This is moronic. this is a Democracy and anyone can say whatever they want about whoever they want. I didn't even bother reading on, after all, what does a jewish guy have to say that matters about feminism or black politics? By his own statement, he has no right to be talking about this.

Hillary's nomination would set feminism back about 20 years.

This is exactly the kind of BS Obama made this speech about. The kind of shit people on our side have tried for too long, and you know what, it hasn't fucking worked. Driving people underground with their opinions does nothing but shut down debate and cause resentments to fester.

Racism, sexism, classism, ageism and all the rest of that sorry lot are a problem for ALL of us. To solve that problem, an honest discussion has to be fostered. That can never happen if we tell certain people that they aren't allowed to say certain things.

You can not say you want an honest debate and then turn around and demand the right to dictate the terms of that debate. It's pure dishonesty and it will make 60% of the country hate you because you just told them that they aren't allowed to wiegh in on one of the most troubling aspects of our society. In a Democracy, you just said people aren't allowed to make a judgment call.

Good luck with that, cause they will weigh in. Either now or at the ballot box. Personally, I'd prefer to have this argument now so that those people don't enter the ballot box thinking about sending a big 'Fuck you' to everyone who just told them to shut up.

Shirley Chisholm beats them both.

Argh, I'm so incensed at Ezra's hypocrisy that I forgot to sign my name.

Where did you see ANY of Obama's supporters diminish the meaning of Clintons?

hmm - does that mean that as a woman, I am allowed to say that her election would be meaningless for feminism? That is basically the same as saying I should vote for Hillary because she's a woman - in either case, you make my gender the issue. I would hope to have moved beyond that question, and not be required to vote (or think) with my vagina.

Glad you narrowed your advice to apply mostly to white men, because I'm a white woman who actually thinks that it's perfectly valid to question HRC's having ridden Bill's coattails. IMO, people who claim to forge new paths need to be doing it for others to follow later, and HRC's path obviously won't be of any use to female presidential aspirants in the future. And I'm sick to death of obsessing over symbolic victories, which is all that a win for HRC would be; it's obvious that most people can't or won't deconstruct symbolism enough to determine what, if any, intrinsic value it holds. Given that her path is useless to anyone else and that most of the XX-chromosome pitch is simply about the image of a woman POTUS instead of the merits of this particular woman, there doesn't seem to be much real value here.

Having said that, though, you're right that it's a bad idea for white guys to make this point, valid as it is in objective terms.

Really, under Ezra's formulation, the only people who ARE allowed into this discussion are black women.

After all, white women are clueless about what it's like to be black. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed discuss racism in comparison to sexism. Black men have the same problem.

What latts said.

Since I am a woman, I guess by your rules I am allowed to speak. Will it be historic when we elect our first female president? Sure. But it'll be more historic when we elect the first female president who didn't run on the 'experience' of having been married to a president. And the good news is that there's a crop of women who are politicians in their own right who could be well-positioned to make runs in the near future.

That leaves me perfectly free to judge Clinton on her merits. By my judgment, Clinton has thoroughly earned her forthcoming defeat by her shoddy campaigning, her uninspirational platform, and her questionable integrity.

What is it about Obama supporters that makes them entirely incapable of understanding a point? Can any of you tell me why you automatically assume the worst motives for anyone who doesn't join the chorus calling for Hillary to slink away from the public eye back under the slime-encrusted rock from which she obviously came, because, you know, she's Hillary Clinton!

For the record, I've given money to Obama and not to Clinton, so you can back off on that score. It's just that I cannot understand why Every. Single. Thread. that deals with Hillary has to immediately devolve into one comment after another that has only a tangential relationship to what the post was actually about - if that - and usually involves more than one ad hominem attack against the author.

Sheesh.

A valid point is always valid, no matter how much it personally offends you. If there's a valid point, and nobody else is making it, it's probably because a whole lot of people are likely to find it offensive.

