As a woman and a feminist, I don't understand how other women don't see that voting

[BklynChick]

for Obama is going to help ALL of us. In the same way that affirmative action actually helped white women (some would argue that it helped white women more than people of color), electing the first Black president helps any formerly oppressed and/or disenfranchised group of people because it helps everyone in our country and in the world see the possibilities of anyone breaking through that glass ceiling. Plus, and this should be a given, Obama will do more for women's causes and feminism and McCain will just continue to set us back.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freedomofspeech]

2. I don't understand how any woman could vote for McCain...

just because of his total lack of respect for women (his own wives).

[glowing]

3. Limpballs was on the other day.. station was tuned in when I started the

car and he was talking about how.. they always let the colored man achieve before female in this country.. always.. like the right to vote... blah, blah, blah.

He's really stirring some shit.. like he cares about women's rights issues anyways...

I turned it after that..

But you know its not always the case.. think back to the American Idol season 1.. Kelly and Justin... the woman won in that contest at the end... so, he's full of shit. America picks the best and brightest and who they feel will represent the will of the people.. this year it was the right mood and feeling for an outsider to take it all the way.. it had nothing to do with woman/ man in a lot of people's eyes.. some people allow hate to feed their lives.. many other's have looked, listened and paid attention.

[Kahuna]

4. I wonder where he got those talking points from?...Hmmmm

:grr:

[glowing]

14. Well.. the same place he gets all his talking points..

I am so tired of talk radio.. there is wayyyy too much right-sided b.s. hate.. its amazing how much of it there is.. and often, how clever they are.. they start with a fact or a research tid bit, and where most people would logically take a step this way, they spin that way and its more of a stretch to see it their way.. but if enough people are saying the same thing on the radio... and its backed up with a few wingnut pro callers, its hard to seperate this spin they are doing on you. Best thing.. turn it off and walk into the library or go on internet and research what they are saying.

My favorite spinner is this radio guy who it local.. who says I have thousands of pages of research on global warming and its all b.s... well, what are you using for sources? AND why are you trying to uphold using more and more oil when we know it has lead to wars and famines and genocide... Why are you not pushing to get off oil and for new improved ways to garner energy? I don't care what studies are what, we know that oil has become a resource that war is waged for; that small countries are over run for; that oil companies plunder and use our military as security forces (anyone check out the permanet bases that they want stationed in Iraq--they are all along the pipe line).

Spin sucks.. what sucks more is the lack of people's interest in verifying or getting involved... which is why things are starting to change.. people are asking questions and finding out the answers.. thank in large part to the internet which allows the darkest of corners to be filled with light...

[flor de jasmim]

5. People should read "The Obama before Obama" (link within)

Here is an excerpt (it's well worth reading the rest):


The 'Obama Before Obama'
Pioneering Native Son of Louisa, Va., Blazed Trails Under History's Radar

By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 7, 2008; A01


LOUISA, Va. -- Planted in the lawn at the courthouse on West Main Street here is a gray historical marker that draws little attention. It proudly proclaims that the country's first black elected official was native son John Mercer Langston, born in this central Virginia county, the son of a wealthy white planter and an emancipated slave of Indian and black ancestry.

History seems to whisper more often than it shouts. Langston was one of the most extraordinary men of the 19th century, and yet his achievements -- prominent abolitionist, first black congressman from Virginia, founder of what would become the Howard University law school -- have largely been forgotten. In the arc of American advancement toward black political empowerment, Langston represents the symbolic beginning. Elected township clerk of Brownhelm, Ohio, on April 2, 1855, he became, by many accounts, the first "Negro" elevated to public office by popular vote.

It took 153 years to get from John Mercer Langston to Barack Hussein Obama, a journey that endured the dashed hopes of Reconstruction and the oppression of Jim Crow to arrive at a moment that has stunned even those optimistic about America's racial progress. An underdog black politician has secured a major party's presidential nomination in a country where less than 4 percent of its elected officials are African Americans?

"You have to wake up and shake yourself," said historian William Cheek, who co-authored "John Mercer Langston and the Fight for Black Freedom, 1829-65" with wife Aimee Lee Cheek. The couple is now at work on a second volume about Langston, whom, as Cheek put it, "was Obama before Obama."

