Through the looking glass
I don’t know why this continues to surprise me, but it does: Obama supporters live in a parallel universe. It’s a mirror universe, a place where up is down.
A blogger at Alas is talking about the “fact” that “all” the candidates have praised the historic significance of Hillary’s campaign, but have almost never mentioned the significance of Obama’s. I’m not going to link to it because Alas runs off racist pornography, but I’m sure you can Google it.
I wish I understood how that worked. How is it possible that you can follow the news for the past 6 months, with the endless hallelujahs about how electing Obama would represent a hugely important redemption of our nation’s racist sins, with the stubborn refusals to acknowledge that Hillary’s campaign could possibly be equally transcendent in its own way — how do you do that and somehow flip it upside down in your mind?
How do you watch Hillary laud Obama’s historic achievement in speech after speech throughout the primaries, while Obama sails through without ever even mentioning women’s rights, much less celebrating Hillary’s breakthrough (in fact, he referred to her at one point as a “conventional candidate”) — how do you do that and somehow flip it upside down in your mind?
I think we need to figure it out, because that’s what’s making the Obama folks tick. Some kind of upside-down-making koolaid.
29 Responses to “Through the looking glass”
-
donna darko says:
The “progressive” blogosphere was so extraordinarily racist they’re tripping over their white guilt and feeling good about themselves. This coincides with the postcolonial trend in feminism or white feminists tripping over their white guilt and feeling good about themselves. Concurrent with the race trumps everything trend.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:43 am EST -
donna darko says:
Overcompensation.
-
formerhoosier says:
Just another chapter in the diminshment of the historic nature of the campaign of Senator Clinton. The reason it was mentioned more was through the conscious effort of Alexrod and Obama for him NOT to be the Black candidate, until it was to their advantage. It still was noted, how could anyone miss. They know they are being less than honest, but need to portray him as victim to misdirect the focus from their sexism in this campaign. Trying to put us all on the defensive.
Pretty disgusting. -
Crowlie says:
Yanno, for a black guy he’s pretty white.
Someone in the commentariat observed that an awful lot of men think women’s problems, like lower pay, are because women secretly want it that way. We’re apparently too lazy to work hard enough for equal pay. Or nomination, apparently.
I wanted to distract you somewhat with a laugh…
http://femalesupremacist.org/scaal_home.html
Female Supremacy. “Within are many fine tips and links for the reeducation of the male animal for service in the household and office.”
-
Kat says:
I’ve come to believe that gendered issues are more easily rendered invisible.
I work in a place with a shockingly rigid gender divide, but a divide that is very common for my type of institution1. It started hitting me a few months ago — actually, the treatment of Hillary Clinton sensitized me to look around and see gender divides in my own life. Every meeting I go to regarding administration (policies, procedures, and so on) is populated almost exclusively by women. The units they work very, very hard for are largely run by men, and the women earn a fraction of the money of their bosses and command no respect, even if they run the units in actuality. To see a man at those meetings is so remarkable, I always remark on it. It’s that “secretary” thing. I always note it now, at these meetings — the women whose labor is invisible in my workplace. The divide is so normalized, it’s not present to the eye.
What is allowed to be normalized — that’s what becomes invisible.
-
bmc says:
Snark much? ;o}
There’s nothing mysterious about it. It’s sexism plain and simple. The faux-gressive blogger boys are engaging in the last acceptable form of bigotry: Sexism. The anti-feminist, misogynistic, sexist, bigotry flowing into homes around this country from “progressive” blogs, from GE’s Animal House Network, and on the pages of print media were the message: WOMEN can be dismissed; WOMEN can be derided, demeaned, and diminished by using Hillary Clinton as the vehicle for their hatred towards women. Yes, it’s Clinton Derangement Syndrome. But, it’s really just SEXISM. So, as the bigots like to hint: Hillary Clinton’s campaign is not as “transcendant” as Barack Obama’s campaign.
It’s not limited to men, which is the really mysterious thing to me. Women can also participate in the self-hating, the barely suppressed contempt they see reflected in the eyes of the men they seek to please, so they can join in, using the excuse, “it’s not any woman candidate, it’s just this one.”