I don't really think this counts. It's more of a criticism of the nepotism and classism of our society than it is a legitimate criticism of the 'feminist' virtues of Hillary being President. There have been a lot of first ladys, and no matter how much I may personally dislike the Clintons, there must be something special about her that enabled her to run for Congress and then for President.

But if the appropriate people aren't making an argument you consider valid, your skin color genititlia, god or preferences shouldn't be used as a reason to bite your tongue. That's just cowardice.

The fact remains that the Democratic Party has chosen its frontrunners this year in a spasm of minoritarianism. In today's circumstances, this is a preposterous and revolting piece of moral vanity. Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama can win a general election, nor even make a respectable showing. Election of a Republican President in 2008, which nothing can now prevent, implies ratification of the entire generation-long strategy of the Republican propaganda machine. That, in turn, means that people are going to die: lots of people.

And Democrats wonder why they've been getting their collective ass kicked when it comes to male voters. There's nothing quite like telling people they don't even have the right to form their own opinions.

Would President Hillary be historic for women? Of course. Would it be historic for feminism? Uh, no. Not anymore than any other women who rode to political office on her husband's coattails.

Mike

This thread made me think of this article: The Problem of Speaking for Others by Linda Alcoff. Carry on.

Link

Hmmm...my efforts at HTML tagging have failed. Here is the link:

http://www.alcoff.com/content/speaothers.html

I'm a woman, a feminist, and I thank you for writing this.

The one thing I will say: I, for one, did NOT greet, say, the 'election' of GWB as another triumph for white male hegemony, even though I am a white male. That thought never entered my head.

Hillary's election would be historic, of course.

That said, it just seems wrong to think we have nothing to go by on the issue of how certain events will go down in history . . . we have history! Lots of it.

So when Ezra says:
"I'm now convinced that, as a white guy, you, and I, have no idea what it would mean to see a woman elected to the presidency. It's just not within our universe of experience."

. . . I think he's being more than a little naive. Countries that are in many ways similar to ours have had a female head of state and/or head of government before. Reading about that should give white guys some idea of what to expect.

Regarding Bill, it's just a matter of historical record that, in other countries, the gender barrier has often been broken by spouses of former leaders. In those cases, each historic and meaningful, the role of the former leader and comparisons to his administration have been important to the historical record.

Really, under Ezra's formulation, the only people who ARE allowed into this discussion are black women.

Soullite intended this to be a reductio ad absurdum, I think, but if I were really interested* in figuring out whether a black man or a white woman being president was more a significant and historic event for this country, I'd certainly be a lot more interested in black women's thoughts on the subject than just about anyone else's.

*I'm not actually interested. They're both historic enough.

"Not anymore than any other women who rode to political office on her husband's coattails."

yep,
and Obama wouldn't be where is he if he weren't black.
Man does he lie alot!

I've come to believe that the "Obama supporters" that come here really aren't...but are Rovian operatives instead. They seem bent on tearing down both candidates with their petty insults. Gonna have to credit actual Obama supporters with more class than that.

By Ezra's line of logic, it seems that white men have to undergo a certain type of apartheid and thought control before they fit into the ideologically cleansed universe of Kleino-fascism. I think we can see just what sort of liberal this pointless little poseur really is. I hope that TAP will find a blogger to replace Klein who is not intellectually dishonest and does not plagiarize Krugman.

I'm sympathetic to the notion that most men and women experience the world differently in some ways due to their gender (and that Hillary's election would matter to feminism), but so what? One way these gaps can be bridged is through conversation! A member of one group utters an argument that he believes to be true... and a member of the other group articulates why she thinks that's the dumbest thing she's ever heard. (Those who presage arguments with "... if you're a white male" probably know this process as "a dialogue.")

Ezra seems to think that rather than hold these conversations, white men should take his word for it (by way of his unnamed female friends, who I'm sure represent women everywhere). Hmmm. Why does he prefer the 'Ezra decides the appropriate bounds of civil discourse' model? And why should I?

My full comments (many of which I see you've already aired) at the URL.

