Under pressure from the influential and growing ultra-orthodox community, some bus lines in Jerusalem have introduced segregation, with women confined to the rear of the vehicle.
As we can see, a major theme of the world’s major religions is this: Women have cooties. Religious nutjobs have their misogyny accommodated and validated by forcing women to alter our behavior and bodies. Wouldn’t it be great if religious crazies were forced to alter their behavior instead? After all, who has the problem here: a] women, who have committed the heinous crime of merely existing? or b] religious crazies who hate women? I think we all know the answer to that.
Here is what I advocate:
If you’re a man who doesn’t want to ride a bus or a train with women, here are some alternatives for you:
a] Crawl to your destination on your hands and knees;
b] Tie a rope to the back of the bus and let it drag you to your destination;
c] Jump off a tall building, thus killing yourself, thus guaranteeing you’ll never need any form of transportation again because you’re dead.
Easy peasy. Do you see how this works?
If you’re a religious man who hates the sight of “immodest” women because they might fill you with lust and temptation, instead of having women cover themselves from head to toe in fabric to accommodate you, I have another idea. You can avoid seeing immodest women in the following ways:
a] Blindfolding yourself at all times;
b] Gouging out both your eyes with a salad fork;
c] Pouring acid into your eyes.
With options b and c, you’ll never see immodest women again. I guarantee it!
A shift in our way of thinking is all that’s needed to solve these problems.
The issue of face veils and burqas has been in the news a lot lately, with France and other European countries banning the face veil or considering bans. Today, Syria has announced they are banning all face veils in their universities, so this isn’t just an issue confined to Europe. I have previously written on this issue and so want to touch upon these latest controversies.
In my new neighborhood, I see many more women wearing face veils and this is right in Central London. The other day I even saw a woman wearing a complete veil over her face, with no slit for her eyes. It was essentially a hood. I have no idea how she could see at all, but she appeared to be walking down the street unaided. Tonight I went into a Subway sandwich shop and saw a woman wearing a face veil. She was sitting at a table with her husband and kids. As is almost always the case in such situations I’ve seen, the husband seemed to be in his late twenties and was casually dressed in jeans and polo shirt, while his wife was shrouded from head to toe in black fabric. Tonight in Subway, this woman had to lift up the veil in order to eat her sandwich.
I am not a cultural or moral relativist and so I do not hesitate to declare that this practice is dehumanizing and misogynist. End of story. Either a woman is forced, coerced or otherwise compelled to wear a face veil like this, or she has “chosen” it herself because she has completely internalized a patriarchal ideology that devalues her existence. To me, these are the only options, none of them good.
The question of whether to ban this practice is another issue. It’s clear that there are right-wingers who use this issue as part of an anti-Muslim agenda. That’s obvious. But there are others, like me, who abhor patriarchal religious practices, regardless of which religion we’re talking about, and a face veil or burqa is at the extreme end of any religious practice meant to oppress women. I have known Muslim women who said those wearing these face veils are from extremist families, which I think is clear. Many of the women wearing these face veils in Western society have all of their movements controlled by men.
This is Iranian artist Shirin Neshat’s first feature film. It’s playing at a few of the art-house cinemas in London, which is where I saw it recently, but it may be out on DVD soon. Neshat lives in New York now and this film is banned in Iran, as is the novel by Shahrnush Parsipur upon which it’s based. I don’t have time to write a proper review, but see the links at the bottom for more info and the trailer above. Women Without Men is visually a very beautiful film, with magical realist elements. It is the story of four women in Tehran in 1953, a politically turbulent year, thanks in no small part to the actions of the British and Americans. The film links the narratives of four women, who find their way to a house in an orchard outside Tehran, taking refuge from the men in their lives. I found the characters Munis and Zarin to be the most interesting. Munis doesn’t want marriage and yearns to be politically active, but lives under the control of her brother. Zarin is an anorexic prostitute whose story is particularly harrowing and unforgettable. While this is an excellent film that I recommend seeing, I felt towards the end the director lost control of the narrative somewhat; the film became a bit too abstract and symbolic, I think, but this didn’t detract from the overall experience.