But, it’s “this one” who had the experience, the qualifications, the leadership abilities, the knowledge, the strength of character and the political maturity to wage the campaign to be the first woman president.
So, to say her candidacy is not “transcendant” is just sexism, plain and simple, whether it’s coming from men or the women who seek to please men.
-
Puget Sound Island Girl says:
It’s not just the Kool-Aid, they also have blinders on and filters inserted into their ears.
Not much get through except Obama crap!
-
Lyssa says:
The Obamanuts are insane. And they think they can trick us, like your earlier post pointed out. My favorite thing online write now is “Piggies on parade” http://thirdestatesundayreview.....arade.html
“It’s going to be a blood bath. You want women on board, you better start telling the truth and issuing your apologies. Apologies, pay attention FAIR and Norman Solomon, are insincere when they go after the easy targets and ignore the biggies like Keith Olbermann. Yeah, you might have to toss Keithie on the bonfire. How badly do you want the women vote?
You dragged Hillary through the gutter. You want to talk ‘unity,’ crawl on your belly and beg for forgiveness first.”Support!
-
Ann Bartow says:
Hi Violet,
I have to pipe up as an Obama supporter, and ask you something. I’m not going over to Alas for the same reason you aren’t linking, but I think far too many Obama suppoters are idiots, and anyone who thinks the significance of Obama’s win is not being trumpeted is wrong.I supported Obama for both personal and political reasons I’d rather not go into here, and I’m a lot more optimistic about him than you. But I know he’s not perfect and there are things about his campaign that I was sorry to see. All that being said, what are your feelings about Clinton being his runningmate? Would that change your feelings about his candidacy?
I know I am at a pro-Hillary blog and I ask this out of curiousity and respect.
-
Dakinikat says:
This Grass Roots Action was put together by LAMusing and Shtuey
ALL HANDS ON DECK!
18 million hands – send them to the DNC!
1. Trace your hands on an 8×11 sheet of paper. Make it colorful to grab attention.
2. Write your name and city/state in the center of your hands and the words “I am one of 18 million.”
3. Above the hands, write: “These hands are on the front lines of democracy. I pledge I will not vote for Obama.”
4. Below the hands, write a line or two about your reasons you won’t vote for BO, why you are upset with the DNC, or whatever stirs your soul. We suggest you keep it fairly brief for maximum impact.
5. Put it in an envelope and send it off to the DNC.
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
6. Pass it on!!! Post this call to arms wherever you can! Let’s bombard the DNC with the millions of hands of the voters they dismissed, ignored, disenfranchised and belittled. And remember the old saying – “Many hands make light work.” Get FIVE friends to do this. Post this to FIVE sites!
Special note if you live in Florida: Make it just half a hand! Let them know you’d like to be a whole person again. -
donna darko says:
As I said at Octo’s, feminism is bring REPLACED by anti-racism and sexism which parallels the primary which was all about anti-racism and rampant misogyny.
-
Violet says:
Hey, Ann –
It’s an interesting question. If Hillary were on the ticket, would that be sufficient to preserve the Democratic party as the party of women, et al, and prevent the Obama movement from taking over entirely? I don’t know. That’s what I would be thinking about.
-
Charity says:
I wanted to thank you for that information about Alas…embarrassingly, I never knew and did have to click over to understand what you were talking about. WTF?!?! How does anyone not recognize the egregious hypocrisy there?
-
kenoshaMarge says:
I know how I feel about Senator Clinton on the ticket as VP, disgusted.
A VP has as much power the the President gives them. Would expect VP Clinton to spend her time either abroad or at the Naval Observatory serving tea and cookies.
A VP MUST parrot the administration line. What better way to shut her up and make her powerless. The Clinton-hating bunch that surrounds him is going to give her any power? Surely you jest.
When I say NO BAMA I mean NO BAMA. No matter who is VP.
