thought was are these white women crazy? The I stopped and thought about how I would feel if I went on to sites that routinely called Obama the N word and I realized that you aren't crazy but your levers and buttons are just a different frame than my own. As an AA women if I am mistreated in the workplace by a man my frame is largely based on race and my gender does not come into play. I think for AA women all of this talk about gender issues just strikes many of us as a tempest in a teapot but I am working to put myself in your shoes because I think maybe its time that our frame stop being just about race and perhaps it time for us to start seeing the broader framework in which we live. I say all of this to say thank for saying what you did, in the way that you said it because it allowed me to set aside my notions of race and gender and walk a mile someone elses shows that shouldnt have been that different than my own but were.

Re: For the Record

Charity — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:40:32 -0000

Did you read the post and comments? It's the media, darling, the media, and so-called "progressives." But again, demonstrate your stellar reading comprehension and keen sense of irony, why doncha?

Re: For the Record

SpecialNewb — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:26:40 -0000

Did you listen to Obama's speech? He sounded pretty damn gracious.

Re: For the Record

SunlessNick — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:54:35 -0000

Every time I come back and read this thread, I feel like I'm returning to an abusive relationship.

Can we take a moment to acknowledge that sexism is wrong? And calling it out when it rears its ugly head is necessary?

Clearly not; putting the boot in is far more important.

Re: For the Record

prairielily — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:34:25 -0000

This line should say:

A party that has a huge contingent of supporters who think that I should lick up misogynistic shit and like it because I'm terrified of losing my right to bodily autonomy and to determine when and how many children I want to have and support?

I have this theory that any post that criticizes someone else's grammar or spelling will have some sort of mistake in it. Apparently it also applies to criticisms of reading comprehension.

Re: For the Record

prairielily — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:30:31 -0000

I just read through this entire thread. It's a little shocking how many people have poor reading skills. They all missed the first line of Melissa's post:

I'm not sad because Obama's the nominee.

I've never commented on Shakes before... I mostly just lurk here, and I already commented on Feministe about how inspired I am by Senator Clinton, and how I'm going to try to draw on her strength when I feel like giving up. I'm not really a crier, but I cried thinking about how much I admire her for fighting the good fight so long and so hard. I'm not American, and I was only 7 when she became First Lady, so I was basically indifferent to her. I liked her, because I was always a feminist and I was always drawn to smart, capable women as a kid, but I didn't know that she is actually amazing. I look at her now, and I hope that my only female cousin, who is five, will remember this race at least vaguely, and remember that Hillary Rodham Clinton was tough and determined and look up to her the way I do now.

That said, I have a response to Chet who posted this way up there in middle:

Even if I convince one person, one person who isn't even posting, it's worth it.

After reading every single troll comment, I am convinced of something. I'm convinced that there's a huge wing of the Democratic party that is anti-choice. I know, it sounds ridiculous. Even if they've been really disappointing on making women's issues a priority, they aren't actively trying to remove our reproductive rights.

But here me out. Think about this one thing that keeps coming up when Obama's less enlightened minions - I don't want to disparage the intelligent and thoughtful supporters who made supportive comments and aren't misogynistic tools - show up to tell us what to think and feel. I'm going to use a quote from Baal's post:

McCain would fill the Supreme Court with Allito and Scalia clones, and our sisters, daughters, and granddaughters will lose their reproductive freedoms. This guy is the worst thing that could happen to women the world over, not just the USA.

They make this threat over and over, and it's true. McCain is horrible on women's issues, and on children's issues. Reading through his voting record is disgusting. We might as well elect his good friend Rev. Hagee. And if we want to talk about elitism... what do you call someone who is the son and grandson of Admirals, went to the Naval Academy, and whose wife is an heiress?

But still... it's a threat. They're banking on us voting for Obama no matter how badly they treat us because of the threat he poses to our reproductive rights.

Anti-choicers want women to be slaves to their reproduction systems. How is what these people are saying different? They want women to be slaves to the Democratic Party because of our reproductive systems. If we complain about bad treatment, they tell us to shut up, because if we don't support the Democratic Party, our reproductive rights will be taken away. They expect us to sit down and be quiet because they don't really have time to make silly things like women's issues an actual priority, but they also expect us to take it, because if we don't, our reproductive rights will be taken away.