Slim and debonair, and of mixed-raced parentage, Langston was highly educated, an expert in constitutional law, a community organizer (he went around Ohio setting up schools) and a soaring orator who sought to unify a divided country after the Civil War. Cheek finds ironic symmetry in the fact that the first black elected official in the land bears remarkable similarities to the man who could be the first black president.

"I wished we could have seen this in the 1850s," Cheek said of Obama's achievement. "Langston was certainly capable of being president in the 19th century. But it's not a long time if you understand how deep-seated racism is -- from 1619 all the way to the present. Just bottomless racism. It's too long for those of us who care, but I can understand it has taken this long."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060604509_pf.html

[madaboutharry]

6. I think I understand where they're coming from.

I most certainly do not agree with their thinking, but I understand. Most of the women who are saying that they will not vote for Obama are women with a particular world view. They are die hard feminist who looked to Hillary Clinton to break the mold and become the first woman president. They are angry that this upstart came out of nowhere and snatched away her chance. I don't think they even see Obama as a black man making history, rather they see him as a MAN. These are women, in my opinion, who have their own histories and agendas that have caused them to see the world in a way in which men are seen as having stood in the way of their advancement and success. To them, this nomination is not about change. It is about sexism and the same old story of a competent woman being pushed aside.

It is Hillary Clinton's job now to bring them around since I think she has stirred this pot plenty over the past months.

[dansolo]

17. These women are more concerned with themselves than women in general

There appears to be a sense of identification with Hillary, and they're living vicariously through her. They take her defeat personally. That I can understand. What I find unforgivable is that they take their own personal disappointment, and project it as an attack on all women, as if their feelings represent the whole of all womenkind. But in reality, they only represent a small fraction of women, and my impression is that they have very little regard for women who don't fit into their demographic, like younger women and minority women.

[Mezzo]

7. as a woman and a feminist let me help you to understand...

Barack Obama hasn't exactly defined anything yet. He does a LOT of triangulation, and there aren't a lot of actions to back up his rhetoric. Before you go dismissing that as concern trolling, maybe it'd help to know where people are coming from.

How do you KNOW he's there to help all of us, and not a dlc guy? He could be a corporation man, no one has any real way of knowing. (And don't tell me a supposed speech that no one has any record of is tatamount to Mr. Smith goes to Washington, because it just ain't. )

[Kahuna]

8. If he were a "corporation man" he'd be grubbing for THEIR money

instead of the money of the people. Obama is beholden to the voters, not the corporations. Even YOU should be able to grasp that.

[mcctatas]

19. I'm not trying to be combative or snarky....

but aside from being a woman running for the highest office in the land, what did Hillary define? I never heard her put forth any kind of reconciliation policies or offer any specifics on gender equality issues. She spent alot of time pointing out inequality and saying that things have to change, but as far as I know she never offered any concrete solutions. As far as the DLC, we all know Hillary is a part of that particular group, does she get a pass becuase she's a woman?

"2008 Presidential Primary
In the Democratic primary in 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton are both prominent members of the DLC, while presumptive nominee Senator Barack Obama opposes the DLC - in 2003, he discussed why his positions against NAFTA, the War in Iraq, and in support of universal healthcare were at odds with the DLC, saying that "...these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC. That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." <12>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council#2008_Presidential_Primary

[TheWraith]

23. Your obsession with bashing Obama blinds you.

How can you prove Obama's not DLC, besides the fact that he's openly opposed to DLC policy? Well, how can I prove you're not really a Republican? After all, just saying you're not means nothing. :eyes"

See how silly that argument is? Now, if you could actually provide evidence of this "triangulation" you claim, then you might have something to stand on. But coming from a supporter of the Clintons, who put "triangulation" into the dictionary, I have a hard time buying random accusations.

[Honeycombe8]

9. The Dem. Party as a whole supports feminist issues more so than the other major party. nt

[Snotcicles]

10. Dear women: Vote like your granddaughter's induction letter depends on it. nt

[frogcycle]

11. agreed

look folks, there is only one Presidency. So only one glass ceiling can be broken at a time. Sure, Hillary was on track to be the first female President. But somehow thinking Obama should have "waited his turn" is just plain wrong. If you champion equal opportunity, then he had an equal right to run and compete on a level playing field. Whatever sexist bias there was against her did not hurt her any more than racist bias against him. And before you start trying to prove that statement wrong with various anecdotes, let me say that it ultimately doesn't matter. There are two glass ceilings; there are two legacies of bias, and they are both being assaulted concurrently, with dramatic success. There is synergy in that. Go with the flow!

