It's on people!

The National Organization for Women PAC officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for President today. Here are some snippets from Kim Gandy's statement:

Today, the first woman speaker presides over the U.S. House of Representatives, and Harvard University has its first woman president. Firsts are important, because they open doors for those who follow — but our real goal is to have every first followed by seconds and thirds and fourths, until having women in leadership is so common that it isn't even remarkable any longer.

For 30 years, NOW PAC has worked tirelessly to help elect feminist candidates to federal office and increase the representation of women in our government. Through "Make History With Hillary," NOW PAC will provide training, tools and resources to our hundreds of thousands of supporters, so that they will be informed and equipped to work as volunteers at the grassroots level to elect feminist candidates and make our dream of a woman president a reality;

At the national level, NOW PAC will work to increase public awareness of the extraordinary career, accomplishments and leadership of Senator Clinton. Our members will conduct voter registration drives, make phone calls and go door to door to encourage women to vote as if their future depended on it, because it does. Finally, we will help elect feminist candidates to the House and Senate who will work with President Clinton to undo the damage done by the Bush administration.

Also stepping up to endorse Hillary was Billie Jean King and former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro:

"It's been 23 years since I was the first woman on a major party presidential slate, and I remember what it was like breaking that barrier — including the barrage of attacks at the hands of the Republicans," Ferraro wrote. "Now Hillary is poised to break the biggest glass ceiling of them all. This time, when we elect the best, most qualified candidate for president, for the first time we'll be putting a woman in the White House."

I've been advocating that NOW should have waited until our conference in July to do this. Get all the candidates who want our backing to ask us for it and earn it with a Q & A session. Hillary doesn't need the endorsement so early, it could have came on Women's Equality Day in August as well.

That said, I need to sit back and figure out where I'm headed in this race.

I loved Hillary the moment she stepped into our view in 1992. I loved the shirts that said "2 for 1". Yes, she broke my heart the first time she wore a Yankees cap. Hell, I stood in line for hours to shake her hand after "It Takes a Village" came out. She's been one hell of a feminist while in the Senate, but she takes some funny stances on civil rights. Maybe I'm also reacting that same way the hubby is. That is that this dynasty shit has to stop. We live in the USA for geezus sake! Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton? Have we no one else we want to vote for?

I've been reading the emails of my friends & other older feminists that today is a day they have worked towards for many years. I get that. What I hate is that the media is poo-pooing this endorsement BECAUSE Hillary's a woman and who the hell else would we endorse?

So what's this feminist to do? Go do her nails. Seriously...have you seen my nails lately?

Labels: feminism, feministcard, politics

Thankfully E.J. Graff keeps her response short & sweet:

Jessica, honestly, I'm not sure I fully understand the problem. Is there someone out there giving out feminist credentials? If so, they've forgotten to hand any to me. You're a nationally known feminist and a widely recognized up-and-coming pundit. Who's dissing you, and why does it matter?

I think all know that I'm half-joking when I say someone is going to revoke my feminist card. OTOH, while no one can revoke my card (it's tattooed on me!), they can limit my advancement. E.J. and Katha pish-posh the idea that if you piss off a feminist leader that it won't come back to bite ya.

Jessica replies to the why question in a comment, that this is not just about her, but about fellow young femnists. That's admirable. Seriously. There are organizations out there that I don't diss per say, but I do talk as honestly as possible with inquiring minds about warning signs. You might wonder why neither Jessica nor I are willing to name names. Well, what's the point? It's not like they are going to be put in a time out or shunned.

Maybe I am too old to really understand this gap between the generations. Maybe what is really happening is that there is a huge gap between the GenXers and GenYers. I feel like we still were struggling as girls. While we could play soccer, will still did it with some consequences. The women who are 26 right now had Mia Hamm and Dot Richardson as role models in high school.

I honestly believe we are coming up on the next feminist wave; more on this in weeks to come. But hey, if you have new ideas about how to make change, I'm with Katha. Count me in. If I disagree, I promise to argue--to show respect.