Shorter Ezra: Don't be a sexist asshole.

Shorter dissenting commenters: but we wanna!

I'm kinda disappointed in the quality of the comments on this one.

Ezra explicitly did not say that men weren't allowed to criticize Clinton.

All he said was that it's fair to say that's really difficult for a man, probably particularly for a white man, to really internalize what it might mean to 50+% of the population -- emotionally, professionally, politically -- for this particular barrier to be broken. And definitely, definitely that it wouldn't be "meaningless for feminism".

I don't know what's controversial about that. Even as a white man I can see how it would be huge, and I'm humble enough to realize maybe I won't ever really know how huge.

It certainly shouldn't be taken as a muzzle on criticism of Hillary Clinton.

It's not at all inconsistent to recognize that it would be really, really huge to elect a woman president --any woman president-- and also to think this year, there's still a better candidate.

Shorter 90% of these commenters:

How dare you tell us men that we don't know what it's like to be a woman! How dare you say having the first woman president would be meaningful for feminism! If you want to know what's meaningful for feminism, ask us! We know, and if you don't let us tell you, 60% of the country will hate you!

Skip my above. Anon said it more succinctly at 7:09.

What you fail to grapple with, tinfoil hattie, is my argument that it's a good thing when people articulate wrongheaded arguments that they believe.

If I say something wrongheaded out loud, my critics can expose the flaws in my logic and convince me to change my mind, and the minds of others who thought the same thing as me until they saw the exchange.

In contrast, the "Let Ezra Klein Dictate the Bounds of Appropriate Discourse Model" works not through changing people's minds, but by shaming them into silence.

Man, Ezra, for a smart guy, you sure bring out the stupid in a lot of your commenters. Good work.

This bit, in particular, is exactly correct: "It's just not within our universe of experience." We can try, we can empathize, we can give it our best shot, but if we're white guys, we have a level of privilege so ingrained that it's beyond our ability to comprehend just how much stuff we take for granted that people of color and women have to fight just to get a sniff at. What we have to do is trust them when they say "this is a big deal for us," because unless we've lived it, we don't get it.

It's like when Bush talks about how romantic it must be to be serving in Iraq, building a democracy. He has no clue, and we mock him for it, and rightfully so. Well, white men don't know what it's like to be on the bottom of a white patriarchal society, so when people who are there tell us something is a big deal, maybe, just maybe, we ought to take them at their word.

"please do not loudly proclaim that Hillary Clinton's election would be meaningless for feminism or for women because she's only in this position because she married Bill Clinton or because Barack Obama is the true feminist or because you don't like her."

also, please stop beating your wives. seriously. c'mon guys.

Tinfoiul, get over it. You don't have the right to shut down debate.

And don't '90% of commenters'. That;'s BS and you know it. If you've got a problem with me, take it up with me.

Ezra, would your friends who say males cannot understand how much it would mean to women to have a woman elected president feel the same way if the woman who stood a serious chance of victory was Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter? I doubt it. So they are blowing smoke when they say it's all about the historic nature of the candidacy, and men just can't understand. They are using the gender card to intimidate anyone who is capable of being intimidated by it.

Conor, Soullite:

Who's shutting down discourse? Is there seriously a debate on whether President Hillary Clinton would be meaningful to women and feminism?

All I saw was Ezra engage a stupid argument, and shred it. Sheltered as I am, I hadn't even imagined it needed shredding, but there it is. And that isn't shutting down debate, it's winning it.

David,
If we lived in a world where a woman could conceivably be at the top of the Republican ticket, then maybe you'd have a point. We don't live in that world, so women who are looking for a woman to break that barrier are looking in only one direction.

Fine, I'll pretend Hillary's career is based on something other than being married to Bill--her winning personality, her lovely voice, her prowess as an investor perhaps--but you chicks out there have no right whatsoever to say that a president John McCain wouldn't totally rock. You don't know what it's like to be a dude and have to listen to bitches nag all your life until you become president and get to stuff cigars up their cooters. And all you black people better just shut up about McCain's ghostly whiteness, because you guys don't have to worry about melanoma.

