The Turning Point
There are some turns that are so clear you can’t miss them. They loom up before you like an accident scene on the highway, all flashing lights and broken glass. Detour ahead.
Such is the Ms. magazine cover proclaiming Barack Obama a super-feminist. It’s not that men can’t be feminists. They definitely can, and I wish more of them were. It’s that this man isn’t a feminist.
Let’s review Obama’s record over the past year and half:
- He ran a campaign against Hillary Clinton that was suffused with sexism, from his own casually belittling comments to the unchecked misogyny of his supporters.
- He exploited 15 years of misogynistic antipathy towards Clinton, allowing his subordinates and enablers to paint her as a witch, a bitch, and a monster.
- He repeatedly referred to Clinton with sexist language: claws, tea parties, periodic moods, feeling down, “likable enough.”
- He allowed his campaign manager to get away with ridiculing Clinton for “crying” in New Hampshire “about her appearance.”
- He strode into his Iowa victory party to the strains of “99 Problems (But A Bitch Ain’t One).”
- He consistently minimized Clinton’s historic achievement during the primaries, even referring to her as a “conventional candidate” (in contrast to himself), thus echoing the sentiments of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, who is on record with his claim that women have never been second-class citizens.
- He ignored women’s rights in his speeches, and delivered a major address on rooting out bigotry and inequality without even mentioning sexism.
- He dismissed the concerns of women disturbed by the treatment of Clinton, insisting that they needed to “get over it.”
- He accused the women in the pro-choice movement of not treating abortion as a serious moral issue, and compounded the insult with the remark that women should not be allowed to have abortions just because they’re “feeling blue.”
- He orchestrated a grotesque smear campaign against Sarah Palin, pushing the bogus rape kit story to reporters, among other falsehoods.
- He never reprimanded his supporters for their astonishingly misogynistic attacks on Palin — just as he never reined in his supporters when they attacked Clinton.
- He ventriloquized women’s groups to spread outrageous misinformation about Palin’s record and feminist beliefs.
And that was all before the election. His record since then has been no better:
- He appointed half as many women to his Cabinet as the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
- He installed Larry Summers as his chief economic advisor — the same Larry Summers who notoriously (and inaccurately) asserted that intrinsic intellectual inferiority, not discrimination, is what’s holding women back.
- He condoned the sexist prank of his chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau, who groped a cardboard cutout of Senator Clinton while his buddy mimed forcing a drink down her throat.
- He invited Rick Warren to preside over his Inaugural — a pastor who preaches that wives must submit to their husbands, and that even physical abuse is no excuse for a woman to leave her husband.
That’s not what a feminist looks like.
So what is this paragon of non-feminism doing on the cover of Ms.? Simple: politics.
Ms. is owned by the Feminist Majority Foundation, one of the old-school feminist organizations that has segued from being an advocate for women to being an advocate for Barack Obama — no matter what he does. Wholly-owned subsidiaries of MyBarackObama.com, as the joke went in the blogosphere. The Ladies’ Auxiliary of the DNC.
Let me be clear: I’m not indicting feminism itself, which is a broad movement with millions of adherents (including me). I’m not impugning the past achievements of Ms. magazine, which has been one of the great feminist institutions of the last four decades. What I’m talking about is the current leadership clique, the Washington players, the self-appointed arbiters of American feminism.
When Ms. puts Barack Obama on the cover as a super-feminist, they’re no longer lobbying for feminism; they’re lobbying for Obama. They’re packaging him to women as a “feminist” simply to justify their own political alliance with him, thus draining the term of all real meaning. They’re image merchants, slapping a feel-good label on a mediocre product.
Or perhaps they’re simply trying to cash in on the hero worship of Obama, plastering the word “feminist” on the coolest kid in town — whether he deserves it or not. Why worry about principles when you can sell a few more subscriptions?
Either way, it’s not feminism. These are the politics of boosterism, a game of empty endorsements with women as the losers.
But the turning point is here. Let’s detour around this car crash. Let’s move ahead with a new commitment to women’s rights — all women’s rights — and a new courage to fight sexism wherever it exists. Wherever it exists. Without exception.
34 Responses to “The Turning Point”
-
purplefinn says:
Beautifully said, Violet. “Let’s detour around this car crash.” Those who oppose feminism love nothing more than having women “fight” with each other. It saves them the time and energy. Let’s call out those who make allowances for Obama based on slim pickings, resist throwing them under the bus, but follow those leading the way toward a renewed feminism not diverted by the current Obamadoration.
January 15th, 2009 at 11:00 am EST -
kenoshaMarge says:
“Let’s detour around this car crash. Let’s move ahead with a new commitment to women’s rights — all women’s rights — and a new courage to fight sexism wherever it exists. Wherever it exists. Without exception.”
