A must-read

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008 · 23 Comments »

Apparently one of the Blogger Boyz has referred to the split between Hillary and Obama supporters as a “lovers’ quarrel.” Anglachel demurs:

What gets described in popular culture as lover’s quarrels has a more clinical name – domestic violence. It is the use of physical force and/or psychological manipulation against an intimate partner, most often done for the sake of exercizing power over that person. While mostly a behavior performed by males upon females, it can be the other way around and it occurs in same-sex relationships as well. Regardless of the actual genders of the people involved, the person inflicting the harm is in the masculinized position and the recipeint of the violence in the feminized stance, reflecting the society’s gendered psychology of domination.

To describe the unrelentingly savage and misogynistic assaults on Hillary Clinton over the course of this campaign as some kind of lover’s quarrel that her (feminized) supporters will “get over” is deliberately overlooking the strand of violence that has been present in this campaign season in a way that I have not seen since the bourgeois “riot” at the Florida recount. Domestic violence is a better description. Gang rape begins to come close, too. I have already deemed the attack on Hillary herself an honor killing. Hillary must surrender, and her supporters had best learn to lean back and enjoy it, or else we just can’t tell what these wild young ‘uns might take it into their heads to do.

Death threats called in to Black super delegates. Caucus goers threatened and forcibly blocked from entering the caucus location. Encouragement on major blogs to find out real life information about Hillary supporters and harrass them in their place of work and in their homes. Threats of riots at the Denver convention If delegates fail to vote for The Golden One. Under the veneer of Hope and Change, this is a campaign that traffics in intimidation. You better do what we say… or else.

It’s a brilliant post. Please go read the whole thing.

Personally I’m reminded of the way male animals fluff up their fur and make big threat displays to scare off the other males and intimidate the females. Every time I see one of this week’s Obamabot-supplied headlines (“the stupid bitch has no chance so why doesn’t she just quit?” or words to that effect) I picture the ‘bots stomping around and snorting. Boo! Boo! Wooga wooga!

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

23 Responses to “A must-read”

  1. Melissa says:

    I read this earlier today! Brilliant!
    This struck a deep chord in this domestic abuse survivor.
    Thanks for reposting- this needs to get out to everybody, everywhere!

  2. simply wondered says:

    of course it’s a lovers’ quarrel because hillary as woman is no more than a potential object of MR obama’s sexual attentions….

    oh lordy where will it ever end?

    i would be interested in a double-blind experiment to see whether the media hate hillary more than any other woman in the same position. it’s not a like-for-like but how much have they done this to condoleezzaa? (sorry i just can’t get her name – can’t you amend the constitution to limit the number of double-letters one can include in a single name)

  3. Virginia Ray says:

    Brilliant Post and thanks for the link. This is the heart of why I will not vote for him. The assault has been too physical. He is the leader and this is what he allows to happen. He is using the misogyny that always was here under cover. It is his operates who call her shrill, desperate, cold, untrustworthy bla bla bla and all because she is a successful women and will not play victim.

    Also his family is made up of Muslim women and he never comments on the status of Muslim women although he has very close ties with the Muslim community here and abroad. The fact that his father had 3 wives and he has siblings from all those relationships would be the perfect opening.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506338&in_page_id=1770

    When he gets the nomination he will call those who raise the issue of the status of Muslim women racist and his supporters will take up the chant. McCain is too brain dead sexist to make it an issue so BO might get away with it.

    But I am glad this sexism is out there staring all these male-identified women in the face. All I heard before this was there is no problem for women. Despite the growing number of 16 year old girls (and boys) who were used as whores by the entertainment industry, despite the rise of child sexual abuse, despite the unequal treatment in family court, despite the fact that physical beauty standards were determining which women were hired and promoted, women were openly ridiculed on the media (Imus’s favorite target was fat women,FOX makes a point to have beautiful anchors who dress sexily and walk from set to set as the camera focus on their butts)then the voiding of the equal pay act, the lack of abortion clinics, prosecution of the few doctors doing abortions, funding for religious groups that preach sexism, all this and more and still women laughed at the idea that women had an inferior position in society.

    Women refused to use the war to help Muslim women but instead followed the boy’s instructions. Yesterday, a so called feminist blogger asked how dare I say Muslim women are slaves? Duh? Will we all be wearing garbage bags, forbidden to drive cars, go to school, forced into marriages and honor killed before they wake up? Or will the majority of women accept even that? Because a lot of women, especially academic women (who have their positions because of the feminist movement)STILL do not get it.

    BO has a LOT of women working for him. I am in the animal rights movement and constantly getting Obama messages there.

    What I am saying is that we or rather our gender caste members have done this to women as much as the obamaites by refusing to see what is in front of them. By not wanting to be associated with that strident word “feminist”.