Women Without Men is a feminist film, which makes it worth seeing for that alone. How refreshing to see a film that deals with the lives of women in a bold, honest, creative and unforgiving way. While this film is about Iranian women in the 1950s, it is universal in its themes. To find contemporary feminist narratives, I have to search outside the Anglophone world and outside Europe to a large extent, though there are certainly more feminist and politically engaged novels and films coming from mainland Europe than the US and the UK. There seems to be a rich tradition of feminist writing from Iran – or at least Iranians in exile. There is more urgency in these stories, perhaps because complacency is a luxury the authors don’t have. Parsipur’s novel Women Without Men has gone to the top of my reading list.
As has been widely reported, the Vatican has announced that the “attempted ordination” of women as priests is a grave sin, on par with pedophilia. Interesting. I didn’t think that the Vatican considered pedophilia (or maybe we should just call it child rape) to be a grave sin at all. They don’t seem to take it seriously when their priests and bishops do it. So I really think they believe that women priests are worse than pedophiles. Let’s just be honest.
I really have nothing more to say about this, since the rantings of delusional woman-haters don’t interest me. I do think, however, that it’s time the Vatican leadership are treated the same as someone like Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran. Ahmadinejad is an international pariah and deservedly so, but I think the pope and his cronies should be treated just the same. There is no room for people like them in civilized society.
This is a quote from Roman Polanski a year after he went on the run as a fugitive from American justice:
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
To set the record straight, Roman Polanski did not f— a young girl. He drugged and forcibly raped a young girl.
Today he was freed by the Swiss. And people like this asshole from the Guardian are cheering his release and writing that Polanski was a victim of “rampant moral McCarthyism.”
I was going to write about The Daily Show controversy, but you might as well just read this blog post instead. In a nutshell, The Daily Show – you know, that comedy show of liberal, progressive enlightenment – hasn’t had a female correspondent for 7 years. So they finally hire a woman and do you think, like the men on the show, this new female correspondent has a lot of experience working in comedy and improv? No. She has posed on the cover of Maxim, though, and been a co-host of a show for men that requires her to appear half-dressed and in degrading situations. Jon Stewart didn’t want a woman who is the comedic equal of him and the men on the show – he wanted a woman to tantalize men, because that’s what women are good for. Feminists have criticized The Daily Show’s hiring of Olivia Munn, which has resulted in Munn saying stuff like this:
“I never tried to use anything besides my own sweat and blood and talent to get somewhere. I think that anyone who’s out there trying to bring down why any woman would get anywhere, or why we’re different, just needs to fucking turn her fucking computer off, take the sandwich out of her mouth and go for a goddamn walk fucking walk. You know what? Just walk it off, bitch. Just walk it off, bitch.”
This from the new colleague of Jon Stewart, who is so holier-than-thou. If someone on Fox had said something as vile and misogynist as this, can you imagine what Jon Stewart’s reaction would be? The Daily Show has also sent their female staffers on the attack with an open letter (read a parody of the letter here). Of course, send the women out to do your dirty work for you. Sadly, there will never be a shortage of women willing to do it.
Well, I for one would like to say THANK YOU to Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. Yep, that’s right. I think it’s important for feminists to remember that mainstream liberal and “progressive” men are just an old boys’ club that don’t give a sh*t about women or feminists. [For further evidence of this, see Obama v. Clinton.] Furthermore, most mainstream liberal and “progressive” women are their apologists. [For further evidence of this, see Obama v. Clinton.] It’s important to be reminded of this on a regular basis and so I thank you, Jon Stewart. I never really watched Jon Stewart or The Daily Show that much because to me it just screamed boys’ club! And that’s what it is. There are men who are liberals and “progressives” and who are supportive of feminist causes – I know men like that myself, but these men are in the minority and I think it’s important to remember that. Liberals and “progressives” are not feminist allies unless they prove that they are. Feminists should never give them the benefit of the doubt.