I agree that we're entering a new era of feminism. Let's retire the wave.

I have to admit that I fall into the group of people who think those in their 20s feel more entitlement than the rest of us. I know that's a HUGE generalization, but that's just how I feel. OOH, I see women in their 20s with way more fire than I saw in my own generation. They seem to really get it. But because of that, they want a seat at the big girls table. I know a lot of organizations have created young feminist boards/committees to include the young voice. That still doesn't seem good enough for some. I would have DIED if I had been asked to be on one in college.

Then again, maybe I'm already a grumpy old feminist.

Labels: feminism, feministcard

Now Katha's response...

Jessica, you're not the first to point out that NOW, Feminist majority and other big feminist groups founded by 1960s activists have had trouble opening up leadership roles to young women. I'm not sure there's anything particular to women in this--ie anything that justifies your analogy to that idiotic sorority.

I'd agree that the parallel to the sorority is baseless. The institutional feminist organizations need our money, so they keep us around for our dues. *tongue in cheek...kinda*

If you really feel dissed and dismissed by these minor events, don't hang around waiting for your big break. Start your own group.

On the surface this seems like a good plan. But really, how many of us have the time & resources to start a whole new group? That said, I also feel that sometimes our biggest weakness is that there are too many groups out there and we aren't talking to each other. Whether due to ignorance or competition, we need to talk to each other if we're gonna get anything done.

As a constant reader of Feministing, I know that you and your co-writers are quite the blogo-battlers. You don't have the all-inclusive, nonjudgmental, everyone's-a-feminist POV you insist others take toward young women.

OUCH. And she's right. As much as I love reading Feministing, there are days when I roll my eyes at what is up there. I have to admit that I haven't felt the same love towards them since the lame excusing of Jessica's book cover. I know there are a lot of pressures on young authors, but gawd damn...

If there are ideological differences between generations, they should be discussed as ideas, not declared off limits because the person who espouses them is younger (or older).

And this is where I wholeheartedly agree with Katha. There are far too many times when I've been in meetings or email discussions and debate is shut down due to one generation stomping their foot down and saying, "NO. WE ARE THE EXPERTS." Whether it is to have thongs for sale or have a folk singer from the 1970s us kids have never heard before sing at the big gala.

Feminism means something different to each generation. The second wavers have so much to finish and some of them have told me, "I'm too old, you do it." While others won't give up control until we pry it from their dead hands. In many ways, I admire both. I think it's awesome that someone realizes that they are too tired, too burnt out, too overwhelmed to carry on. Maybe they realize they just are out of new ideas, who knows. But it takes a brave person to walk away from their life's work in order for a new generation to push it to the finish line. OTOH, I really hope that when I'm 60 that I still have the fire I see in some of the second wavers. That I still think I have ideas. But honestly, I hope when I'm 60, most of the work will have been done and I'll have put myself out of business.

There is a generational war brewing. But it's been brewing from generations. We'll always have it. As Katha points out, it is very much like a mother-daughter relationship. Which we all know has it's good points & very bad points. It also has no conclusion.

Labels: blogging, feminism, feministcard

You might think I would jump right to Jessica's defense when she muses about how second wavers don't treat third wavers with any respect. Well, I'm not. I'm not going to be an Auntie Tom either and apologize for the second wavers.

Being a feminist is hard enough without having to defend yourself from attacks from within.

I've been attacked personally many times from within and yes it pissed me off. I saw one of the offenders on the news in the background of a victory party and it was like a fresh attack. Yes, it's kinda like running into that ex. Except I know that Cinnamon run into her, she slinks away in shame. The "attacks" on Jessica's feminism are logical ones for a generation that is in deep flux with our identity as human beings and as feminists.

