Suburban Guerrilla

Patriarchy

Feb 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am by Susie

We know, of course, that middle-aged white women no longer have a legitimate say in the Democratic party. But I thought this was interesting, anyway.

Posted in Full Frontal Feminism, Politics As Usual

29 Responses to “Patriarchy”

on 15 Feb 2008 at 9:18 am1snuzy mandrake

i hope so. the saddest thing about this race is about how it’s effectively turned into a joke. i keep seeing clinton proponents reduce obama to an empty suit, his followers to a bunch of cultists, and claim that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is sexist. likewise, clinton does get treated terribly by the media, everyone named “clinton” always does but those who also have “rodham” always get it worse.

it’s really sad. we actually have too good candidates for once. each one has a loyal dedicated base and isn’t just a compromise candidate (like say, kerry was). people say that candidates are just rhetoric and yet, for the first time in my memory, each campaign has released detailed plans for health care, foreign policy, the economy etc. which have been posted on their respective web sites for months. both candidates have the most substantive candidacies in modern history and yet most of what you read when each side criticizes the other simply pretends that doesn’t exist.

i mean if ericka jong doesn’t know what obama stands for, she obviously hasn’t been to his web site. in my mind her attacks are just as substanceless.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 9:18 am2snuzy mandrake

“too good” should be “two good”
on 15 Feb 2008 at 9:55 am3Susie

If politics is about anything, it’s about identity. You can’t elevate one group without leaving the other feel shut out. That’s the way it works when you have two “identity-centric” candidates.

You can argue the specifics of what Jong says, but she’s just as entitled to her feelings about this as anyone. And yes, there IS a certain “Kill the witch!” quality to the attacks on Clinton. You don’t have to love her to see that.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:13 am4snuzy mandrake

oh, i agree that clinton is being treated unfairly, there’s really no way to argue that certain people are making a “kill the witch” attack. that’s not my problem with jong’s essay.

my point is that her attacks on obama are equally substanceless and unfair. but unfortunately that’s how much of this race is being discussed nowadays. it has nothing to do with “two identity-centric candidates”, on the contrary obama seems to be trying to not make his black identity an issue although it’s also pretty clear that no one will let him get away from it, just as no one will let clinton get away from her femaleness.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:14 am5snuzy mandrake

i mean, “there’s really no way to argue that certain people aren’t making …”

dammit. sometimes i’m convinced that the mistakes don’t appear until after i hit the post button.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:30 am6steveeboy

funny,
if this is some sort of patriarchal plot against white women, how come obama is doing so well with them now?

Via some other blog:

“For the Commonwealth of Virginia, Obama beat Clinton aming women (both married and single). He won every income, education, and religious group. He won large majorities of liberal to conservative Democrats, and dominated independents. Six in ten Democrats trusted Obama more than Clinton on the Iraq war, the economy, and health care.

Perhaps more noteworthy: Obama won a majority of whites. He did this in New Mexico last week, but the southern state of Virginia has a far larger white population.

In the end Obama overcame even Clinton’s bulwark of support among the largest bloc of Democratic voters, white women, through his dominance of essentially everyone else.

After six weeks of primaries and caucuses Obama has a relatively stable coalition: the youth and black vote, nearly half of white men, and slightly more than a third of white women and Hispanics. But on Tuesday, Obama’s appeal far exceeded his base.

Obama won a remarkably high 58 percent of white men in the Democratic primary, nearly negating Clinton’s continued dominance of white women. Clinton won 53 percent of white women and Obama 47 percent (a relatively strong showing for Obama in this bloc).”

And of course, I am not down with “killing the witch,” if Clinton wins the nomination then I will support her fully.

will all of the aggrieved Hillary supporters currently claiming that this is some sort of patriarchal plot do the same?

On the other hand, I would argue that there IS a growing “kill the clintons” bent to all this, they had their chance and got to run things for 8 years. Given the nightmare of the past 8 years, which I think is in major part due to the ability of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney to game the system based on their extensive experience in prior administrations, I am pretty much down on putting people that already had a chance back into power.