It's heinous. It's unacceptable. It's anti-choice.

If I was American, why would I want to vote for a party that takes my support for granted because I'm terrified of losing my right to bodily autonomy and to determine when and how many children I want to have and support? A party that has a huge contingent of supporters who think that I should lick up misogynistic shit and like if because I'm terrified of losing my right to bodily autonomy and to determine when and how many children I want to have and support?

I wouldn't. I don't envy American women for the choice they're going to have to make this November. I'm looking down from Canada and wishing that there was a better option for you, one where all women, regardless of race, can be proud to support a party that fiercely promotes women's interests and right to fully participate in the public sphere free of sexism and that really special combination of sexism and racism.

This can't go on. Something has to change.

Re: For the Record

eyelessgame — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:54:33 -0000

I will try, once, to explain something to Chet and those who have posted like him.

The claim here is not that Hillary Clinton was the perfect vessel for feminist ideals. It is not that her platform is so significantly better than Obama's. It is not even that she improperly lost, or a debate on the several contributing reasons for her very close loss.

The thing, I think, that people are pissed at here is at what she had to endure, and especially what she had to endure from supposed allies, including Obama supporters. And how that parallels what women have to endure, from everyone, including men they trusted (and women they trusted), and whom they thought were not the sort of people to do that sort of thing.

Is there a race parallel? Of course - to some degree at least. But that doesn't make the fact of gender condescension wrong.

Most people who supported Clinton in the primary will support Obama in the general. That even includes some people who, right now today, out of rage and grief, say they're voting Green or not voting. But pointing this out, and acting as though they have no right to vent that rage and grief right now, isn't helping. It isn't helping in a big way.

Let. It. Go. This is not about you and it is not about Obama. What this is is a lot of people realizing things have not reached a place they'd dared to hope it had.

And the realization doesn't come from Clinton losing. It's from acknowledging that the misogyny, showing here and there throughout Clinton's entire campaign demonstrated rather emphatically that we're not there yet. It happens that right now is the end of the whole depressing movie.

Re: For the Record

TA — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:56:13 -0000

Actually, Ursula, ALL your comments.

Re: For the Record

TA — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:52:10 -0000

Ursula, that whole last comment was brilliant. I heart you.

Re: For the Record

kidlacan — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:43:57 -0000

She was an unremarkable rookie Senator who was wrong on multiple issues.

yes, it's certainly true that obama has more experience. why, he's had a penis for 47 years!

clinton's been in the senate longer. if you disagree on issues, fine. if obama's lack of experience is also a dealbreaker for you, fine. if you support obama while dinging clinton for lack of experience, though, that's just mystifying.

Re: For the Record

Melissa McEwan — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:45:08 -0000

I must read all the wrong blogs.

Here is a thread with a hundred examples or so of ostensible progressives using sexism against Clinton.

Re: For the Record

ChariD — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:35:49 -0000

Thank you, Liss. It says perfectly what I've been trying to say to many of my friends; several who, oddly enough, are women.

Just thank you.

Re: For the Record

Guest — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:34:15 -0000

I must read all the wrong blogs.
Except for an occasional troll who might well be a Republican trying to sew seeds of dischord, the blogs I frequent were substantive in their critique of Senator Clinton.

I really disliked her, but I've voted for my female Senator, Congresswoman, State Senator, Councilwomen, and Board of Education members. Her sex mattered nothing to me. She was an unremarkable rookie Senator who was wrong on multiple issues. The adoration she got through no merit of her own sickened me and propelled my opposition to her candidacy.