Hillary was spot on in referencing the suffragettes et al. Enormous progress was made and should be savored. Disappointment? Sure! But pouting and dropping out? No WAY! Whether there is some day a President HR Clinton or not, there certainly will be a female President, and I would expect her to say "Thank you, Hillary."

[seaglass]

12. Because they are not looking at that yet. They are po'd for a number

of reasons, some I agree with, some I don't and stating that they will vote for McCain/never vote for Obama is an anger reaction. Pushing and berating right now is not going to work, what will work is time and perspective.

When your back is up against the wall, do you fight back or surrender?

I think Obama will know the correct strategy to move the majority of these women to his side. Many will come over on their own.

[cloudythescribbler]

13. In the context of all this, should we REALLY dismiss having a woman in the VP spot this year ...

as mere pandering or tokenism? It seems to me that, although I have a lot of problems with HRC being on the ticket (though it wouldn't reduce my support, just my optimism), this year it almost seems inapt to have the Democrats, as in all but one national election in its history, put forward a male-male ticket in a year when, if nothing derails the current political trend, the Democrats should be able to win the White House.

I feel strongly also that the running mate should be someone who NEVER supported the Iraq War Resolution. So, finding a woman who CLEARLY has the credentials/"experience" to be president (under what is apt, for several reasons, to be heightened "scrutiny" or rather klieg-light gotcha), who does NOT have HRC's high negatives and baggage AND who never supported the IWR when the war policy was popular (which we should remind ourselves, at one point it was) -- produces a reasonably short list from which to pick a nominee ...

At any rate, no one got so agonized, in my recollection, about choosing a woman to run on the ticket in 84 -- but perhaps that's because (and accurately so) Mondale was not generally expected to even come close to winning...

[DeschutesRiver]

15. Just like with men, not all women are created equally

There are plenty of men and women out there that can't reason well and make bad choices.

I think some can handle a discussion about this, and others will act like asses and completely shut down and shut their ears and minds to it. The latter group I am writing off - they will probably end up sitting home in confusion anyway.

Others I think I can reach with reason. But first I have to figure out myself how come they don't see this easily, so I can target my queries to them and maybe let them see the issue from another angle.

[BlooInBloo]

16. To certain sorts of people, some things are more important than helping feminism....

or even supporting their own interests.

[loyalsister]

18. It seems to me that some women misunderstand history

Some misunderstand previous feminist movements even if they marched.
Some don't have a grasp of first, second, and third wave feminism in full context.
Many have not taken time to consider what feminism actually means in relation to other varieties of identity politics.
If the goal is truly equality, they would know something about African American history, disability history, immigration, Indian American affairs, Gay rights, etc.
The goal should be equality for everyone. Those who have been oppressed are in a unique position to be finally represented by one of our own.
I say that as a white woman. To me, the fact that Obama has dealt with having trouble flagging cabs tells me that he can relate to some of the things I have had to deal with when men make assumptions about me based on my sex.

Many women who relate to Hillary are those who have dealt with marrital problems (empathy goes a long way), or who see themselves as part of the power stucture.
Also, I think they are not so much racist but they don't want their advancement to be threatened by breaking current stereotypes of black men.

[sfam]

20. They clearly believe that Hillary's candidacy was stolen and that this is...

more important than any issue. In looking at their blog comments, they wrap it in the "McCain is more qualified" language, and significantly downplay any accomplishment Obama ever has, but I think the real issue is they see Hillary is a symbol of struggles in their own lives, and feed a narrative that says they have been shafted personally time and time again, just like they see Hillary. They see this injustice as far greater than any issue, including women's rights issues.

I don't agree with any of this, BTW, but I know someone very well who feels this way - someone who has voted Democratic their whole life but will never vote for Obama. The perception is that EVERYONE knows that Hillary is by far the best candidate, so the only reason they would choose Obama is due to sexism. The comments in the media support their perception that everyone was out to get Hillary. Never a mention is made of any of Hillary's horrid strategic problems, attacks, or anything else.

[OzarkDem]

21. Working in the corporate world for many years

has taught me that helping a guy get promoted is never the way to getting a promotion yourself.