Ezra, I've read this piece and the infamous Obama-is-Jesus piece from you. So far I'd have to say this is some of the most brilliantly awful stuff since Steven Segal's Under Siege. I'm getting addicted to your mediocrity!

Really tinfoil, this is a democracy. Everyone gets a say whether you like what they have to say or not. That's how it works. It's really easy to sit there and say that only people who agree with you have a right to speak. It's also really cowardly.

And really, like I said, unless you're a black woman you clearly can't speak about this issue either. I mean, can you sit there and tell me white women know dick about being black? That black men know what it's like to be a woman?

Once you start playing that game, you've already lost.

David-

It doesn't appear that you actually understood what Ezra's friends (or mine - I've heard much the same thing) are saying. They're not necessarily supporting Clinton, and yes, they'd absolutely say the same thing. About any women.

jack lecou , engaging the stupid argument is fine. But he didn't. All he did is point to a group of people and tell them they aren't allowed to speak. That's shutting down discourse.

When I pointed out that there have been a lot of first ladies, and only Clinton has managed to become a Senator and run for President, THAT was addressing the argument. What Ezra did was as far away from doing that as he could possibly get.

The problem with the post it implies that the sexist comments (she's only here cause she married Bill, a win would be meaningless to feminism) are only offensive to women when they are delivered by white men (maybe, that's part of your problem with it, Conor); the truth is they are offensive to women regardless of the speaker.

I don't see Ezra shutting the conversation down so much as telling you to expect considerable push back (name calling included) if you choose to say these kinds of things, whether you go by the name Josh, Mike, or Maggie.

if you're a white male, please do not loudly proclaim that Hillary Clinton's election would be meaningless for feminism or for women because she's only in this position because she married Bill Clinton or because Barack Obama is the true feminist or because you don't like her. Having talked this through with some of the women in my life, I'm now convinced that, as a white guy, you, and I, have no idea what it would mean to see a woman elected to the presidency.

Careful, Ezra. Women aren't the only people who have a gender, just like blacks aren't the only people who have a race. Race and gender should be issues for all of us, and all of us ought to be capable of discussing issues of race and gender in our society.

This is a central point of feminism: we're all human, and we all deserve a stake in human society. Feminism is part of the broader liberal effort to replace allegiance to particular primordial identities with a recognition of our universal humanity. Judge people based on their choices, not their birth.

Do think that, all else being equal, electing a female president would be a boost to feminism? Absolutely. But all else is never equal: the whole point of feminism is that a woman is much, much more than just "a woman."

Do I think that Hillary Clinton's presidency would be a boost to feminism? Sure, probably. But the experience of other female leaders in heavily male-dominated societies (e.g., Benazir Bhutto's decision to shift right and support the Taliban to win support from Pakistan sexist power structure), combined with Clinton's own tendency toward collaboration with sexist elites for personal gain (e.g., Wal-Mart; Richard Mellon Scaife), makes it a legitimate topic for concern. And if those concerns are otherwise valid (i.e., supported by hard facts and good logic), they're no less valid if they're raised by a man.

You're absolutely right that we should be extremely sensitive toward the opinions of those who do not share our race or gender, and we should be extremely wary of our own gender and race (and class) biases.

But by the same token, we should never forget that we share our country with people who do not share our race or gender, and we should never think that issues that have political significance for "them" do not also have political significance for "us."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: electing Hillary Clinton on the basis of "it would be historic to elect a woman president" conveniently ignores Maggie Thatcher, Cory Aquino, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Angela Merkel, and lots of other female heads of state who have already proven they can be just as competent (or, in fairness, incompetent) as men can.

It's honestly kind of weird to suggest that electing Hillary is some new ground being broken; it only is so in the most domestic, insular sense.

(Conversely, electing Obama is a big deal. Name another first-world majority-white country that's elected a visible-minority leader. Whoops, you can't.)

