A vote for Barack is not a vote against all of womankind. Is it?
Posted 25 weeks 3 days ago byThis seems like a conservative parody of liberal attitudes, but apparently it's the real thing:
Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. ... He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton.
This, from the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. And it gets a good deal more, um, scathing from there. I'm guessing the national organization will distance itself from these remarks.
So, to answer the question in the title: A vote for Barack Obama isn't necessarily a vote against women. It's possible, I suppose, but unlikely -- and, I think extremely unlikely where Sen. Kennedy is involved.
The kind of person who would vote against Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, I think, is generally also the kind of person who would vote against Obama because of his race. It's hard to be enlightened on the one hand and retrograde on the other.
Still, this provides a good opportunity to link to Courtney Martin's article on why race and gender still matter. Highlight:
As Katha Pollit put it so succinctly in The Nation, "It's crucial not to get into an oppression sweepstakes." We shouldn't let the media pit us against one another so that we waste valuable energy defending our own victimhood. Instead, we should be doing the difficult work of coalition building, embracing multiple issues as critical to our collective liberal agenda to make America more just and equal on all fronts.
Thoughts
Hillary
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by AnonymousConsidering that Obama and Clinton are very close in policies..It is hard to believe that gender bias is not playing a role in the decision of who men and some women support. The US is falling behind many countries on how women are perceived as potential leaders, even Chile and Argentina are more progressive.
its TRUE!
Submitted on January 30th, 2008 by alicescheshirecatits so true!
I get more flack from clinton supporters who are women that are so so angry with me because I'm not a clinton supporter. like somehow I'm hurting our entire gender or I'm disloyal to all women. Seriously, its been enough to go from just not being an HRC supporter to being a militant anti-HRC person... and I use to be crazy about Clinton before...
Wait I am being voted against?
Submitted on January 29th, 2008 by ElizabethDang... there I am just sitting on my pink couch and I am being voted against....Shoot. So when I go in and vote for Obama I am voting against myself. Wow that is too heavy....
Is it just me or is this logic once again taking people away from the real issues?
Who cares about the details, we just need a human in office who can fix things.
Re: So why isn't a vote against ...
Submitted on January 29th, 2008 by Jim LakelyJo writes:
Because Obama and Michelle don't have a "two for one deal" history behind them, like Bill and Hill. Michelle also hasn't been president before, nor has she the kind of domineering gotta-have-the-spotlight-to-breathe personality that Bill has displayed all his adult life.
It is not misogynistic against Hillary to point these things out. I see it as more of a Bill problem. Besides, it should not be sexist to note the fact that Hillary touts her experience in the White House (" ... Me and Bill did this, Bill and I did that..") in their "co-presidency" as her main qualification to now be President 1a to Bill's President 1b.
As I've said before, the two-for-one deal is not so easily canceled.
So why isn't a vote against
Submitted on January 29th, 2008 by JoSo why isn't a vote against Obama a vote against Barack and Michelle? (Yes, I know he hasn't been president yet). Who questions George Bush's competency based on his daughters' various escapades?
What your post sounds like von, whether intended or not, is an implication that both Hilary and Bill will be president if she's elected; that somehow she won't be able to keep him out of the Oval Office, like he'd be running things instead of her. That doesn't sound like a very non-misogynist thought to me.
a vote against a woman? no...
Submitted on January 28th, 2008 by vonA vote against Hillary is a vote against Hillary and Bill; I would vote for Hillary but she has this dysfunctional family thing going on. It all opens up just way too many questions about down the road....the fact that it is even going on is very telling.
Re: Good to hear
Submitted on January 28th, 2008 by Jim LakelyNice re-write on that one, dots. I think Joel's citation of Courtney E. Martin's piece at The American Prospect could use a little parsing, too.
I think it's a little rich to blame the media for this one, especially when it's Camp Clinton that's doing the pitting.
When you spend a generation investing in the politics of victimhood, don't be so shocked when the distasteful, distracting and inconvenient returns come in.
Good to hear
Submitted on January 28th, 2008 by dots"The kind of person who would vote against Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, I think, is generally also the kind of person who would vote against Obama because of his race. It's hard to be enlightened on the one hand and retrograde on the other."
I edit:
The kind of person who would vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, I think, is generally also the kind of person who would vote for Obama because of his race.