I don’t understand how we can detour around this and yet commit to fighting sexism wherever it exists without exception. It seems to me that putting a misogynist’s picture on the cover of Ms. Magazine is sexism. What is it I’m missing?
I don’t like the sight or sound of women fighting women either. But if women are doing this then they are part of the problem not part of the solution. IMHO of course.
-
Violet says:
kenoshaMarge, I think the point is to walk away from the trainwreck. Which is what the Feminist Majority Foundation has become. That’s not the future of feminism.
-
octogalore says:
I agree, Violet. As we’ve seen from the number of sites (both male- and female-led) that love to bash on feminists who disagree with them regarding Obama, you could sell more blogosphere tickets to a feminist-on-feminist wrestling match than most feminist conventions are able to sell. Not interested in tossing gasoline on that fire.
-
Ali says:
Well, the question becomes then, who do we align ourselves with? Do we align ourselves with Ms. Magazine and Planned Parenthood, who (you informed me) spread lies about Sarah Palin through a massive email campaign?
Personally, I think we have no choice but to galvanize around the issues we stand together on while also standing up to the sexism that our sister organizations generate themselves. And I imagine this is what it means to “detour around this car crash”?
-
Sis says:
Could have sworn I started reading this somewhere else. :/
Swing your hammer Vi.
-
Sis says:
I stopped supporting those organizations about 25 years ago. Went ‘underground’, until I found the feminist movement on the blogs. Feminist sites like this are the bastion of the new feminism. Bring your support here. Subscribe, where that’s offered, as here. Share the links to websites and blogs that buttress our goals.
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
Sis #7 - you are right, I believe.
-
emma says:
Personally, I think we have no choice but to galvanize around the issues we stand together on while also standing up to the sexism that our sister organizations generate themselves.
Yes, I think so, too. Well put.
-
yttik says:
I am absolutely outraged over the MS cover. It’s gaslighting, it’s peeing on your leg and telling people its raining. It’s a sell out. It’s swimming in a vat of blue koolaid.
But I have a limited amount of time and energy and a commitment to gender loyalty. I want to see a good old girls club develop. I want to see women not attack other women, but instead stand together. I take gender loyalty seriously. It’s tough, Caroline Kennedy for example. MS magazine’s humongous betrayal, as another example.
One thing I admire the most about both Hillary and Palin, is that they both absolutely refused to criticize each other. Not once did Hillary join in on the Palin bashing. She even canceled an event when the media tried to set them up together. Palin too, just the other day very carefully refused to criticize Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications. Those are the characteristics of a real feminist. You bite your tongue and do everything in your power not to toss a fellow woman under the bus, regardless of the circumstances. It’s never easy. Women are trained from day one to attack each other over every slight.
This is not a lecture or a criticism of anybody. MS mag certainly got my letter expressing my disapproval, bahaha, but I plan to step over the vat of blue koolaid they are currently swimming in and continue on. When they sober up, they can come learn what a feminist really looks like.
-
quixote says:
There’s a difference between not bashing each other and supporting each other.
Bashing each other would be to say “Those stupid twats at Ms. need a man to come up with a cover.”
Not supporting the sellout would be to say, “Obama is a feminist like an empty suit is a man. Here’s why.”
We absolutely have to call people on sellouts. You can’t blink betrayal in anyone, unless you want to be betrayed.
Bashing, on the other hand, is selling out.
-
yttik says:
I think what I’m trying to say is that this president is an expert at the tactic of separate, divide, and control. He has created incredible divisions and used them like steps on a ladder in his rise to power. From playing the race card to his recent co-option of MS mag.
My concern is that he’s going to divide women, indeed he already has, but we should find a way to resist and stay focused on the goal which hopefully is about creating equality. I don’t want to see women manipulated into spending all their time criticizing Palin, criticizing Caroline Kennedy, and now MS magazine. As long as we’re focused on other women, we’re not holding Obama accountable, which probably suits him just fine.
-
donna darko says:
As we’ve seen from the number of sites that love to bash on feminists who disagree with them regarding Obama, you could sell more blogosphere tickets to a feminist-on-feminist wrestling match than most feminist conventions are able to sell. Not interested in tossing gasoline on that fire.
Obama is a hate movement against women and GLBT. PUMA/the Fourth Wave is a reaction to that movement. Another example of feminism bending over and eating itself from the ass up.
-
emma says:
My concern is that he’s going to divide women, indeed he already has, but we should find a way to resist and stay focused on the goal which hopefully is about creating equality. I don’t want to see women manipulated into spending all their time criticizing Palin, criticizing Caroline Kennedy, and now MS magazine. As long as we’re focused on other women, we’re not holding Obama accountable, which probably suits him just fine.
Yes, exactly.