Incertus,
Have you ever heard of Condeleeza Rice? Republicans have been begging her to get into the race, and she's never even run for office (yet is still far more qualified to be President than Obama--imagine that). Hey she's also black, too, even blacker than Obama, but she's the second black the GOP has tried to recruit to run for President(many Republicans tried to get Colin Powell to run in 1996). McCain is also considering the vagina-wielding governor of Alaska to be his running mate, and if he does you white guys better shut the hell up about what that would mean for chicks.

If a view is okay for some people to hold, it's okay for anyone to hold. If a view is wrong, it is wrong regardless of how sympathetic the people making it are.

When women make the same argument, it's still not very accurate. Nobody really thinks Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush would get elected to jack shit. They were both first ladies, but even if they had tried they'd be rejected.

It might be politically more effective from a woman than it would be from a man, but that's an aesthetic issue. It's not a moral one. That's the same kind of BS that makes Republicans think that putting a black guy out there to attack affirmative action removes all the racism from it. It doesn't at all, even if it convinces a few white people that it does.

That's the same kind of BS that makes Republicans think that putting a black guy out there to attack affirmative action removes all the racism from it. It doesn't at all, even if it convinces a few white people that it does.

Rush Limbaugh is black? That's news to me, but I do agree that attacking affirmative discrimination won't remove the racism from it. Only dismantling it will.

I'll pretend Hillary's career is based on something other than being married to Bill

Dude. You don't have to. What you do have to do is think about someone else for 15 seconds. Think about someone who isn't a Democrat or a Republican. Think about a young girl, a daughter, or a niece or something.

Try to imagine what it feels like for them to watch Hillary Clinton take the oath of office.

Then come back and say it's meaningless for feminism and all womenkind because she's married to Bill.

All I saw was Ezra engage a stupid argument, and shred it. Sheltered as I am, I hadn't even imagined it needed shredding, but there it is. And that isn't shutting down debate, it's winning it.

Close, but not quite. When you posit then shred an extreme argument that no one's making, it's not called winning. It's called flogging a straw man to aggrandize yourself.

I think there's a lot of problems here. Among other things - women leaders aren't at all uncommon. Ones who got where they were because of a male relative are particularly common. Was the presidency of Isabel Perón a great triumph of feminism, for instance?

The treatment of women in western society is not something which has been in any particular way a particularly American problem. I have little doubt that we'll some day in the not too distant future find ourselves with a woman president (probably a Republican, though, I suspect).

On the other hand, race is America's particular sin, a feature very specific to the American story. As such, I think it's a much bigger deal to elect an African American president than a woman president. Why should I be excited about a woman president when Britain had a woman prime minister almost thirty years ago, and India had a woman prime minister more than 40 years ago? It hardly seems like a particular triumph of any kind to be forty years behind India. On the other hand, international comparison becomes much less relevant when talking about a black president.

What does feminism have to do with a Hillary Presidency and vice versa? It seems like a lot of folks think the link between the two is obvious and it sure ain't.

There have been plenty of examples in American political history of a guy running for office passing away, his wife is given the nomination and she then wins the election in HER HUSBAND'S PLACE. How, exactly, is that not what Hillary's doing? Does anybody really think Hillary would have ever gotten on the ballot if Bill weren't "electorally dead" when it comes to the Presidency?

President Hillary would be historic for women in the same way Kennedy was historic for Catholics. But has anyone ever described Kennedy's election as historic for Catholicism?

Mike

Mightgodking, We're not Britian. It would be a big deal. Hell, it would be a big deal even if all Hillary had going for her was her husband. It isn't about Hillary or Barack, because it won't say dick about either of them. It will say something about us.

What makes it special is that 10 or 20 years ago, neither of those things could have happened. It will indicate that something fundamental about our country has changed. Something that has wieghed so heavily on our souls would be a little lighter. That change won't come the day Obama or Hillary is elected. Indeed, it will have had to have already happened.