Bush -Clinton -Bush -Clinton is absurd. It is dynastic, and in my opinion it is not good for the country. Is that fair to Senator Clinton? Probably not, but that is the reality, and to try and portray every person that doesn’t feel she deserves the white house based on her status as a woman or as payback for all the shite she has had to take as a front line feminist since the 60s is not fair either.

And of course, this all ignores the fact that HILLARY CLINTON VOTED TO INVADE AND OCCUPY IRAQ!!!

And that, is a REAL problem which she still refuses to apologize for and to deal with. She still supports a foreign policy of death and destruction and outright imperialism. She has not learned her lesson where pre-emptive war is concerned and that should give pause to every real liberal.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:35 am7steveeboy

should read: “to try and portray every person that doesn’t feel she deserves the white house based on her status as a woman or as payback for all the shite she has had to take as a front line feminist since the 60s as some kind of neanderthal is not fair either.”
on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:44 am8snuzy mandrake

i’m tellin’ ya. the mistakes get edited in only after you hit the post button.

you’ll see, the letters will rearrange themselves into “misteaks” just after i do.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:49 am9Susie

I don’t claim there’s a patriarchal plot. But I DO make the argument that there is a particularly nasty, sexist flavor to the attacks on Clinton, one I don’t see in the complaints about Obama. (And hey, I’ve had several commenters tell me I’m a white, middle-aged woman who should - not in these words, but close - sit down and shut up.)

As far as the war goes, I agree. It was stupid, and it’s damned arrogant of her not to apologize. (Although the semi-liberal Republicans I work with admire her for it.)

But I don’t believe Obama would have voted any differently if he’d been in the Senate. (Let’s not forget: He says he “doesn’t know” how he would have voted.) He hedges his bets quite often, and I’ll bet he would have hedged that one, too. All anyone would have had to do was point out his middle name, question his patriotism, and that yes vote would have been right there. No doubt in my mind. Sorry.

I think the real difference between me and Obama supporters is, I see him as just another politician who happens to give great speeches. I don’t see him as post-racial (if anything, I see his style as overcompensation for being black so he doesn’t threaten backers and potential voters) and I sure as hell don’t see him as a progressive. I’m still not feeling it. I don’t hate him - I just don’t get the mass swooning.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 10:50 am10Susie

Noz, if you weren’t so jumpy, I’d just correct them for you. I correct the comments typos all the time.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 11:38 am11snuzy mandrake

But I don’t believe Obama would have voted any differently if he’d been in the Senate. (Let’s not forget: He says he “doesn’t know” how he would have voted.) He hedges his bets quite often, and I’ll bet he would have hedged that one, too. All anyone would have had to do was point out his middle name, question his patriotism, and that yes vote would have been right there. No doubt in my mind. Sorry.

as i said in a prior comment, i think guessing that obama would have given into pressure and voted for the war is getting the issue backwards. this isn’t a senatorial election, this is a presidential election. we’re not deciding whether obama or clinton would vote for the AUMF in 2002, we’re trying to determine whether as commander in chief they will on their own decide to send us into another bone-headed conflict.

the answer for obama is “no”–he vocally opposed the war, at a time it was unpopular to be anti-war even though he was already running for senate.

the answer for clinton is “i don’t know”. her vote in 2002 could reflect a cave in to pressure, or maybe she really believed in the war.

in other words, the fact that obama was not under pressure in the senate shows us what he really believes. the fact that clinton not only voted for the war but even to this day is unapologetic about it shows that there is serious doubt whether she has reasonable foreign policy judgment.

on top of that there’s another reason for the war vote issue to favor obama. obama is trying to make his war vote the distinguishing policy difference between he and clinton. it’s not really true, in terms of iraq policy the two are really quite close–they both want a fairly quick withdrawal of combat troops. but the obama framing is still important. because if he wins the nomination it will be interpreted as “the guy who was against the war all along” winning whereas if clinton wins it will be interpreted as a defeat for the anti-war branch of the democratic party.

i’d personally rather have the former and not the latter as the message the press brings out of this race.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 11:44 am12Susie

I see your point, Noz, but there’s still another option. Now, I’m missing many of my archived posts from that time, but it seems to me that Clinton and others argued their vote was necessary to get inspectors into Iraq. I don’t remember the details and I don’t have time to dig them out.