-
donna darko says:
But the turning point is here. Let’s detour around this car crash. Let’s move ahead with a new commitment to women’s rights — all women’s rights — and a new courage to fight sexism wherever it exists. Wherever it exists. Without exception.
I wrote about this six months ago:
July 30, 2008: Intolerance should not be tolerated
-
Cyn says:
I agree - we need to move on. We clearly understand what is happening and our energy can be spent in more positive ways - like finding out why Violet is eating Ramen Noodles if she is being financed by rich Republicans. And does Ramen really mean rah rah Men? Is Violet secretly undermining women and supporting men to gain access to Johnny Depp? I need to contact Naomi Wolf…
-
Sis says:
Vi is eating Ramen noodles? I will forthwith send a haunch of Moose.
-
sister of ye says:
Aha! What Violet isn’t telling you is that she’s eating her ramen noodles off gold-plated china emblazoned with the image of Ronald Reagan!
Ooops! Sorry. Just nauseated myself. Apologies to all.
Throw some garlic powder in those noodles, Violet. It always makes mine a lot tastier.
-
julia says:
I just came down from the mountains for the first time in a week….and this is what I get. Ms. has not been a feminist magazine for a long time and this proves it. That he’s on Ms, portrayed as a feminist bothers me much less than the fact that so many women voted for him and just eat him up!
This year was the biggest brainwashing campaign I’ve ever seen in my life. Are Americans so depressed that they’ll believe anything?! -
silentstanding says:
I hope people can stop their huffing and give it a chance. He’s our president for the next four years, whether you like it or not. You might as well try to work with what we have rather than just whine about how awful you think he is. That’s not constructive at all. It just furthers the divide.
The great thing in my mind is that we have the two best presidential candidates of the last few decades in office working together. We did get Hilary into a powerful place in the government too after all.
“But if women are doing this then they are part of the problem not part of the solution. IMHO of course.”
And yeah I agree women are the worst example of keeping other women from having equal rights both legally and culturally. And sadly that also includes most professed “feminists”.
-
donna darko says:
For many Clinton supporters, 2008 was the worst sexism they experienced in their lives, under any President, Republican or Democrat. This says a lot about Obama because he isn’t even President yet.
Clinton apologized for racism at least three times. Obama never apologized for any of the sexism and misogyny in 2008. He apologized to a reporter who had nothing to do with either campaign for calling her sweetie and he asked people to leave his wife alone after a racist/sexist attack.
-
donna darko says:
He gave a speech condemning racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia. The only thing he left out was sexism. Despite the historic levels of sexism and misogyny last year, he spoke out against everything but sexism. He apologized once about sexism to a reporter who nothing to do with either campaign and asked that people not be sexist against his wife but that’s the extent of his speaking out against sexism in 2008 and the beginning of 2009.
-
Sis says:
God. Marshall McLuhan’s gonna be so sorry he missed this.
-
tonywu says:
Obama’s not a perfect feminist but he is a lot better than Bush. He will move things in the right direction. You have to take these things one step at a time. Now that he has won, the next step is to set the goal higher. I wanted Hillary too, but it was not to be.
donna, 2008 was only the worst sexism you’ve ever experienced because what was dormant in politics finally came out into the open, brought out by the Clinton-Obama dynamic.
The misogyny was always there. If you’ve seen the attitude of the MSM toward feminism in the last 10 years, or the subtext of what passes for ‘humor’ or pop culture, it should be no surprise that we live in a deeply, deeply sexist society. This sexism has flourished in the last 28 year Reagan era, beginning with the defeat of the ERA. By challenging sexism so directly, Clinton was going to bring it out.
I believe that in the long run, Obama’s win will help feminism, not just because of where Obama stands on the issues, but because it is harder to justify sexism when racism is clearly beyond the pale. It is also harder to argue that a woman can’t win elections when a guy like Obama has won. Anti-racism and anti-sexism have been hand in hand in both the 19th century and 1960s-70s, and this time was no different. People naturally begin to think “blacks are equal.. what about women?” Obama’s win also moves us in a more liberal direction, for the first time in 40 years.
So while we have a lot of work to do, it makes sense to recognize the positive where we can. That does not mean glossing over problems, but I think that we have really gone from one extreme (not/barely acknowledging that sexism is a problem circa 2006) to another (doom and gloom in 2009). The truth is somewhere in between.
-
donna darko says:
Obama and the progressive blogosphere have to apologize for the misogyny (which was a gazillion times worse than the racism). There will never be another Hillary and it was her time. I already wrote about what you said six months ago:
July 30, 2008: History of race trumps gender
-
Sis says:
They won’t apologize Donna. They will trivialize and minimize (see above) deny and continue the hatred. It hasn’t stopped for either Clinton or Palin, just slowed while the women-haters are distracted, and as soon as the inauguration is over, it will go full tilt once again.