Eric, rush Limbaugh is the person they use to stir up racist, homophobic, sexist, classist feelings in their own ranks. He is hardly a disciple they send out among the non-believers hoping for converts.

They leave that to the Armstrong's and Howell's of the world.

"If a view is okay for some people to hold, it's okay for anyone to hold. If a view is wrong, it is wrong regardless of how sympathetic the people making it are."

for once we agree, Soullite.
The views in Ezra's opening statement are wrong, regardless of who makes them.

mgk,
No one here is saying electing Obama isn't a big deal, but you are mistaken to think it wouldn't be a big deal to women for a woman to be elected president here in the US, even if she were Rice.

Ezra's post is not about Clinton vs Obama; it's about language.

Dude. You don't have to. What you do have to do is think about someone else for 15 seconds. Think about someone who isn't a Democrat or a Republican. Think about a young girl, a daughter, or a niece or something.

Dude, okay, I'm thinking of a young girl. She's an exchange student from the Czech republic, she's ridiculously hot and her accent makes the hairs on my neck stand on end...okay that was 15 seconds. What now?

Try to imagine what it feels like for them to watch Hillary Clinton take the oath of office.

It's like finding a pint of Haagen Daas chocolate ice crem in the back of the freezer!

Then come back and say it's meaningless for feminism and all womenkind because she's married to Bill.

Okay, dude: It's meaningless for feminism and all vaginian kind because she's married to Bill.

Anonymous, WTF is wrong with you?

Working really hard on adding sexist remarks to your long portfolio of racist ones?

"But has anyone ever described Kennedy's election as historic for Catholicism?"

"The election of John E Kennedy was truly an extraordinary and liberating event for U.S. Catholics (Dolan 1992, 422). As Crews (1993) notes, "An invisible barrier had been shattered. Across the nation, Catholics sensed that they had finally achieved unquestioned first-class status as loyal citizens" (p. 139). After enduring more than 170 years of political anti-Catholicism in various forms and degrees, (2) eight in ten Catholic voters supported Kennedy at the ballot box in 1960. At the time, Converse et al. (1961) noted "the vote polarized along religious lines in a degree which we have not seen in the course of previous sample survey studies" (p. 273). Slightly more than 118,000 votes separated Kennedy from Nixon nationally and it would have been a daunting challenge for him to win with anything less than 80 percent of the Catholic vote. Converse et al. (1961) estimate that Kennedy's vote among Catholics was 17 percentage points higher than what an average non-Catholic candidate could have expected (p. 275)."

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5609866/Camelot-only-comes-but-once.html

Soullite-

It seems like 7:50 and 8:02 we agree well enough. It's absolutely just as dumb an argument to make if you're a woman.

But that's because of the obvious fact that for many women (most women, maybe all women) it would be, on some level or another, a Big Deal to see a woman elected to the oval office, no matter who she is.

So I don't see why you don't think that pointing that out, as Ezra did, is to demolish the opposite argument.

southpaw-

I've already seen a few people here come at least perilously close to making Ezra's "straw man" argument in this thread. It's obviously out there. I guess I just haven't been in the swimming in the right sewers.

Soulite, How can you accuse others of stirring up racism as you defend a program whose entire basis is the practice of racial discrimination? But to bring this back on thread, if you're a black man, please don't loudly proclaim that ending affirmative action would be meaningless because Hillary is married to bill, or something like that. In fact, if you're white, or black, or vaginian, or you're anything but a hot Czech exchange student, just don't proclaim anything, even quietly, for a while.

"The election of John E Kennedy was truly an extraordinary and liberating event for U.S. Catholics (Dolan 1992, 422). As Crews (1993) notes, "An invisible barrier had been shattered. Across the nation, Catholics sensed that they had finally achieved unquestioned first-class status as loyal citizens" (p. 139)."

Which is exactly why Hillary's election would be historic for women in the same way. Which is, I believe, precisely what I wrote. But that is not the same thing as being historic for feminism. Unless feminism is being shorn of any meaning except "women succeeding in male-dominated fields, regardless of how that success is achieved or what it is based on". Is that sort of crude, base, identity politics really all that feminism is, was or ever will be about?