The other thing is, I see a Clinton win as a great big YES to the DOMESTIC progressive wing of the party, because Obama just isn’t all that interested in getting to true universal healthcare.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 12:08 pm13snuzy mandrake

but it seems to me that Clinton and others argued their vote was necessary to get inspectors into Iraq

clinton has claimed that, but only in retrospect. in 2002 she opposed an alternative version of the AUMF which would have required a second resolution of the UN before force was authorized. if she really just wanted to get the inspectors in, why did she oppose the other resolution and go with the one that gave bush unlimited ability to prosecute the war immediately?

The other thing is, I see a Clinton win as a great big YES to the DOMESTIC progressive wing of the party, because Obama just isn’t all that interested in getting to true universal healthcare

huh? i thought neither were “real progressives” (whatever that means). obama was a big proponent of universal health care in the 1990s in the illinois legislature and he has said that he is for single payer but doesn’t think it will pass.

that being said, i do think clinton’s health care proposal is better than obama’s simply because it’s universal. but hers kind of sucks too because it still keeps insurance companies sucking resources out of the system. neither is a good health care solution IMHO (and nor was edwards’ plan that good either. i really don’t get why american politicians are so adverse to uttering the words “single payer”)

the other funny thing about the health care differences between them, at least in terms of who gets the “progressive” label, is that obama’s attack on clinton’s plan is essentially a progressive attack. the clinton and obama plans are both almost the same. they’re both barely disguised versions of what mass. passed a few years ago (aka the mitt romney plan). the main different between them is that clinton requires individuals to buy private insurance policies (the “individual mandate”) whereas obama’s doesn’t. obama attacks the individual mandate by saying that mandating americans to pay money to private insurance companies is a form of corporate welfare.

the obvious solution to the problems with both their plans is single payer and they’re both big fat wusses for refusing to go that route.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 12:42 pm14Chris

Missing archives? Where? Which? Huh?
on 15 Feb 2008 at 12:55 pm15Wendy Whinner

Like I said- it is ironic to see the liberal-filled party argue that the black candidate has to wait his turn cause the woman is next.

Unfortunately, I fear the Dems will self-destruct and leave us with only one strong party and that is not good.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 1:23 pm16Susie

Yeah, Chris, I can’t find the stuff I wrote around the beginning of the war. That was, what, Feb-March 2003?
on 15 Feb 2008 at 1:26 pm17Susie

Noz, we certainly agree on that: single-payer is the only way to go. Edwards did have a coherent argument that his plan was a direct push towards that.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 2:09 pm18Chris

Ah, just had a look in the DB. It appears as though they had the dates striped off of them but they’re still there. I’ll get to that as soon as I deal with the 75 other things I’ve been meaning to get to. You can dig through them with phpmyadmin if feel like it. Maybe we should move this conversation to email.

Anyway, as far as health care plans go, all three offered up shitty, insurance based plans. Obama’s is a bit shittier than the other two. Obama and Clinton should both chuck their plans in the toilet where they belong and offer up single payer. Of course that won’t happen because campaigns make issues stupid and everybody has to stick with whatever bullshit plan got drawn up a year before Iowa, lest they be called a flip flopper or some other frightful term.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 2:25 pm19snuzy mandrake

what chris said (about health insurance, not the server. i beg to differ on the server issue. pleeeeeeeeeease, may i differ?)
on 15 Feb 2008 at 2:51 pm20steveeboy

tough to prove the negative as always, but Clinton did vote for the war and she did ignore the alternative amendments that would have focused the effort on inspections. she has been remarkably stubborn about admitting her mistake, she should have learned a lesson from Edwards and his mea cupla.

also, totally agree on the single payer health care thing but I also note that clinton’s forced insurance is an issue she is dodging furiously whenever it is brought up.
–and, she had a chance to get some pretty decent health care reforms and failed already. why would this time be any different?

and no one here is in a “swoon.”
–and isn’t that term itself loaded with gendered implications?