One isn’t even allowed to mention it in the rapture over the upcoming celebration. There will be no censure of Warren.
The hating is dismissed as just politics, they say nasty things get over it. And anyway, Clinton was a bitch.
None of us would dare go to a Black blog and say what that moron above has said here.
-
Grace says:
MS magazine’s choosing to publish this image it’s the ultimate sell-out of the principles that define feminism.
They and NARAL should just have remained politically neutral: not endorsing anybody, period. They see Obama (like a lot of people) through the lense of their own projections, that he is someone or represents something that they need to see.
To that extent they would rationalize, justify, and explain Obama no matter what he says or does, because they have put all their “eggs” on the Obama’s basket. And if Obama falls, they will fall too.
Obama was absolutely right when he said that he is a blank slate or a Roscharch test. He is a master at manipulating public opinion. I give him credit for that.
-
donna darko says:
“Get over it”.
Not if the sexism continues whenever you challenge The One or when you say the names Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin.
“Your time will come”.
There will never be another Hillary Clinton.
-
m Andrea says:
So when everybody says “let’s focus on creating equality for women” and “let’s concentrate on positive energy” and especially “let’s not divide all women by bashing some” — What, exactly, do you really mean? Because what I hear is cheap platitudes and dreamy-eyed slogans, even if that interpretation is not your intention.
Yes, I understand that patriarchy enjoys pitting women against each other, just as it enjoys pretending that men are noble creatures who would never exploit those whom they claim to love. But the fact remains as true that some percentage of females are working to uphold patriarchy, and you would rather look the other way for some unspecified reason rather then engage those women directly.
The fact also remains as true that whenever anyone of any gender upholds misogyny masqerading as equality in an Orwellian manner, that the status of women’s equality is slowed, regardless of that person’s motivation for doing so.
And you want to look the other way… because somebody’s going to get their fweelings hurt if we call them on it… How exactly is this “looking away” from internalized sexism going to result in increasing the progess rate of women’s equality?
Isn’t it like saying, “racism will be improved by ignoring Blacks who uphold the beliefs which serve their oppressors”? Historically, feminism grew because women taught other women to recognize their own internalized sexist beliefs and the surrounding culture which encouraged their compliance. As a result of that growing recognition, more women stopped excusing sexism, stopped participating in sexist behavior, demanded real equality, and held the men around them accountable.
-
CoolAunt says:
Isn’t it like saying, “racism will be improved by ignoring Blacks who uphold the beliefs which serve their oppressors”?
m Andrea, no, it’s not. I believe that one of the reasons that blacks have had more success in their civil rights movement than we’ve had in ours is that blacks, well aware of the “Uncle Toms” among them, still kept/keep their eyes on their oppressors while we keep losing focus and looking at one another. While we’re so busy pointing out each other’s internalized sexism, men are left to run amok with their externalized sexism going completely unchecked and without personal consequence.
-
m Andrea says:
So Black people don’t point out the Uncle Toms amongst themselves? Even though they went to the trouble of coining a phrase for it? That they do have a name for one who colludes with racist ideals suggests that yes, they do attempt to hold accountable through shaming tactics those who are “Uncle Tomming”.
AA’s may or may not have had more success with anti-racism efforts then feminists have had with sexism (that’s a difficult point to prove conclusively), and the actual causes for that success are also difficult to prove simply because there’s so many variables. Corelation, yes; causation, no.
But I am tired of hearing “let’s not call out females who collude with patriarchal ideals” if no specific reason for that position is forthcoming…
-
m Andrea says:
I posted too soon.
“All division among females is bad when equality is the goal” is logically false.
It assumes that feminist A will stop working on or caring about all feminist issues simply because her fweelings got hurt. It also assumes that any ole crappy thing will result in a positive good as long as it has a feminist label.
It ignores the mechanisms of denial routinely used by patriarchy to justify ongoing sexism. See? Suzie agrees with us that torture porn is liberating for women, so why do you keep complaining?”
-
CoolAunt says:
mAndrea, what you asked was this:
Isn’t it like saying, “racism will be improved by ignoring Blacks who uphold the beliefs which serve their oppressors”?
And that’s what I answered.
I think the word “strawfeminist” would work well here.
I’m finished.
-
m Andrea says:
Only one question was bolded! lol But I probably didn’t make my point clearly enough — my fault. I’ll try to do better next time.
Oh, the other thing. I doubt if there is as many, percentage wise, AA’s who uphold racist ideals as there are females who uphold sexist ideals. Look how many women pop up with “oh not my nigel” even in feminist circles. You don’t hear as many “oh not my white friends” when the subject is racism. So the problem is more pronouced and causes more damage when the subject is sexism.
But I’m not going to drop this, because I have a low tolorance for non-logical assertions and I finally figured out the problem, even if I can’t explain it very well yet.