Being told you’re too young to speak on a panel...being lectured about how your opinions are naïve or misinformed...having your accomplishments looked on warily because you didn’t “pay your dues,” getting emails about how all of your hard-working feminist blogging is for naught because your logo is sexist.

I'm 32, older than Jessica, with I'd dare to say just a smidge less experience than her (at least in the glamor department, I haven't worked for a series of top-tier feminist orgs, etc...It's not sour grapes, just reality.) and I'm ok with being told that I'm too young for somethings. Because you know what? Sometimes I just am. Experience counts for A LOT in this world. At 32, I'm still exploring ideas and concepts. So I expect to be naive on some ideas. I do expect respectful criticism when I am naive. I respect that the second wavers had WAY more dues to pay than the typical well-known third waver. I say that knowing that many well-known third wavers went to some pretty nice colleges, seem to have some socioeconomic privilege, and white privilege as well. I'm not bemoaning my poor Latina background. Believe me, it pays nothing in street cred. As for your logo...we all know that the spectrum of feminists is almost as wide as the color spectrum. Someone will object to it. You chose it. Deal with it. Just as some feminists and women will not read Bitch Magazine or attend a Stitch-n-Bitch, it's their cuppa tea.

Telling young women that they’re not feminist enough is the same thing as telling them that they’re not good enough for feminism. What young woman wants to be a part of a movement that doesn’t want her?

I've learned in the past 4 years that you have to separate the individuals from the institution. Yes, it pains me that some organizations keep on racist, classist, and even ageist members in authority lines. But the way some orgs are set up, there is no place for impeachment. Then you have to blame the members or other org members who keep that person on. Sometimes you just cut off part of an org so you can keep working with the better part.

Honestly, I think every slice of feminism says "you're not good enough" when you look at the definition. That's why I call myself a bad feminist. I don't adhere to one theory of feminism. Some issues I'm a liberal. Some I'm a freakin' radical.

While I don’t know that all of this is consciously done to keep certain women away from feminism, I do believe that some of the second-wave founders want to keep a movement that’s recognizable, and comfortable, to them. And if that means only accepting and reaching out to young women who are recreating their paradigm, or who fit into their mold, then so be it.

See here, Jessica, you're lying to yourself. Hell *I* know that some second wavers are uncomfortable with third wavers & our philosophies and thus keep us just at bay. It's not about keeping us from feminism, but from certain leadership roles. That said, I think EVERY group wants only their own. That's why we have old boys clubs. And yes, feminism is old enough, strong enough to have an ol' feminists club. Bask in that slice of "woo-hoo, shit" moment. I agree that the mainstream feminist orgs are failing at reaching out to the non-converts. We've missed opportunities and aren't fully seeking new ones.

But the public face of feminism is institutional—Ms. Magazine, Feminist Majority Foundation, NOW—they’re what the world thinks of when they think of feminism...But there needs to be more—more feminists, more public faces, more room for movement-building. After all, alienating a generation of women isn’t the stuff social justice is made of.

This is why movements either die or evolve.

The suffragists went thru similar issues. Do we play nice with the boys or do we raise hell? Sometimes it is not about feminism itself, but tactics. Are we going to embrace our sexuality with push-up bras & Christina Aguilera music or privately in our bedrooms? It's not even a virgin-slut split. I think there is enough room for both - with limits AND with debate. How far do we let our inner slut out? How long do we keep her locked up in our pantie drawer? What's the ONE issue that defines feminism? Abortion? Access to health care? White Privilege? Peace? Child care? That question alone can splinter even the most homogeneous group.

I think that this issue is a very important one. We are at a pivotal moment in feminist history. The baby boomers are retiring. Gen Xers are just tasting real power. We have a full on debate on whether or not a feminist woman is good enough to be President. A FEMINIST WOMAN. Hell, 10 years ago we all would have said "D'uh, yes!" Our movement is starting a huge growth spurt and you know what, it's gonna hurt. Feelings will be hurt and some of us will get left behind or unheard. (Speaking of which, anyone still reading?)