-
Kali says:
I am hoping Hillary does not accept a VP slot. It is far beneath her. Playing second fiddle to a man much less qualified and competent than her would be a slap in the face. Also, it will help Obama win and that means misogyny and sexism will win. I can just see the gloating faces of all the woman-haters if he wins. Also, if Obama wins, he will be more difficult to defeat as an incumbent in 2012 than McCain.
-
octogalore says:
I see Kali’s point.
Based on the timetables Donna Darko featured here, that would seem pretty topsy turvy.
On the plus side, it would set her up well for 2016 (she’d be younger than McCain at that point) and hopefully she’d have more involvement than the typical VP — although I don’t trust BHO on that one.
On balance it probably would make the difference between my sitting out and voting Dem.
-
ginmar says:
Even without the porn, I won’t read Alas, it’s not even a feminist blog any more. I just sick of hearing how white women are the root of all evil, while Amp likes to whine about being bullied by radfems, even while he courts MRAs and, you know, men because they’re important. They buy porn, don’t they?
-
julia says:
Donna D., you summarized exactly what is going on.
-
donna darko says:
I thought I was crazy there for a minute. NOT. You know what else? Postcolonial feminism is dangerous because it condoned the rampant misogyny that will give McCain the White House.
-
donna darko says:
Which will do the exact opposite of what it rails against. Imperialism and colonization brown people.
-
donna darko says:
…even if it didn’t give McCain the White House, condoning misogyny because race trumps gender and it’s all about teh menz is dangerous.
-
mojave_wolf says:
Donna, I agree with your explanation completely about what has happened to feminism — until this campaign I wwas never sure why I felt so much more more comfortable with “2d wave” than current feminists when a lot of my positions on issues are closer to 34d/4th/whatever wave, but this campaign made it clear to me.
While I initially thought the growing strength of women’s studies and feminist classes in academia was a good thing, it appears they have been taken over by the exact sort of leftists that 2d wave feminism was formed in part to protest against — the people who were concerned with every sort of social injustice *except* that against women.
Modern feminism is somewhat different in that they–prior to this campaign, at least–did have a mostly good take on women’s issues (I’d say the exception was in non-western countries & cultures where women are oppressed–look at the way Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Susan Mueller Okin are attacked by a lot of these people), but they very clearly are not *primarily* about women’s issues–it’s race trumps everything with class second and a whole bunch of things fighting it out for third depending on the individual. By coopting the growing feminist movement in academia, a lot of the energy and passion over women’s issues gets channeled into professors own pet causes while women are guilt-tripped into taking a back seat yet again.
Not sure any of this quite explains the sheer craziness of this campaign by itself, though; it’s part of it, but I keep thinking the level of Obama-worship has more to do with an incredibly succesful marketing campaign combined with his personal charisma with the misogyny and overcompensation bits thrown in for some (a lot, but not all).
It certainly is interesting (if somewhat scary, depressing and enraging) to analyze . . .
-
julia says:
Donna, I agree with everything you are saying and would love to read more! Violet, I think you talked about this in earlier posts. Because I was overseas for most of my adult life, I didn’t understand the difference between the waves until this campaign. I hate to divide myself from people who could be allies – but feminism is about women, first and always.
I had a friend who was a staunch feminist three years ago telling me that racism was much more important than sexism and suddenly, instead of her former anarchist beliefs, she was campus rep for BO! I found myself avoiding people I really and truly like because all they wanted to do was talk, constantly, about Obama and criticize Clinton.
It’s not over yet – the local papaer still prints daily sexist cartoons of her on the OpEd page. -
Violet says:
While I initially thought the growing strength of women’s studies and feminist classes in academia was a good thing, it appears they have been taken over by the exact sort of leftists that 2d wave feminism was formed in part to protest against — the people who were concerned with every sort of social injustice except that against women.
Pretty much, though I would make sure to clarify that insisting women take a backseat to everything isn’t just a leftist thing; it’s a patriarchy thing. It’s especially frustrating coming from the left because the left is supposed to be concerned with social justice. The right, at least, is pretty straightforward about being uninterested in or actively opposed to human equality movements.