Has anyone else noticed that most internet “self-improvement” spam is directed at men? I find this curious, since anything to do with self-improvement is normally directed at women. Indeed, the backbone of the mass media is Women Need Fixing. We’re too fat, too old, too saggy, too hairy, too ugly, too needy, too emotional, too bitchy, too career-driven, etc. etc. Advertisements, newspapers, websites, magazines and television revolve around this theme, offering misogynist analysis, advice and products for women to fix ourselves. This makes it all the more strange that 99% of self-improvement spam online is directed at men. Very rarely do I ever receive spam directed at women. I am bombarded with spam in my personal email accounts and I receive thousands of spam comments for this blog. Even the PhD email list at my university was recently hijacked by spammers. But wherever the spam is, it has the same goal: to sell Viagra or other similar products.
Is there really a huge market for black-market Viagra online? I mean, if you have erectile problems, go to the doctor. I realize this embarrasses many men, but how many men skip the doctor and trawl the internet for counterfeit Viagra sold by a drug dealer in Ecuador? Who would be stupid enough to consume something from such a sketchy source? It could kill you. Still, the proliferation of this spam online really does seem to indicate that they have a high success rate. What’s funny is that these emails are often sent by names that aren’t common in real life, such as “Mohammed O’Brien” or “Juan Schulz.” That’s your first clue something isn’t right. I just don’t understand who would be insane enough to click on these links and order the products. Or am I missing something? I don’t click on the links – do they go somewhere else, such as porn websites?
Of course, a lot of spam is also porn-related, particularly what I receive on this blog, some of it of the most vile nature you can imagine – and then worse, such as child porn. Is the erectile spam related to the abundance of porn on the internet? Is that what this spam reflects? Are the idiots who consume this internet porn being made to feel self-conscious about their male parts, hence the onslaught of erectile spam? I really don’t know, so I’m just musing. It makes me wonder if the internet is really a “male” space because of pornography. If anyone has thoughts about this, let me know. It’s something I can’t quite figure out. You’d think the internet would offer a huge opportunity for con artists targeting women re: weight loss, wrinkles, boob enhancement, etc., but I don’t see that very often.
From an AFP article on the various controversies surrounding the upcoming nuptials of Sweden’s Crown Princess Victoria:
For her big day, the 32-year-old princess has expressed a wish that elsewhere might sound commonplace: She wants to be led to the altar by her father Carl XVI Gustaf and given away to her husband-to-be Daniel Westling.
However in Sweden, renowned for its gender-equality, the request has caused quite a stir, with Archbishop Anders Wejryd openly expressing his disapproval and calling on the couple to follow Swedish tradition and walk side-by-side to the altar.
The drama, illustrated last week with front-page spreads in the Swedish press with pictures of a crestfallen princess and an imposing-looking archbishop, has made unlikely allies of traditionalists and feminists in a fight against what is widely viewed here as an American tradition exported by Hollywood.
“Giving away the bride is a fairly new phenomenon that occasionally happens in the Swedish Church,” Wejryd, who will be performing the ceremony next month at Stockholm’s Saint Nicolaus Church, or Storkyrkan, told Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet.
“I generally advise against it, since our wedding ritual is so clear when it comes to the equality of husband and wife,” he stressed.
This story has been getting a lot of coverage lately. You know, even the religion I grew up in is not as brazenly misogynist as the Catholic Church, which is saying a lot. I don’t have the stomach to write anything about this story at the moment, nor do I even want to think about it. It’s been many years since I freed myself from religion, from the brainwashing and control and hatred that is central to it, but no matter how long it’s been since I left religion behind, there is a place within me that is still filled with rage. It’s always there, right beneath the surface and it’ll never go away. I have to be careful before I open that door and I don’t want to do that tonight. Let me just say this: If you belong to a religion, what that religion does they do in your name. A religion without members would cease to exist. If you can’t take ownership of what your church does, then I don’t understand how you can stay part of it.
Last night, Rima Fakih, an Arab-American, was crowned Miss USA.
“Her win resembles the richness of America. It’s history-making. …These moments bring the prize to all of us as Arab-Americans,” said Imad Hamad, director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Yes, in America every woman can strive to become a degraded and dehumanized sex object, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. It’s all about “equality” for everyone. Hooray! And yes, Ms. Fakih does resemble the “richness” of America, if you believe there’s anything rich and diverse about the contestants in Donald Trump’s corporate beauty pageant, which celebrates the ideals of sexism, thinness, youth, light skin/white supremacy, big breasts and pornification.