Bottomline. To quote Jimmy Dugan from "A League of Their Own": If we're going to be leaders of this movement, it's gonna be hard. "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."

Labels: abortion, feminism, feministcard

Oh yes, dear readers, this is sooo gonna be my theme for the 2008 Presidential race until there is a Democrat chosen to lead us back to the White House. Is it tired already? Not even. It's just warming up.

Today we are blessed by a brilliant op-ed by Courtney E. Martin who muses:

So here I am, twisted into a pretty wicked knot of loyalties, affiliations, and philosophies of social change. If I go with Hillary, I respect my legacy but neglect my fiercest politics. If I support someone other than Hillary, I may vote with a vision of the future, but lose the opportunity to participate in a critical moment in feminist history. Until election day comes, I'll keep watching and listening, trying to let myself feel the pull of my wisest self.

Me thinks she's been reading this blog and put together all my crazy thoughts into a concise op-ed. I guess that means I have all the pieces, I just need to get my own ass together and write more! ha!

Seriously, thanks Courtney. We need to hear from more young(er) feminists. (Hey, at 32, I'm still holding on to that label until someone rips it outta my wrinkly hands!)

Labels: feminism, feministcard, politics

Oh yes, dear readers, we have a new theme to "Goddess Musings." I'm going to attempt to highlight high profile feminists who are not falling in line and backing Hillary Clinton outright. NOTE: To new readers, I'm NOT against Hillary running. We're homegirls. What I am pissy about is that there are some in the feminist movement who don't want to have a conversation about who is the right candidate - on the issues.

First up...Another homegirl, Cindy Richards. Not only is she not falling in line, she's already backing Obama!

...Obama's campaign leaves those of us who consider ourselves feminists with a quandary: Do we stick with the woman who talks tough and has the moxie to win but is saddled with naggingly high disapproval ratings?

Or, are we more likely to serve the best interests of women by going with the guy who is a moral leader with a fabulous wife who would never let him support a policy without first considering how it would affect women?

It's been a tough internal battle for me. But I'm going with Obama.

Next...Kate Michelman is supporting John Edwards. I know there's already a debate out there if Kate's even pro-choice considering the insane positions that NARAL took under her leadership, but she is considered a feminist leader, so let's get to her quote:

...her endorsement is “a statement of my conviction that John Edwards is a person women can depend on to defend their rights,” based on his one-term record in the Senate, including as a member of the Judiciary Committee. Michelman said she also has been impressed both by Edwards’s campaign emphasis on fighting poverty, which mostly affects women and their children, and by his potential for inspiring people.

“In making this decision to support John, I did take gender into consideration. And taking gender into consideration to me means, what would this candidacy do for women … ? The answer to that for me is that John Edwards would make an extraordinary contribution to women’s lives. And that, I think, is what’s most important.”

Of course, we have to add feminist bloggers Amanda & Melissa for taking jobs on the Edwards campaign. At the moment they are generating heat from the conservatives for Edwards, but they are also not working for Da Woman. tsk..tsk..

Does Gloria Steinem, THE feminist goddess, deserve to get her card revoked too? She does tell it like it is to all of those who WANT to make the Clinton/Obama/Edwards question divisive.

The question is also destructive because it’s divisive. In fact, women of all races and men of color — who together form an underrepresented majority of this country — have often found themselves in coalition. Both opposed the wars in Vietnam and Iraq more and earlier than their white male counterparts. White women have also been more likely than white men to support pro-equality candidates of color, and people of color have been more likely to support pro-equality white women.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama are civil rights advocates, feminists, environmentalists and critics of the war in Iraq, though she voted early and wrong, and he spoke out early and right. Both have resisted pandering to the right, something that sets them apart from any Republican candidate, including John McCain. Both have Washington and foreign policy experience; George W. Bush did not when he first ran for president.

But the greatest reason for progressives to refuse to be drawn into an irrelevant debate about Senators Clinton and Obama is that it is destructive.