Julia, I want to talk more about this, and I have a post sort of simmering on this very topic. Feminism’s third wave, for all its good points, is heavily compromised by patriarchy. That’s because it emerged out of the backlash against the second wave, and the women who comprise the third wave don’t even grasp the extent to which they have completely internalized the patriarchal attack on feminism. Part of that patriarchal attack is the argument — which is as old as feminism itself — that anything involving men (like racism) is far more important than women’s rights.
-
donna darko says:
I’ve been pondering this subject and Rebecca Walker’s definition of modern feminism: whatever’s safe, healthy, equitable and enjoyable for women and those who love them. For example, what’s safe and healthy for a young black women is different from what’s safe and healthy for me. What happens to black men or their families is very much tied to what’s safe and healthy. What’s safe and healthy is different for each woman.
-
octogalore says:
This is entering into some really interesting territory. Donna, you are definitely not crazy. M_W — funny, I recently got books by Okin and Hirsi Ali because I was wondering what all the fuss was about, only to find myself sympathetic to their views.
Julia, LOL re “I found myself avoiding people I really and truly like because all they wanted to do was talk, constantly, about Obama and criticize Clinton.” Now tell me this, what if one of these people is your mom? We used to talk about politics all the time. Now that she’s drinking the kool aide, there’s a moratorium. Why do I get stuck with a second wave mom whose closeted resentment of professional women has overtaken her fucking feminism?
Violet, looking forward to your post about the third wave’s plight. I talked here about self-sabotage and why sexism is more publicly acceptable, and idea of “now more than ever” is a really interesting way to look at that.
-
donna darko says:
I finally looked at Hirsi Ali’s books because The Apostate likes her. Honestly, I never looked at them before because I heard she was a “scary radical”!
“Intolerance should not be tolerated.”
That’s ALL SHE EVER SAID. Malcolm X and MLK were lionized and worshipped for saying it but Hirsi Ali had to go into hiding! It’s because race trumps gender implicitly in our society.
-
donna darko says:
What’s safe and healthy for different women clashes but room must be made for each woman. Apologism is obviously not safe for many women as evidenced by the primary but seems to be a strategy for others. Every kind of feminism must be accepted so no one is silenced. Like Violet said, the third and fourth waves will clash for awhile.
the existing feminist movement and this new wave will remain largely separate, at least for awhile, and very possibly even oppose each other. That’s because modern feminism is dominated by a) young Third Wavers who support Obama anyway, and b) “establishment” feminists who are too plugged in to the money circuit to fight City Hall. This new wave is different: a big grassroots uprising of women of all ages whose latent feminism has been awakened by this election. This group is big and messy and fairly diverse in its political orientation (from leftists like me to near-Republicans), much the way the Second Wave was in the 1970s. But these women are united in their anger and their exasperation and their determination that now is the time to draw the line. No more.
-
Lily says:
Good point RL. And it’s not just the candidates or even just MSNBC. Ava and C.I. point out how PBS’ Bill Moyers Journal always had time to note race and celebrate Obama but never brought up gender to praise Hillary.
http://thirdestatesundayreview.....usion.html
Check out the babble from the January 4th broadcast, after Barack won Iowa, “echo of Martin Luther King, Jr.” (Dr. Kathy), MLK and Moses (Moyers), “Civil Rights movement” (Dr. Kathy), “Selma and Montgomery” (Dr. Kathy), “father from Kenya” (Dr. Kathy), “transcend the racial divide” (Dr. Kathy), “unification” (Dr. Kathy), “Obama changes the metaphor; because King took his people to the mountain, Obama can take them somewhere else” (Moyers and, yes, it is racist as well as laughable since Barack’s bi-racial and made no promises to America’s Black community), and that’s all from one appearance. In that appearance she also casts Hillary “as the establishment” — Dr. Kathy would argue she said the press did but Dr. Kathy was brought on to ‘see beyond’ the press spin as Moyers stated (“Her calling is to mine the facts hidden in all the spin,” Jan. 11th, BMJ)) and she didn’t question and certainly didn’t point out that Barack, first entering the Illinois state legislature in 1995, was no political virgin.