Pronunciation: swun • Hear it!

Part of Speech: Verb, intransitive (no direct object)

Meaning: To faint or be light-headed, giddy, as though on the brink of fainting.

Notes: Swooning seems to have gone out of fashion. 100 years ago the slightest mention of anything inappropriate (a vulgar word) let along upsetting (a death in the family) or exciting (a marriage proposal) would send a proper young lady into a swoon. Swoons were reflected in a characteristic gesture—touching the forehead with the back of the wrist. A picture of a swooning maiden can still be seen in the main titles of PBS Mystery, though hardly anywhere else. When swooning was fashionable, weakness was a cultivated trait of young maidens. You’ve come a long way, baby, and the journey left its mark in a trail of words like swoon.

In Play: Because swooning is a sign of weakness, it has always been associated more with women than with men: “Carmen Ghia swooned when she heard Philbrick refer to his underwear in mixed company.” How times have changed. However, since it simply refers to giddiness, the brink of fainting, it is applicable (even today) to both sexes: “When Matthew returned from work the first day after his honeymoon, the unexpected aromas of Beverly’s cooking caused him to swoon.”
on 15 Feb 2008 at 2:55 pm21Izquierdo

Is 21 comments an SG record for 2008?
For all time?
on 15 Feb 2008 at 3:04 pm22snuzy mandrake

23!
on 15 Feb 2008 at 3:05 pm23Chris

Differ away. By all means. Have at it Feel free to jump in there and clean up the database. It’s only a few hundred records I think. I’d try something like
UPDATE [LOW_PRIORITY] [IGNORE] wp_posts
SET post_date=37653
[WHERE post_date=0]
on 15 Feb 2008 at 3:23 pm24Susie

Come on, now, shouldn’t the right wing get any credit for the hard work they did to derail that first plan?

And should I assume she hasn’t learned anything from the last time? Why, I just swoon at the very thought!
on 15 Feb 2008 at 3:55 pm25Chris

The wingers should definitely get some credit. I’ve never really held that loss against Clinton or Clinton. It’s a credit to them that they tried knowing the level of stupid and evil the was aligned against them. But maybe I’m just naive. Still, honestly, she could pull Magic Rainbow Easter Eggs out of a pony’s ass at my kid’s birthday party while simultaneously singing every part of the entire Ring Cycle at 113 times normal speed in the voices of Mr. Ed and Barney the Dinosaur and I still wouldn’t support her in the primary.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 4:13 pm26snuzy mandrake

yeah, i think the wingers get most of the credit for the plan’s failure.

the only thing i hold against clinton is that she didn’t go for single payer then either and thus ended up with an unnecessarily complex plan that was earier to attack.

but let’s keep credit where credit is due: the assholes in the republican congress and their insurance industry backers who killed the plan.
on 15 Feb 2008 at 4:16 pm27Susie

I was surprised to finally learn, when all the smoke had settled, that what she’d recommended was pretty darned good. She essentially split the country into regional buying co-ops that could negotiate directly with the insurance companies.

Let me put it this way: If it was so bad, why did they hate it so much?
on 15 Feb 2008 at 4:17 pm28Susie

Chris, I would vote for ANYONE who could do all that. That would be awesome! Especially the ponies…
on 15 Feb 2008 at 5:30 pm29votermom

30 comments!!!
Um, do I have to say something for or against– I’m a healthcare voter, so I’ll probably end up voting for Clinton.
And PA decides! Woot! Who knew?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Patriarchy

29 Responses to “Patriarchy”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Archives

My Liberal Identity:

Categories

Tags

Pages