Mike

Southpaw, because what he said was so foolish it becomes easy to ignore what he said. He's a white guy telling other white guys they can't hold a certain view. He's not trying to show why the view is wrong. I'm not even sure he believes it is. All he's doing is saying some people can't express it while others can.

It's a stupid believe, but it's an easy trap to fall into. If you're poor and powerless, it's easy to see nothing but nepotism and elitism at work. People know their own children are fucked, and watch as the children of the wealthy get all the good jobs and go to all the good schools. You think this resentment only comes from sexism, but a lot of people actually do hate the nepotism they see in our society.

Those people deserve to be told why they are wrong. They deserve to know that their fears and their suffering are heard. They don't deserve a finger pointed at them and a stern admonishment that they are evil.

Mike,

Those identifying themselves
as feminists here and on the
feminist blogs I've seen disagree with you on what Clinton's nomination and presidency would do for feminism, and I'm going to have to consider them to be the more competent judges.

MBunge-

I think feminism is also about the idea that a woman shouldn't have to broker peace in the Middle East for a project in high school history class, then go on to earn 3 PhDs and end world hunger before she's taken seriously.

Plenty of Presidents have gotten there thanks to family connections and accomplishments.

If things were the other way around, George W. Bush's election would've been a huge barrier breaker for men and boys everywhere, as well as the masculinist movement.

Those identifying themselves
as feminists here and on the
feminist blogs I've seen disagree with you on what Clinton's nomination and presidency would do for feminism, and I'm going to have to consider them to be the more competent judges.

See, this is stupid. Mere self-identification as a feminist doesn't give anyone a monopoly on understanding what's good for feminism, and unsupported appeals to authority make you look like a jackass.

so, ML, as a budding feminist I should default to the guy's point of view?

LOL

I could care less about what it would do for feminism. Feminism can mean a whole lot of different things to different people, and like all ideologies it involves some ideas a lot of people will never sign on to.

It would mean a lot of plenty of women, especially older ones who think this is the only chance they will ever have to see this happen. More importantly, it would mean something very real for this country. It would mean we're finally starting to become the country we're meant to be. Do you remember the America we were all promised as children? Well I want it. Why don't you?

so, ML, as a budding feminist I should default to the guy's point of view

No, you should think for yourself.

(At the same time, of course, you should be very aware of the extent to which society has conditioned us to regard a male point of view as the "normal" point of view.)

I'm still hoping to god that anonymous is a lot younger than I thought, or that 15 year old czech girl statement is looking really creepy...

Adding: I know sometimes underage girls are hot, and thinking that doesn't make you some deformed mutant pervert.

But there is something seriously wrong with a grown man who's default fantasy is a 15 year old girl. It's one thing to think of some girl in front of you 'if only I were still a teenager', it's another thing to close your eyes and have her be the first thing that pops into your head.

we're not that far off, ML...I consider myself learning still; but my instincts say beware when a man tries to tell me what feminism is, especially within the context of arguing that Clinton's being elected could somehow not be a step ahead for US feminism.

I'd have to accept his definitions for his argument to have merit, and that's little more than 2 parasitic kinds of bs.

"I think feminism is also about the idea that a woman shouldn't have to broker peace in the Middle East for a project in high school history class, then go on to earn 3 PhDs and end world hunger before she's taken seriously.

Plenty of Presidents have gotten there thanks to family connections and accomplishments."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't think that sort of corrupting nepotism finally ellevating a woman to the Presidency is exactly what feminists are cheering on.

Feminists seem to be claiming Hillary as some sort of examplar, yet her life of putting herself second to her husband's career and accepting his mistreatment, then laying claim to his accomplishments and his stature for herself only after his political viability is exhausted...doesn't stike me as a particularly feminist existence. Hillary's Presidency would be historic for women...but as some sort of validation or victory for feminism? Not so much.