Re: For the Record

Charity — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:33:44 -0000

bbcaddict, the fact that you have bought into / internalized the notion that one woman can "embarrass her sex"; i.e. that women are subject to embarrassment / judgment on the basis of the actions of one individual woman, just shows you have no clue what you're talking about. It's the hundreds and thousands of comments I've seen like that during this primary that simply reaffirm we have a long way to go in combatting sexism and misogyny, including the internalized kinds. Hello, men are not held to this standard. Ever heard / said that about a man? "He's an embarrassment to his sex / gender."? Didn't think so. Men are judged as individuals. Women don't have that luxury. Maybe someday you will stop working so hard to avoid this reality and see it playing out in your own life, but I don't envy you because with the breaking through of such primitive denial comes a lot of pain. A lot of pain.

Also wanted to thank Melissa for this post.

Re: For the Record

Melissa McEwan — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:12:26 -0000

This post and the comments to it really reinforces what so many have said elsewhere-- women of color have to organize on our own, because we are clearly not heard or understood by our 'allies'.

I'd really like to understand what you find objectionable about the post, Still. I apologize for asking you to educate me, but I genuinely don't "get it," so I'm going to have to ask.

The sentiments expressed here are reflective of some women of color to whom I've spoken (and certainly not all white women to whom I've spoken); it's only about women experiencing this thing, which I tried to make clear in the intro. I genuinely don't understand how I'm making you feel as though I'm not hearing women of color or not being an ally, because I'm talking about a specific experience of some women.

I do want to understand, though.

Re: For the Record

Ursula L — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:03:39 -0000

Here's a white woman horrified at the overt and implied racism directed at Obama. Sorry, it cuts both ways.

Yes, the discrimination happened in both forms.

One can experience several emotions at once. One can be simultaneously outraged at the racism and at the misogyny. One can be simultaneously pleased that, on the issue of racism, we've gotten far enough that a Black man can be nominated for president and disappointed that the dream of having a woman president is not going to be achieved now. One can support Obama as better than McCain and still believe that Clinton would have been better than Obama.

Having a space to express the loss of one dream doesn't negate the pleasure in seeing another dream achieved. But the lost dream needs respect, and to be mourned, so that the achieved dream can be embraced.

One of the hardest things, throughout the primary process, as a person who opposes both forms of discrimination, has been knowing that there could be complete success only on one of those fronts.

One of the points of feminism is that, as a woman, you do not have to justify working for your dreams by being able to demonstrate that doing so helps advance some other person's cause. The fact that you, as an individual human, dream something, is enough justification. Being told to ignore disappointment over a lack of success on a feminist issue, because it is a success on the issues of racism, counts as being told that, as women, the fact that we want something for ourselves is not a valid goal or priority. Likewise, being told you can't express outrage over misogynist discrimination without taking the time to address racist discrimination - that misogyny, alone, isn't enough to be outraged over, or that expressing rage over misogyny somehow undermines efforts against racism.

Success on both fronts is needed, and success on one front does not equate success on both. The fact that the discrimination cuts both ways is not a reason to remain silent on the outrage about misogyny, or to pretend not to grieve that a feminist goal is not yet achieved, when it seemed within reach.

Re: For the Record

bettyboondoggle — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:53:46 -0000

"Who here wasn't horrified at the racism, Heather?"

I'd like to know that too. Though, I won't be holding my breath for an answer.

Re: For the Record

Kiki — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:17:39 -0000

should say, "isn't"...bad edit

Re: For the Record

Kiki — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:16:02 -0000

Who here wasn't horrified at the racism, Heather?

Re: For the Record

Heather — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:09:04 -0000

Here's a white woman horrified at the overt and implied racism directed at Obama. Sorry, it cuts both ways.

Re: For the Record

abyss2hope — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:38:09 -0000

To expand on my comment about ScottS's undermining Obama, his argument also demonstrates a long-running sexist pattern where women are denied the top position (insurance agent, for example) allegedly because they aren't qualified for the job but then once they are denied that position those women are expected to fill lower positions and are expected to ensure that the man who does get the job succeeds.

If the allegedly more qualified man fails, it becomes the allegedly less qualified woman's fault. Hence remarks from an Obama supporter who wants to attack people in cars with Clinton bumper stickers. The concept of Obama being responsible for his own win or loss is foreign to this way of thinking whenever there is an "unqualified woman" who should have been investing everything she is and everything she has into his success.