  4. Virginia Ray says:

    Speaking of the devil:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/26muslim.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Neil+MacFarquhar&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

  5. David Parsons says:

    I don’t think *either* of the Democratic candidates are promising any sort of crusade against Islam, so (at least to me) it doesn’t seem to be anything that can be held against Mr. Obama’s campaign.

    I’m not a Muslim, but I have read the Quran and it’s not even close (even if you add in the Bible as a prerequisite work) to how the fundamentalists have been (mis)interpreting it. It’s like how the right-wing fundamentalist Christians work — they’re filtering their holy books through the lens of their preexisting misogyny to get the reading they expected to get.

  6. therealUK says:

    For anybody who is thinking of reading or quoting the Daily Mail, you should bear in mind that their platform is a very reactionary, homophobic, misogynistic and xenophobic one.

    Doesn’t mean there is never any truth in what they say, but beware the spin – if they could get away with even blaming a rainy weather forecast on feminists, single mothers, immigrants and the welfare state they’d be right on it, front page headlines.

  7. Virginia Ray says:

    David
    I don’t care about the Quran – I care about the actual status of real breathing women who are living now as slaves under Muslim law. If you follow the link you will see that is even true about those living in the US today.

    Women
    You really HAVE to watch this video of wonderful 2end wave feminists speaking on women running for president and the dynamics of now. They are at the National Women’s History Museum which I did not know existed. They made me glad again.
    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=202170-1

  8. Virginia Ray says:

    That video I noticed in my last post is part of a series and the one they are airing today is fabulous — in this one, the women let their hair down and start dishing the dirt of the good old days — the one I linked in my last post is about “women activists” – this one is “women running for president”

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=202070-1

    Now it ran at 6 am live today so the video, although up at that link, might be dormant until it stops running live. C-Span tends to repeat these videos maybe 3 times a day. When it is done running live, it will be posted as the one in my last post is already there and available.

    Here is today’s C Span 2 schedule and you can see “woman presidents” there at 6 am..

    http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=schedule

    I guess they are trying to build a Women’s History Museum – that’s the deal — this video is really funny

  9. simply wondered says:

    realuk – i have to take issue with your comment above. you say ‘Doesn’t mean there is never any truth in what they say’. i think the sentance works better if you omit the words ‘Doesn’t mean’.
    otherwise with you 100%. i wouldn’t wipe my posterior with the hate-infested piece of nonsense.
    it’s good that we can offer this perpspective to our transatlantic friends who might have laboured (labored?) under the misapprehension it was in any way related to a newspaper.

  10. Virginia Ray says:

    Women

    Go read the article the BObots do not want you to see. It is an interview with BO’s father’s first wife complete with family pictures. She says she was still married to him when she found out he had a second wife (BO’s mom) and both still married to him (I think) when he took the 3rd wife. When BO goes to Kenya, he stays with her. There are pictures. So if the piece of toilet paper has it wrong, come back with the proof.

    Otherwise, the comments above from our “friends” in the UK are a perfect example of how the left operates both here, in Europe and in the BO campaign. If you do not like the news, attack the messenger. Maybe form will make others forget about substance.

  11. Violet says:

    Virginia, simplywondered and therealuk are both longstanding commenters here and I know them both. They’re certainly not Obamabots. They’re just pointing out that the Daily Mail is a right-wing rag, which it is. Same as if an American was pointing out the same about the National Review or World Net Daily.

  12. Virginia Ray says:

    violet

    Why is what they pointed out more important than the story itself? Especially to women? Why not take issue with the facts if you can?

    Hasn’t this election taught you ANYTHING about the media and the so called credibility of the elite?

    I won’t come here again. Sorry I bothered your long time friends. Continue to be funny – I loved it.

  13. simply wondered says:

    off to shoot myself anyway – just realised i can’t spell ‘sentence’ – even the daily vile gets that one right…

    virginia fwiw i think you’re right; if the story is true then that’s far more important than where it came from. it’s just my knee-jerk to the daily male: it is so horrible – every view you would not want to be associated with all rolled up in one nasty parcel. the particular irony is that while it is horribly sexist it has a very high percentage of the female readership…
    sounds a bit like women who hate hill just because of something they can’t put their finger on.

  14. David Parsons says:

    “I don’t care about the Quran – I care about the actual status of real breathing women who are living now as slaves under Muslim law. If you follow the link you will see that is even true about those living in the US today.”

    (a) I know a couple of Muslim women, and I must respectfully disagree with your prejudices.

    (b) Neither Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton are supporting any sort of anti-muslim crusade, so I fail to see how it’s bad that Mr. Obama isn’t advocating anti-islamic pogroms when Ms. Clinton isn’t doing the same thing.

  15. Victoria says:

    I never thought the day would come when I’d feel less welcome here than a raging Islamophobe (your frequent commenter Virginia, whether or not she’ll choose to come back after the bit above), given to issuing such astute statements (not here, at least) as I DO support this war (Afghanistan/Iraq and hopefully Iran someday) with every fiber of my being.