In the article I previously linked to, I loved this:
“It’s good for her breaking all barriers,” [Caroline] Sitto said, comparing it to President Barack Obama’s barrier-breaking win.
A man breaks barriers by becoming president; a woman breaks barriers by winning a beauty pageant.
You know, on second thought I think Ms. Fakih’s win does indeed reveal a lot about America.
In the midst of one of the biggest scandals the Catholic Church has faced in modern times, the pope made it clear on this Palm Sunday that he won’t be “intimidated” by “petty gossip.” Did Jesus approve this message beforehand or has Jesus’ spokesman on earth gone rogue? I really wonder. It’s fascinating (and by fascinating I mean sickening) to watch an old man who feels his power and control being threatened. It’s hard to believe we’re talking about the widespread rape of children here.
In other news of the patriarchy, President Obama visited Afghanistan today. Here he is in a photo op with Hamid Karzai, the man who legalized rape:
You know what I’m sick of hearing about? Sandra Bullock and her devastation over her husband’s numerous affairs with tattooed white-supremacist biker women. Sandra Bullock married a man whose previous wife is a hardcore porn star, for crying out loud. Based on this, it should have been blindingly obvious to everyone how he views women and sexuality. Let’s just be honest and face reality. Sandra, did you really think this guy was interested in a white-picket-fence existence and total monogamy and devotion to you? It defies belief that Sandra Bullock could have thought Jesse James was this kind of guy. She could not possibly be that stupid. You don’t choose a life partner whose personal values are diametrically opposed to yours. Sandra chose Jesse James and she knew what he was like. His previous marriage was chronicled on reality TV and it’s not a secret. He did not morph into a new person to marry Sandra. Her “shock” now is not believable.
This whole thing is a tiresome media charade. Sandra Bullock has cultivated an image as a Girl Next Door type – she’s a product and that image is what she’s selling and protecting now at all costs. I cannot believe that behind closed doors, she is actually this all-American apple-pie loving straight-laced mainstream lady, which is how she wants America to view her. Her choice of husband makes it virtually impossible to believe that she wants this kind of lifestyle in private. When she married Jesse James, the media played along and didn’t raise questions about why America’s Sweetheart would want to marry a guy who is very comfortable in the porn and biker world. Jesse James was painted as a quaint “bad boy” type who’d been reformed by Sandra’s love. Sandra’s image was never questioned and the media continued to spread its fictions about Sandra’s “perfect” fairy tale life. Jesse James’s past was glossed right over. Now everyone can pretend to be shocked – just shocked – that he has cheated on Sandra. These embarrassing public revelations of Jesse James’s affairs have the potential to expose Sandra Bullock’s personal life to the public in a way that will shatter her carefully constructed image – an image that is worth a lot of money, just like a major corporation. So the media plays along that Sandra is devastated and shocked that her porn-star-loving husband would dare to have sex outside of marriage. Gasp! Who could have ever imagined that Jesse James is not monogamous?!?! Oh, I don’t know – anyone with an ounce of common sense?
XINRAN XUE, a Chinese writer, describes visiting a peasant family in the Yimeng area of Shandong province. The wife was giving birth. “We had scarcely sat down in the kitchen”, she writes, “when we heard a moan of pain from the bedroom next door…The cries from the inner room grew louder—and abruptly stopped. There was a low sob, and then a man’s gruff voice said accusingly: ‘Useless thing!’
“Suddenly, I thought I heard a slight movement in the slops pail behind me,” Miss Xinran remembers. “To my absolute horror, I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail. The midwife must have dropped that tiny baby alive into the slops pail! I nearly threw myself at it, but the two policemen [who had accompanied me] held my shoulders in a firm grip. ‘Don’t move, you can’t save it, it’s too late.’
