![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I have discussed this, probably excessively, over on my tumblelog, but I just want to say for the record, to Robin Morgan:
The majority of my female friends are voting for Obama. Not a single one of them is voting for him because they are "eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists," or because they "can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power," or because they "fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her," or because they naively think that "it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free." There are plenty of "glorious young women" out there who don't agree with you that Clinton is "better qualified (D'uh)." Also, using the word "duh" (and spelling it wrong) is not helping your attempt to bridge the "misrepresented generational divide," not that you've done a good job of it otherwise. If sisterhood is so powerful, what good does it do to pit one generation against another? Over on Jezebel, a commenter said she wanted the third-gen feminists to stop "sneering" at 2nd gens. I would posit that this essay sneers in the opposite direction.
I have been shocked in this primary season at how much casual sexism still exists in this country, especially in the media. But to me, the point of feminism is EQUALITY between the sexes. I'm voting for Obama because I believe both candidates should be judged on their merits, not on the color of their skin or the shape of their genitalia, and I personally think Barack Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton. And NO, that's not me being some retarded 3rd wave feminist girls-gone-wild bimbo who thinks that feminism is passé or icky or that all the battles have been won. It's me saying that I'm going to walk the walk if I talk the talk about EQUALITY.
The majority of my female friends are voting for Obama. Not a single one of them is voting for him because they are "eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists," or because they "can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power," or because they "fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her," or because they naively think that "it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free." There are plenty of "glorious young women" out there who don't agree with you that Clinton is "better qualified (D'uh)." Also, using the word "duh" (and spelling it wrong) is not helping your attempt to bridge the "misrepresented generational divide," not that you've done a good job of it otherwise. If sisterhood is so powerful, what good does it do to pit one generation against another? Over on Jezebel, a commenter said she wanted the third-gen feminists to stop "sneering" at 2nd gens. I would posit that this essay sneers in the opposite direction.
I have been shocked in this primary season at how much casual sexism still exists in this country, especially in the media. But to me, the point of feminism is EQUALITY between the sexes. I'm voting for Obama because I believe both candidates should be judged on their merits, not on the color of their skin or the shape of their genitalia, and I personally think Barack Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton. And NO, that's not me being some retarded 3rd wave feminist girls-gone-wild bimbo who thinks that feminism is passé or icky or that all the battles have been won. It's me saying that I'm going to walk the walk if I talk the talk about EQUALITY.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 10:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 10:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 11:09 pm (UTC)Regardless of whether or not I agree with what Morgan is saying (or if I'm misinterpreting it, as a lot of her defenders are now insisting -- "she wasn't talking about YOUNG FEMINISTS, just SOME YOUNG WOMEN" as if that makes it any better even if it is supported by the text, which it isn't, and they always come back to this "you young whippersnappers need to learn to respect the struggles of your elders" thing anyway, which: *facepalm*), I also thought the essay was damn near incomprehensible. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it because she did a piss poor job of shaping her reactionary brain fart into anything resembling a coherent argument.
When I was in high school I had subscriptions to both Ms. and Sassy. I deeply appreciate what people like Robin Morgan accomplished in the '60s and '70s to make my life as I currently know it possible. But I'm a grown woman, and to be told that I am a bad feminist in this incredibly patronizing manner really chaps my hide.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 11:16 pm (UTC)i feel like morgan is trying to communicate to young/third wave feminists but is being condescending and belittling in the process. i have no desire to blindly respect my elders, even though, like you, i'm glad of and honor the work they did to get us where we are today, etc. so no, i don't think you're misinterpreting it.
and yes, i have no idea how she thought that essay was written well enough to publish anywhere. it's a mess.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-10 11:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-11 02:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-11 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-11 03:23 pm (UTC)One of your respondents sent a link to another, better-written essay that tweaks the line in a way that, of course, is what we should be thinking:
While Morgan ends her rant by saying, "Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am," I would happily challenge this premise by remarking, "Me, I've voting for _________ not because s/he is a feminist - but because I am."
It is the oppression of any group of people that is to be disdained and fought. One oppression does not take precedence over another. I appreciate everyone's effort in polishing my brain so it shines with hope.
Carry on-