Stay tuned. If nothing else, this primary (that is still one FREAKIN YEAR away!) will will be entertaining. Goddess, I need more popcorn!

Labels: feminism, feministcard, politics

So Feministing 'stole' another one of my stories and of course, they are getting all the action. ha! But I found this comment so brilliant and honest:

;"I'll take a person who doesn't know the system, who has a conscience"

See, TLF, here's where you and I part ways. I don't want some newbie who doesn't know how to work the system. I want an old hand who knows exactly where the bodies are buried. When I go in for surgery, I want someone who's done hundreds of surgeries before. And in a president, I want a politician who's been around long enough to build up juice and knows how to play the game. I don't mind corruption my elected officials; I expect corruption in my elected officials. What I want is for them to be corrupt and on my side.

Bold is mine.

Us Chicagoans aren't raised to expect a perfect candidate. Althou I have seen the expectation of perfection used to draw support away from an otherwise good candidate. Damned if you are, damned if you aren't.

Do we as feminists expect our candidates to be perfect? Or are we just expecting Hillary to be perfect?

And the scariest question...will Hillary's campaign cause a civil war within the feminist community? Will we be able to recover from calling each other traitors? Sell-outs? Revocation of our feminist cards?

Labels: feminism, feministcard, politics

1] I downloaded "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" for Ella. She loves "Sound of Music" and this is one of the songs she loves. I admit, I love it too. I know, I know, but crack is crack and that song & dance is crack!

2] I don't think that I'm all that beautiful. Despite working on body image issues and ranting about them here, I can't see much beauty in myself. There have been times in my life when I did think I was pretty cute/beautiful, but those moments were short lived. At the most I was able to love my thick legs for their strength. Now, they just look fat to me. When my friends & boyfriends were bathing in acne cream, I never washed my face. Now, I dunno if I have adult acne or my birth control pill hates me. Despite my constant urge to cut my hair short &/or dye it red, I love my long dark curly hair. Except for really humid &/or windy days when I look like a poof.

I'm sure there are more, but it's late and I need to get some sleep. Night.

Labels: feminism, feministcard

I know I'm a "bad feminist" and I have learned to live with that. I question feminist authority. I ask for real conversation/discussion before making decisions. I don't fall in line. So I know that before the next President takes office I will have my feminist card revoked and I will be sent to the Island of Misfit Feminists.

Exhibit A: I continue to question the Susan G. Komen Foundation and after Kate tipped me off to their latest ad in DC, I have to say I'm done with them. I have in the past supported friends who did the walk, but sorry gals, I can't anymore. It has nothing to do with you, but everything to do with Susan. The pink-ification of breast cancer was one thing. The "we shop to live" mantra was getting old. Especially the "drive a car & emit cancer causing toxins to donate a dollar!" gimmick. But to objectify a woman's body AND use violent terminology? That's it. I give. Now to figure out what to do with my breast cancer ribbon charm bracelet AND my breast cancer MaryElla.

So that might seem a tad radical right?

Exhibit B: I'm not radical enough. I'm on a zillion listservs and half of them are feminist politics centered. I dared to send the Gloria Steinem article that I blogged about (kinda, yeah, I owe you all) a week ago. I kept my doubts about Hillary & Barak to myself. Just thought I'd throw that article out for discussion sake. I got smacked down the only way that second wavers can smack down. "I've been waiting my whole life for this!" to "This is what we fight for every single day and there should be no doubt!" *sigh* I have never ever been one to pick a race horse early on. I want to wait and hear them out. I had an inkling with Obama, but his lawyer-ese gave me pause. Even with Christine Cegelis, I didn't jump on her bandwagon until her second run at the seat! (I do have to admit that I did jump on a local campaign early, but never that story is still unfolding.) With Hillary? Honestly, it was the Cubs thing. How can you call yourself a Cubs fan, a Chicagoan, and diss the Cubbies...for the Yankees? Not to mention her voting for the war over and over. That said, perhaps CODEPink will be excommunicated. The emails I've seen on those listservs are heresy next to my measly doubts!