“‘But that’s…murder…and you’re the police!’ The little foot was still now. The policemen held on to me for a few more minutes. ‘Doing a baby girl is not a big thing around here,’ [an] older woman said comfortingly. ‘That’s a living child,’ I said in a shaking voice, pointing at the slops pail. ‘It’s not a child,’ she corrected me. ‘It’s a girl baby, and we can’t keep it. Around these parts, you can’t get by without a son. Girl babies don’t count.’”
The Economist has recently published a couple articles on “gendercide” and the 100 million “missing girls” that have been killed, aborted or neglected, primarily in Asian countries. [Article 1, Article 2] The statistics quoted in these articles are just shocking. A combination of the traditional, misogynist preference for boys, ultrasound technology and smaller families are resulting in millions of girls being literally wiped out from large sections of the planet. The hatred of women in this world knows no bounds – and it is increasing. Why everyone is not committed to a feminist movement to end sexist oppression is a mystery to me. If you’re not a feminist female or a pro-feminist male, ask yourself why.
I fear the only reason governments will tackle this problem will be because of supply and demand – when there aren’t enough females (or merely vaginas and wombs) to go around, then they’ll have to do something. The underlying misogyny will go unaddressed.
The people engaging in this behavior are of course too stupid to foresee the consequences of their actions. And it’s not just uneducated peasants doing this – middle-class, well-educated couples in China, India and elsewhere are aborting female fetuses in large numbers. By 2020, “China faces the prospect of having the equivalent of the whole young male population of America, or almost twice that of Europe’s three largest countries, with little prospect of marriage, untethered to a home of their own and without the stake in society that marriage and children provide.”
It’s ironic that the families engaging in this kind of behavior will ultimately ensure their own destruction. When their precious sons grow up, they will have no one to marry or impregnate and the family line will die out. There is justice in that and I look forward to the day when the people doing this reap what they’ve sown. You can’t fuck with Mother Nature. In the end, she always wins.
I didn’t see the Oscars (were they even on here?) but I guess the big news is that Kathryn Bigelow won for Best Director, the first woman ever to do so in the history of the Academy Awards. Of course, this is just a reflection of how little power and influence women have in Hollywood. While I guess it’s a positive thing that the glass ceiling has been chipped in some small, symbolic way, I couldn’t help but think of this passage I just read in the new translation of Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”:
“Women’s actions have never been more than symbolic agitation; they have won only what men have been willing to concede to them; they have taken nothing; they have received.”
I think this applies here. I don’t see any major reason to celebrate. What would be better is if women withdrew from Hollywood in protest over sexism – women refused to act in films (without women’s bodies, where would Hollywood be?), women refused to work behind the scenes, women refused to fetch coffee, women refused to see films. Bring Hollywood to its knees and then demand the changes you want. Don’t wait 82 years for them to throw you a scrap and then call it progress.
And with that…Happy International Women’s Day! xx
[The Second Sex- page 8; Borde and Malovany-Chevallier, translators.]
When it comes to pop music, I am really behind the times, so don’t laugh. I’ve heard snippets of Beyonce’s song “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)” but I never really paid attention to it until recently. This song was considered one of the “best” songs of 2008 and I’m sure everyone knows it but me. When I heard this whole song recently and read the lyrics, I was aghast:
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
Don’t be mad once you see that he want it
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
It? Put a ring on it? He want it? Women in pop culture are often treated as objects, as things, so now I guess Beyonce has internalized this way of thinking to the extent that she refers to herself this way directly. IT. This song is a perfect example of what is sometimes referred to as “the new sexism,” where what is undeniably sexist is suddenly considered “empowering.” Indeed, in researching this song online, it is repeatedly referred to as “empowering” and “feminist.” In a world where Sex and the City has set the bar for what is considered feminist, I shouldn’t be surprised. All of these things are a perfect example of the way that capitalism can absorb – and ultimately distort and attempt to destroy – movements for justice and equality, such as feminism.
Like so much of what is considered “feminist” nowadays by the mainstream culture, “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)” is an endorsement of conservative, heteronormative values that celebrate women’s subordinate place in society. This song could be played at the Republican National Convention, so perfectly does it embody right-wing values. Despite this, a great many women think this song is a feminist anthem.
It’s stuff like this that just makes me want to give up. Thank heavens I only listen to the radio once a year.