Women have to be strong and believe in themselves and have the courage to push to be leaders themselves. No one else is going to do it for them. Women are more than worthy, more than qualified, more than capable of leading themselves. They just have to learn to have confidence in their own ability and in the ability of other women leaders. In our culture, that's a difficult task, but definitely one worth pursuing.

The first step is to love and respect yourself as a woman. That will give you the confidence to take charge and accept the fact that women can be leaders in their own right, without having to rely on a man to do it for them.

[Umbram]

22. "The first step is to love and respect yourself as a woman."

Condescending.

[OzarkDem]

24. No, its fact

[LeFleur1]

25. YOU DON'T GET IT

The media and bloggers insulted Hillary, and other women in the process. They called her names unfit for anyone, especially someone who has worked hard for America, women's and children's causes. It's not about her losing the nomination, although that is disappointing.

It's about the fact that the Democratic Party did NOT acknowledge the crap that was being said, they did not come to her defense by saying no woman should be called insulting gender names and disparaged in that way. That inaction insulted every woman, and sent a message to women who are Democrats that the party doesn't respect them. The party might want their votes, but they aren't particularly concerned about the gender battles they have to fight in every day life if they step into a man's world.

It has nothing to do with McCain, really nothing to do with Obama, except that he, too could have said it was wrong (for the sake of his little girls), it has nothing to do with having tantrums, or being a troll. It has to do with disappointed with, and rage at the Party, and it has to do with Obama's disregard for women. If this party doesn't care how women are treated why would women care about this party?

Nothing Hillary says will clinch my vote for Obama. Obama has to earn my vote.

[yourguide]

28. End all your drama and vote for Obama.

Stop blaming everyone on the planet for the wrongs that were heaped upon your candidate.

There were many racially charged statements against the Obama campaign also set forth by the media.

For you for a moment to suggest if you REALLY support women that you might not vote for Obama and MIGHT vote for McCain you need to grow the F up. This is the same McCain who called his own wife a C*nt, the same McCain who made a joke about Chelsea being ugly because her father is Janet Reno, the same McCain who will likely hire a supreme court justice who will take away women's right to choose.

Get a grip.

[Umbram]

30. I do get it.

I understand perfectly that you are presently unwilling to be rational.

"It's about the fact that the Democratic Party did NOT acknowledge the crap that was being said, they did not come to her defense by saying no woman should be called insulting gender names and disparaged in that way."

Nor did the Party speak out about the racist BS that occurred both in the media and on the internet. How, exactly, do you envision that the Party should have spoken out? Would there be a sense of the senate that "Sexism is bad"? There was plenty of sexism and racism in this primary. Why the hell would any sane person blame the Democratic Party? It's not even rational. Boycott the media outlets, call advertisers, etc.

Had Obama lost, should I have refused to vote for the Party because people on the internet called him the "affirmative action" candidate or because people in the media suggested that he is only where he is because of his race? That's ridiculous. I would be supporting Clinton if Obama lost, not blaming the only party that will stand up for the basic freedoms that are important to me.

[muryan]

31. You act as if Obama has gotten a free pass

Theres a large portion of the country who thinks he's a muslim. There are Hillary supporters who think he will force slavery on white people (wtf?). Don't punish Obama because of the media, I wouldn't do the same to Hillary.

[yourguide]

26. Bollocks.

If you are part of a team, you help your team mates.

I have spent nearly 15 years in one industry and I am now the GM of small company in the same industry.

Every person I helped, male or female, ended up helping me along the way get to where I am today.

It's about the team, not about dividing the team along gender lines.

[PretzelWarrior]

27. great. you did that by supporting Hillary

now look at how Obama treats his wife and how McCain treats his wife. Judged on that alone the choice should be clear for you on who to vote for.

[grannylib]

29. As a woman and a feminist, I feel it's against the bedrock of feminist

principals to vote for ANYONE based on gender. Voting should be based on ISSUES. Yes, I would have been thrilled to elect the first woman president, and Senator Clinton is well qualified and would have done a fine job, IMHO. I don't believe she lost the nomination because she is a woman; I think she would have won the presidency had she gotten the nomination.

I think those who would vote for a rePigliCon MAN over a Democratic MAN just because they didn't get their first choice of a WOMAN are not seeing the forest for the trees. McCain would set women's rights back DECADES and we wouldn't recover in my LIFETIME, and maybe not in my grandchildren's lifetime. Women CANNOT AFFORD to let any more rePigliCon MEN appoint anyone to the Supreme Court.