Of course the fact that I feel a psychic-ish connection to Hillary doesn't count. The hubby & her share a birthday, we were born in the same town, our hubbies have a weakness for Big Macs and we're both feminists! I'm just one real estate scandal away from being the Latina Hillary. Viva!

Pink Feminist Hellcat muses about how when feminists take offense to 'sexy' ads like the ones PETA puts out, that we get smacked down. I say it is the same when we question whomever thinks they are the high priestess of the day. I've had my feminist card revoked before, but I got a few lesbians & one trans friend to vouch for me and I got it back. Um, I'm only half-kidding on that one. Something to do with not burning my marriage certificate in protest.

So there you go. I'm a bad feminist. Add to the above the fact that I'm still pissed at Ms. Magazine for shutting down Ms. Musings. Yeah, I still subscribe - it's like taking my vitamins some issues. Doesn't mean I'm not still pissed!

In twenty years when I'm still a piddly D-list feminist, you all know why.

Labels: feminism, feministcard, politics

I finally got a chance to read Rebecca Traister's piece in Salon on Hillary Clinton and her "feminist" problem. It's really thought provoking and one that I think would be an excellent final exam in any women's studies & political science course. If I were teaching my students would find this article and one question: "What do you think?"

And here's what I think. I think that she's on to something. In today's political climate we may be unable to love a candidate with all of our heart. With the polarization that has occurred and the risk that is real, can we afford to NOT support a candidate because they don't support some key issues? Here are two examples:

1) Chicago is in Cook County and we have our county President up for election in November. A quick summary is this: 2 Dems ran in the primary. One (the incumbent Prez) had a stroke 1 week before the primary. His campaign & family led the public to believe he would be ok. The challenger was a pretty darn good progressive candidate with reform on the mind. The challenger lost, by a hair, and there were rumors about voter fraud. So after a few months of no one seeing the Prez, he resigns from his position & withdraws from the race. What happens next? His son is chosen by "The Party Machine" to fill his dad's spot on the ballot. This has angered many a voter, even those of us who are generally ok with the corruption that is Chicago politics. So what is a good progressive to do? Cindy Richards of the Sun-Times and who is an awesome feminist is voting for the anti-choice and anti-gay Republican candidate:

What would a Cook County government run by a Republican look like? It's hard to know. But it's possible it could employ far fewer people. And those it does employ might be there because they know how to run something other than a political machine.

I have voted for only a handful of Republicans, always on the state or national level, never on the local level. So this will be a first for me.

Am I troubled by Peraica's position on gays and abortion? Yes. Do I believe him when he says he won't mess with the status quo on either? I have to.

And, the sad reality is, even with a Democrat as board president, abortion was hardly big business at county hospitals. While pro-choice groups have endorsed Stroger because they fear what a county run by Peraica will mean for women's reproductive health, this is one time I have to say that abortion cannot be the only issue in this race. If the county doesn't get fixed, we may find ourselves living in a place that meets only the needs of the people who line their pockets with county cash.

Will I regret voting for Peraica? Again, it's impossible to know. Ask me again in four years when, I hope, I will have the option of voting for a qualified Democratic reformer to run this $3 billion county government in a way that serves the people rather than the political insiders.

<--snip-->

It's hard to believe that a Croatian immigrant who has served just one term as a county commissioner could do all that in so relatively little time. But, by all estimates, Peraica has proved to be smart, hardworking and attentive to details. In short, everything Stroger is not.

Stroger, whose only qualification for this office is that his daddy held the job before him, is running a dead heat against Peraica, according to the Tribune poll released Monday. Stroger polled 39 percent, Peraica polled 36 percent and Don't Know polled 22 percent. The margin of error of 5 percentage points makes it a virtual tie.