John Mayer’s interview in the current issue of Playboy has made news since in it he said he isn’t interested in black women because, “My dick is sort of like a white supremacist” and then he compared his penis to former Klan member David Duke. His racism has already been covered extensively (and Mayer even offered a “tearful” apology), but I read the whole interview myself and wanted to comment on something else. [I won't provide a link because I don't link to porn sites, but if you want to read the interview it's easy to find online.]
In the interview, Mayer talks about his love of porn. In fact, he says that he prefers masturbation to sex. About porn, he says: “You wake up in the morning, open a thumbnail page, and it leads to a Pandora’s box of visuals. There have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed.”
There have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed. When I read this, I really wanted to barf. It’s such a perfect example of the way that pornography dehumanizes women by reducing us to nothing but parts – or, more specifically, “holes.”
However, despite what a scumbag he is, there is something to be learned from John Mayer. Of porn, he says: “Internet pornography has absolutely changed my generation’s expectations.” He describes how it’s never enough and you have to just keep searching for something better. He says: “How does that not affect the psychology of having a relationship with somebody? It’s got to.” Of course it does. And John Mayer is living proof of that. He presents himself as an utterly misogynistic, racist asshole who is incapable of actually having a respectful relationship with a real human woman. While he can’t blame all of this on porn, his exposure to it and obsession with it obviously affects him in a serious way.
I recently read a great book about the topic of men and porn by Robert Jensen called Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Jensen is a radical feminist and he wrote this book specifically for men, but as a woman I found it extremely valuable. He is an academic, but this is not an academic text – it’s reader-friendly and short. It’s an excellent critique of the porn industry and how the values of traditional “masculinity” often mirror the dominance and cruelty seen in pornography. Pornography is just a reflection of the misogyny in our culture.
One thing Jensen touches upon is the cruelty in pornography. Despite what porn apologists claim, cruelty is a hallmark of mainstream heterosexual porn, not just so-called “extreme” porn. Jensen writes:
“When most non-pornographic films, such as typical Hollywood romance, deal with sex they draw on the emotions most commonly connected with sex — love and affection. But pornography doesn’t, because films that exist to provide sexual stimulation for men in this culture wouldn’t work if the sex were presented in the context of loving and affectionate relationships. Men typically consume pornography specifically to avoid love and affection. That means pornography has a problem. When all emotion is drained from sex it becomes repetitive and uniteresting, even to men who are watching it primarily to facilitate masturbation. Because the novelty of seeing sex on the screen eventually wears off, pornography needs an edge. Pornography has to draw on some emotion, hence the cruelty.” [page 76.]
Since I’ve been researching pornography for my novel and PhD, this is the thing that’s struck me the most – the cruelty and contempt for women that exists throughout pornography. And to think of all those out there, like John Mayer, who exist on a steady diet of porn and have their views of women and sexuality shaped by it. If we believe pornographers and their left-wing apologists, porn has absolutely no affect on its viewers’ attitudes towards women. The sad thing is that so many people are stupid enough to believe that.
“In one survey, women and men were asked what they were most afraid of. Women responded that they were most afraid of being raped and murdered. Men responded that they were most afraid of being laughed at.”
-Michael S. Kimmel, “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity”
Anglofille said @ 12:45 am | feminism | Permalink | Comments are off
This week marks the first anniversary of Barack Obama’s presidency. Last night I read this post at Black Agenda Report about “Progressives for Obama” having to change their name, since Obama – or is it Obomba – isn’t the least bit progressive. I would like to highlight some of this post, since it’s relevant to Obama’s first anniversary:
The organization formerly known as “Progressives for Obama” has changed its name. After almost a year of President Obama’s massive transfers of the people’s wealth to Wall Street, his escalation of U.S. wars in South Asia, his shameless alliance with insurance and drug corporations, and his callous disregard for Depression-level Black unemployment, even the president’s most loyal sycophants on the Left are running for cover. It’s not a pretty sight.
“Progressives for Obama” are now calling themselves “Progressive America Rising.” Two of the founding members, Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden, are making uncharacteristically loud anti-Obama noises and acting as if they played no role in convincing Obama that he could make war and serve corporate interests to his heart’s content, without fear of any trouble from the Left. They had his back.