    But of course, the entirety of my political consciousness has been reduced to cultist, robot-like utterances of “Boo! Boo! Wooga wooga!” so what the hell do I know.

    Violet, I wish you the best, and I think (at least I’d like to think) you’ve known me well enough to appreciate the extent of my sincerity in saying that. But while I have no problem reading and responding to criticisms of the candidate I’m backing (or reading and responding to pieces in praise of the candidate I would still happily support, if she were to become the Democratic party’s nominee), I can’t bring myself, any longer, to read deeply and deliberately insulting posts like this.

    Hopefully by this time, 221 days from now (allowing for a general election night cliffhanger, though not of the 2000 variety, a repeat of which might cause my brain [1] to implode), we (whoever “we” are at this point) will be able to move forward in some credibly progressive fashion. And then, Internets willing, I hope to be able to read here again without every other line feeling like the rhetorical equivalent of a knife twisting in my gut [2].

    1) If I had one. Which apparently I don’t, as I’m a robot.
    2) If robots had either feelings, or guts.

  16. Violet says:

    I’m sorry, Victoria, but it’s kind of like we always say to the men who become irate whenever they see a post about men’s propensity to commit domestic violence or rape: if it doesn’t apply to you, then it doesn’t apply to you.

    As I’ve made it clear, not everyone who supports Obama is an Obama-bot. And unless you’re secretly Chris Matthews, David Brooks, Josh Marshall, Markos Moulitsas, the Washington Post, an insider with the Obama campaign, etc., you’re probably not responsible for the Obamabot-supplied headlines this post is about.

  17. Lost Clown says:

    Don’t forget Maureen Dowd.

  18. Lost Clown says:

    Victoria:

    I posted a link to the article on my post, though with a long intro calling for people like you (and arbitrista) to publicly call these people out, b/c everytime I say something about their rampant misogyny I am written off for being a Hillbot.

    Because you’re not one of the misogynist cultish followers like those Violet mentioned.

  19. Crowlie says:

    Heh, there it is again. “I know a couple of Muslim women” is expected to somehow over-ride the horrific abuses suffered by millions of women because of religion fuelled misogyny. Perhaps David would like to have a read of “The problem with Islam” by Irshad Manji…

  20. David Parsons says:

    Hey, I’m not the one that’s confusing the religion with the horrid patriarchial fundamentalists who are dripping their poison into the heart of the near east. It would be like damning the christians because a self-proclaimed born-again is in the middle of depopulating a formerly secular country because it will enrich his friends and relations.

    If you’re cursing fundamentalist yahoos, bringing up personal experience to the contrary is pointless. If you’re prejudging /an entire religion/, all it takes is one counterexample to show that you’re simply being a unthinking bigot.

    Exchanging misogyny for racism and religious bigotry isn’t really a win.

  21. julia says:

    I just read that there are 5 million Iraqi’s in exile. 5 million! 5 times the size of Portland, Oregon. And over one million dead. I am confused at the comments about the war being good for women, or being fought to gain women’s rights. My understanding is that it is about oil and keeping the dollar from crashing completely. We all know that women suffer deeply in any war. They are raped and thrust into poverty, and often prostitution, after that, because they have no other way to make enought to eat.
    How is this good for women?

  22. Dave says:

    The situation for women in Iraq has clearly deteriorated. I’ve heard that from Iraqi women over and over again. While Saddam H.’ regime was murderous, it was a secular one with, at least, nominal equality between men and women. And indeed, look at the number of women directors and doctors etc. in pre-war Iraq and you’ll see, there was something to it. In many areas women’s freedom to work or even to move about has been curtailed now as more retrograde elements are in charge. The same is not true for Afghansitan. However, it’s brutally hypocritical, I think, to say that a war was waged for women. Put differently, it’s simply not true. The warmongers have no regard for women(‘s rights). What makes me say that? Let’s see: Which ‘islamic’ countries have the worst record on women’s rights? Well, Afghanistan since it is ruled by Mujahideen. Before that, under communist rule it was quite different. Now who brought the misogynists to power ? Saudi-Arabia. Whose biggest, closest and never criticized ally is that? In Iraq, the situtation is going downhill for women with the war. Now who do we have to thank? Briefly said, the problem is not with Islam per se. Take Turkey for example. Turkey has had a female prime minister, women’s suffrage since 1930. On the more anecdotal side, Annemarie Schimmel, a well known German islamologist gained a professorship in Turkey in the 1950s after German academia had made it clear to her that there was no place for her as a woman. So yes, there is really no point in bringing Islam into this.

  23. Kali says:

    Briefly said, the problem is not with Islam per se.

    Certain ideologies, institutions, social structures are inherently more conducive to misogynistic oppression than others. Organized monotheistic religions, especially Islam, are prominent among these. Christianity is only a little better.