Log in

07 November 2008 @ 10:44 am
I've heard a lot on PUMA sites lately about voting the "30% solution", specifically voting preferentially for women until they make up between 30% and 50% of our elected representatives. While I'm not going to argue against the first-order benefits of electing women (i.e.- they may be slightly more likely to be progressive, and seeing women in positions of power expands the visible roles for women). But I think that the proposition makes a pretty obvious error in terms of causal attribution. It isn't that once you get 30% representation that the country magically turns into a progressive paradise, it is that only significantly egalitarian societies consistently elect women. The way to elect women in this country is to combat misogyny.

To be totally clear, I also support voting for women where possible. I'm sick to death of so-called feminists talking about big evil Sarah Palin. First of all, 90% of what you've heard about her is bullshit. Secondly, she's a REPUBLICAN politician and her positions don't differ markedly from the positions of her male equivalents. Thirdly, just because she's on the other side does not make her fair game for misogynist attacks, and does not make her undeserving of feminist praise.

What the country needs now is not a simplistic voting strategy. It needs an all-out war on the patriarchy and a re-consolidation of feminist principles. Let's get to it.
24 October 2008 @ 05:03 pm
So the Ashley Todd story is apparently made up.

I'll believe that when she publishes her autobiography ten years from now explaining why she did it. Meanwhile, there's too much context. She could have faked it as a means of hurting the Obama campaign, believing that it was worth it if she could swing the historic election. I don't know if that's what happened. She could have gotten mugged and opportunistically scratched the B into her face in order to accomplish the same thing. It could have been something else altogether. It could have gone down like she said and then faced police intimidation or other threats that made her recant. To my knowledge there's no hard evidence that it was faked- her admission of guilt and a weird polygraph test that isn't being released (btw- polygraphs don't count for shit except in the movies). I don't know. She could be psychologically unstable, or highly political, or both. She could be a genuine victim who was bullied into saying she made a false claim. I have no idea. If she did make a false claim, we don't know why she did it. It might make things worse for actual victimized women. That would be terrible. But with the amount of crazy running through this, I don't think that the objective truth can be established on the basis of her admission of guilt alone. Is it so hard to believe that a girl would be beaten in light of all of the insanity and misogyny we've seen this year? Is it so hard to believe that she might be cowed into lying about what happened in an enormously emotionally charged situation by someone in a position of power with a lot invested in the outcome of the investigation?

Is it so hard to believe in light of This?

Or This?

Or This?

Or This?

Or This?

Or This?

Yeah, given what I've seen this year, I'm holding off on judging this thing.
I haven't had breakfast yet today. It's probably a good thing, because I'm so nauseous from catching up on my political blogs that I feel like puking.

Liss on Shakesville is declining to post a Sarah Palin sexism watch for the "Sarah Palin is a Cunt" t-shirt, because it's not meant to be a scorecard, because the makers of the shirt would only profit from the publicity, and because it's so obvious it doesn't need to be unpacked anyway. Huh. Because that's SO different from the Hillary Clinton nutcracker, or the CUNT PAC. Interestingly, she hasn't felt like posting a Palin sexism watch since Oct. 9th. In the same period of time, like six Obama racism watch posts have gone up. I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the proximity of the election. As much as I have loved Liss's blogging, I'm not on board with her choice here.

I also hear whispers about PUMAs fleeing to the Obama camp as the election approaches. At this point, my apartment is a bunker. Here I don't get hit in the face with misogynist media unless I go looking for it. The radios and televisions stay off. No newspapers appear. I don't answer the phone. I don't go out with anyone who will want to talk politics. I might just stop checking LJ.

And why? Because every fucking time I let my guard down, I get hit with this http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ (caution: triggering) or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hERg4UaPhec or whatever other bile some sick fucking person feels like spewing today. I just can't fucking take it anymore. How can people who call themselves feminists sit by and watch this shit? How can they LAUGH at it? I'm beyond outraged, I'm borderline catatonic. I am literally afraid to talk about my political opinions in public these days. I've stopped wearing my Hillary gear in public, and if I had one, I certainly wouldn't have the guts to wear a McCain/Palin shirt.

And it isn't going to be okay. Either Obama will win and all of this will be legitimized- forgotten except for the deep knowledge that it sure as hell works, so it can hauled back out whenever is convenient, or McCain will win and then what? We've already been told that if Obama doesn't win there'll be blood in the streets. We all know that if he doesn't win it'll be women's fault. Will there be a spike in rapes and domestic violence? Will women have to lie about who they voted for? There is no good outcome. It's a zero-sum game and we are ALL the losers. Way to bring the hope and progress and change, you fucking opportunistic hypocrite Fucks.
08 October 2008 @ 03:27 pm
I love the SNL parodies of Sarah Palin and company, but the first skit - the one where Hillary and Sarah made an announcement about sexism - has kind of annoyed me for a while now. Specifically the part where Amy Poehler says it's not sexist to question Palin's credentials. In theory, that's true, as long as the other candidates are also questioned. And in practice, simply put, that's just not happening.

Read the rest
07 October 2008 @ 11:15 am
Wake me when it's 2012. I'm on the very verge of losing ANOTHER friend over this bullshit. UGH. It's just exhausting.
05 September 2008 @ 11:31 am
This morning I woke up to an Obamabot friend posting LJ icons with pictures of MLK and Gandhi and Ben Franklin saying "Community Organizer". Fuck RIGHT off. Seriously. Community Organizer is a VAGUE term. It could apply equally well to Jim Jones, to Rev. Wright, to the people who organize the obnoxious protests outside of abortion clinics. Community Organizing is also what people who worked in prevention used to be called. He could have been handing out "just say no" buttons on street corners. So until I hear some motherfucking SPECIFICS about what he was doing, that doesn't count for SHIT, and it sure doesn't make him some legendary do-gooder.

Hey, I once made a suggestion for a G8 protest, and then helped people make it happen. Does that mean I'm a Community Organizer? Can I be canonized now, too?

I love how eight years as First Lady counts for dick as experience, but playing basketball in public parks and bitching about "the system" seems to count if you give it a lofty enough title.
27 August 2008 @ 05:44 pm

Current Mood: bitchybitchy
18 August 2008 @ 03:24 pm

Now, I think I should clarify that Superdelegates are not SUPPOSED to support the candidate that their constituents have chosen. Their role is to use their judgment and choose the BEST candidate, so that we can avoid having our process hijacked by runaway enthusiasm for an wildly implausible candidate (like with McGovern). So, I find it problematic that this video emphasizes the decisions of the constituents so much (which are fundamentally irrelevant). But the follow the money message is solid, and definitely worth considering.

(Cross-posted to Clinton_2008)
Thank God she'll obviously never run for President. Her ignorance is astounding.

Here's a video of her statement. Be careful, sweeties, lest her stupidity kills one of your brain cells.
17 July 2008 @ 02:48 pm
Clinton's reaction to the Bush Admin's attack on contraception:  here.

Obama has, incredibly, not issued a response as of this writing.  Remember, this was public yesterday, which means it actually was leaked the day before.  He's had to days to say "birth control is a public health responsibility."  This is a perfect opportunity to point out that McCain is no moderate.  And he hasn't bothered because he (a) doesn't want to talk about icky girl stuff or (b) would rather court the hard line anti-contraceptive social right.

EDIT:  He had time to hit the gym three times, but not to stand up for your bodily integrity.  Waffle for your forced pregnancy cravings?