<--snip-->

We finally understand that we might have a choice and that it might a difference if someone other than the guy anointed in the back room deal is running the show.

Will I vote for Peraica? I doubt it. Will I vote for Stroger? I highly doubt it.

2) Next year Da Mayor & all of our aldermen (even the women are aldermen) are up for election. There's a pretty progressive woman running against a do-nothing alderman (yeah, hard to guess who specifically, huh?). I heard about her in maybe January. Went to one of her first meetings and thought that I might want to get involved. Then she went and backed a totally party-backed Congressional candidate against a real grassroots candidate. I was pissed. And hurt. And betrayed. How can a candidate say there are reformers and back a party anointed candidate? Well that goes to party politics and the need for the party if she's going to unseat an alderman whose been in that position forever.

Do I support this candidate? Yes. I totally understand why she made the decisions she made. When you're the David in a fight, you need all your friends. Do I worry about her not being reform enough due to having to scratch someone's back? Well, yes...Power corrupts and the path to power is full of corruption. But I think the good she can do for this city outweighs the bad she may do. I have to give her a chance. She can't be any worse than anyone else out there. And she's way better than anyone else out there.

And that brings us to Traister's conclusion:

Where women are now is a hell of a lot closer to political equity, or at least to the executive branch of government, than we've ever been before. That's good news. But it's painful, too. Fourteen years with Hillary Clinton has shown us exactly how much easier it is to hold fast to our politics when we're on the outside looking in. Get within striking distance of the center of power, we face a paralysis of political idealism: What do we give up to get inside? Do we have to bastardize our beliefs to do it? If Clinton is balancing her political ambitions with the principles that motivated her to enter politics in the first place, then perhaps she still does have something in common with feminists: We are balancing our ambitions for her, and ourselves, with the ideals that motivated us to first invest in her.

The reality is we are probably going to vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee, even if we have to hold our noses. Ephron told me she remains lukewarm on the former first lady, but added that "if she comes around on the war, I'm there. And if she gets the nomination, of course I'll vote for her. And I'll give her money. I'm a Democrat."

So maybe that's it. She's a Democrat. She's a woman. So she's not exactly what we thought she could have been, or as Tony Curtis might have said, what we thought we could have been. But in the end, Clinton may just beat the alternative. By a hair.

Added: Allison Hantschel asks if she's a bad feminist for not supporting Hillary's run for President. I say no. But I do want to ask everyone who is pondering this question: Where were you when Carol Moseley Braun ran? Allison mentions Shirley Chisholm, but since then we've had Carol and Patricia run for President. We're not totally lacking, but Hillary's the best shot women have at taking the White House. I'm not saying I want her to be President ok? Just throwing out food for thought.

Labels: abortion, feminism, feministcard

Grab a cuppa something, kick back, and read this op-ed:

You've Come a Long Way, Ladies

By Tina Brown

Thursday, October 13, 2005; Page C01

The healthiest aspect of the Harriet Miers nomination is that women haven't rallied to her cause. Ten years ago, there would have been a lot of reflexive solidarity about keeping the Sandra Day O'Connor spot on the Supreme Court from reverting to male type. But every female lawyer I've spoken with in the past week skips right past the sisterly support into a rant about Miers's meager qualifications or her abject obeisance to power. The good news is that for women, it seems, Miers's nomination is like the moment for blacks in Hollywood when it was suddenly okay to cast an African American actor as something other than a perfect hero. The Sidney Poitier phase is definitively over.

Nevertheless, there's a feminist- or pre-feminist lesson here. Miers's whole story can be read as a cautionary tale for women on the move. It's about the sacrifices she made, the muzzled nature of her striving. The bleakest detail of Miers's r�©sum�© is that her decision to accept Jesus Christ as her savior took place at the office.

Read the rest here...registration is required, but free!

I'll give you my 2 cents after my lunch meeting.

I'm back!