The left-wing Obamites were the nastiest of all. They viciously libeled anyone that advanced a Left critique of their hero, calling them enemies of a new “people’s movement,” when in fact it was they who were shutting the movement down in favor of a fan club and cheering section for Obama…Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden stuck with Obama like little sorcerer’s apprentices as the president methodically savaged virtually every item on the progressive agenda. What else could they do? To break with Obama would amount to an admission that they were wrong about the progressive “potential” of their candidate; that he had always been a thoroughly corporate politician who would lurch to the Right as soon as he took office; and that, by failing to criticize Obama early in the campaign, they were guaranteeing that he would disrespect and ignore Blacks and progressives, once in office.
“The left-wing Obamites were the nastiest of all.” This resonates with me, since I experienced it first-hand during the campaign. What bothers me the most is that so many of Obama’s most strident supporters, particularly in the blogosphere, are virtually silent about Obama now. They don’t even mention him. I received so many lectures during the campaign from self-righteous people claiming that they refused to vote for Hillary because she was in favor of the war in Iraq. Well, to those people: How’s your “anti-war” vote for Obomba working out for you now? I hear nothing but silence on this issue. I wish you would take ownership of your behavior during the campaign and have the guts to admit you were wrong. Not only is Obama pro-war and in bed with corporate America, he’s turned his back on women’s rights, but Obama’s mainstream liberal feminist cheerleaders are largely silent on this matter. “Stop Stupak!” is a familiar refrain, as if Stupak came from outer space and not from a Democratically controlled White House and Congress.
Barack Obama mania was really just a successful advertising campaign. There was a product – Obama – and people were whipped into a frenzy over him. Now, not surprisingly, they’ve lost interest. Obama mania was a fad and an opportunity for people to feel smug and pat themselves on the back – it wasn’t about real change. No candidate in favor of real change would have gotten anywhere near the reins of power.
Would Hillary Clinton have done any better than Obama? No, she wouldn’t have. She would have sold out just like him. The reason I was upset during the campaign was not because Obama supporters were attacking Hillary – it was because they were being dishonest about Obama and just being dishonest, period. And they still don’t have the courage to admit it. [And of course, the rampant misogyny, a lot of it coming from the Left, disgusted me the most.]
As for me, I can’t imagine ever voting Democrat again. In order for things to change, we must address the root problems. Placing Democrats and Republicans into office will never result in change. Never. I have also broken off from mainstream liberal feminism and have embraced more radical feminist ideas as a result of this whole Obama experience. “Radical” is from the Latin for “root.” It means going to the “root” of the problem and overthrowing systems of power that oppress people. This cannot be done within the status quo of Washington politics. Without radical reform, change will never happen. If more of us have learned this lesson as a result of Obama’s campaign and election and presidency, then at least something good has come out of this very ugly time in American politics.
Anglofille is an American living in London, finishing up a novel and a PhD, taking photos, and blogging about expat life, books, feminism and perpetual angst.
Anglofille: Wow, thanks everyone! This is very very helpful. I am in the midst of moving, so have spotty internet...
Paul: I’m slightly shamed by the number of songs in this category I can furnish you with if need be. Some are...
lisa: Congrats on the last months of your PHD. Don’t give up on your commentaries!! We enjoy them.
Dorothy: If one or some of the women are well into Reiki, then they could move the truck no problem. Even one...
Sydney: An initial deposit of 700 with monthly deposits of 700 at 3% compounded monthly would total $122,154.86....
Sydney: I don’t think so on the small pickup truck. I’m a fairly large woman and I and 3 reasonably sized...
SpliceGirl: Oh, and just e-mail Dad about the Vietnam thing and the interest amount for the bank account. You might...
SpliceGirl: Well, well…not PAYING for research assistants anymore? For shame! # 3-The lyrics aren’t the...
HHiP: hmm I can only help you out with a few: 2 – yes, plenty, some have full out terraces/beer gardens (that...
Caroline: Ken is so smart! Plenty of pubs in NY have outside seating. I think to roll over the pickup truck you might...