I think that this op-ed is a good sign for feminism in general. Along with Lisa Jervis' piece that I mentioned a week ago, perhaps we are getting away from backing a woman simply because she is a woman. A generation has passed since just getting a woman on a board, elected, in a role was cause for celebration. Now we are at a point where we want to make sure that a feminist/humanist/womanist/progressive is at the table. Someone, woman or man, who will advance our rights, not strip them away. Lisa sums it up at the end of her piece:

If we cling to any gender categories at all, we lose out on tremendous liberatory potential. In other words, the half-witted, sentimental obsession with women that is femmenism causes sloppy thinking, intellectual dishonesty, and massive strategic errors.

Maggie Thatcher is always the example that I hear and I give (well, Condi's now the good example too) of why a woman leader is not always the given road to peace. Tina Brown in her op-ed tells Maggie why feminists should thank her for her service:

Happy Birthday, Lady T -- and hail to you and all the women who've gone before! You won us the freedom to say that if opting for a Harriet Miers means we risk getting not just a sycophant but a stem-cell-banning, abortion-denying, Bible-thumping presidential sycophant, maybe we'd just as soon have a guy.

And that is it. I'd rather have another white man on the Supreme Court, in office, as CEO if that white man will stand up for my rights. I don't need a Clarence Thomas, a Alberto Gonzalez, or a Condi Rice in a leadership position simply because they look like me, share the same gonads, or come from the same barrio.

The Right loves to poo-poo affirmative action, that is until they need to use it to ram some wacko-fundie into some position of authority. "You can't filibuster a Latina!" they cry. Why the hell not? You'd filibuster a bill that would create more educated Latinas if it called for subsidized child care, more student loans, or heck, just equity in school funding. So let's keep our eye on the prize, the end game. Do we want a world full of right-winged women or a world of diverse men and women working towards peace?

Oh...

And as we keep this in mind, we have to also realize that just because NOW is a woman's organization, it's really a feminist organization. And as such, NOW supports candidates who are feminist and sometimes has to decide who is the better feminist. So, get your panties out of your ass if you are a woman candidate and NOW doesn't endorse you. If you're pro-choice, pro-lesbian rights, and pro-everything that NOW stands for, then you're in, most likely, but even just one knock will allow the man candidate to jump in and snag that endorsement from you.

Chicago is set for one of those situations next year as we prep for the Cook Country elections. The last I heard there is a chance that a very feminist white male will run against a very feminist black woman. Who gets the nod from our local NOW PACs? Well, we have to look at their stances first - or should - and then we look at gender. I've had to explain this a zillion times, but in the event of a tie, NOW's commitment to seeing more women elected wins out. IN THE EVENT OF A TIE. So being a woman doesn't guarantee you a nod from NOW. Neither does knowing someone involved in NOW...or at least it shouldn't. But let's watch and see how it plays out, why don't we?

Labels: feministcard

It's just one. But it's a good one. A damn good one. Especially in light of our recent USSC nominee.

If Women Ruled The World, Nothing Would Be Different, by Lisa Jervis

The biggest problem with American feminism today is its obsession with women.

Yes, you heard me: It’s time for those of us who care deeply about eliminating sexism within the context of social justice struggles to stop caring so damn much about what women, as a group, are doing. Because a useful, idealistic, transformative progressive feminism is not about women. It’s about gender, and all the legal and cultural rules that govern it, and power—who has it and what they do with it.

Read the rest here.

I was warned of femmenism by one professor during my undergrad years. She told us how she use to vote just for the women when she didn't know anything else in races like county commissioner, water commissioner, etc. Then she voted for some woman who turned out to be a horrible person - anti-feminist, racist, etc. I listened, but truthfully, I often vote for the female name when I don't know what else to do. That or the Latino-sounding name. Lisa Jervis' piece makes it perfectly clear that we can no longer go thru life like that. We need to do more than just hope for more women. We need more feminists.

Labels: feministcard