Mike

Someday, people will understand that sexism, racism, and classism are all a part of the same wicked beast. Then we won't have to have this war of the feminst vs the ethnic vs the marxist. Maybe then the ruling elite won't be able to use our separate attachments to divide us.

I have my doubts, however. After-all, I see the grand design and I still fall into these traps.

Mike,

You're missing the point. Given the mere sexist vitriol directed at Clinton during this primary ALONE, if she triumphed over that, it would be HUGE for feminism. Look here for starters

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/

Your arguments about her path to this point are as valid as Ferraro's were about Obama's. They're based on a hypothetical negative.

He's not trying to show why the view is wrong. I'm not even sure he believes it is. All he's doing is saying some people can't express it while others can.

I guess I read it differently. I saw something like, "Look, to make this argument you have put yourself inside the mind of all womankind. But that's stupid. As guys, it's arrogant to even try, and you obviously haven't remotely succeeded, because I have talked to some ladies I know, and it's pretty clear that you are way off the mark."

I don't think that was the *best* way to make the argument, but I did think it was an argument.

There's nothing like electing a woman who voted for a completely crazy war out of political opportunism (hopefully not total stupidity, which is the other alternative) to move us all forward...

Feminists seem to be claiming Hillary as some sort of examplar

I don't think that's true at all. I think anyone, feminist or otherwise, could probably easily name a dozen women who might not only be better avatars of feminism, but also better candidates and presidents.

This is exactly how I feel, and the feeling I think a great many women and/or feminists have. Something like, "I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but wow, it would be amazing to finally see a woman in the Oval Office."

The point is that she does not actually need to be an avatar of feminism to represent a great victory for feminism.

Feminism is about everybody just being people.

But everyone is not just people in this country. Not yet. Part of that is the fact that there have been 42 presidents in a row who have not been a woman. That ain't coincidence.

Hillary isn't actually half bad. Were she to get elected, it would, in fact, be a big deal for feminism.

Actually, let me just take that last back to say that it is a huge deal that she is (was) a serious contender, even the favorite, for the Democratic nomination.

As Soullite pointed out, it is really not about the individuals who break these barriers, it's about what it says about what we as a society are ready for.

"Someday, people will understand that sexism, racism, and classism are all a part of the same wicked beast. Then we won't have to have this war of the feminst vs the ethnic vs the marxist. Maybe then the ruling elite won't be able to use our separate attachments to divide us.

I have my doubts, however. After-all, I see the grand design and I still fall into these traps."

Soullite,
We have been sparring/spatting for weeks; but when I read this, I realize we do have more in common than not...but how do we come together as a party and go after the real enemy?

"Conversely, electing Obama is a big deal. Name another first-world majority-white country that's elected a visible-minority leader. Whoops, you can't.)"

Not first world grant you, (nor particularly good) but Peru's Fujimori was definitely groundbreaking in this respect

Soulite, I think you're taking the first sentence of Ezra's post far too literally.

He's implicitly prescribing that white guys who may be inclined to view Hilary's candidacy as "meaningless to feminism" should, you know, discuss this with some women. He then says that he did, and that it changed his mind.

I.E. he's convinced (perhaps wrongly) that this sort of discussion will change many people's mind on this point

While I do think that Ezra should've stated this more explicitly, I read the first sentence as a plea to white guys (such as myself) to not make themselves look stupid by talking about something without obtaining some first-hand information.

Though your reductio ad absurdum about only black women being allowed to speak was clever, it rather misses the point that this is a post about listening before speaking.

I'm far more interested in scoring a win for progressive politics this November than I am for scoring a win for either women or African Americans. Either one will be icing on the cake.

Now, only one of the candidates is truly progressive from a foreign policy perspective, so I'm firmly in his camp, but if he were Alan Keyes, I'd have to say "Sorry, not this time, either." And if the woman is Hillary Clinton, which it is, then I have to say the same thing.

Have you ever heard of Condeleeza Rice? Republicans have been begging her to get into the race, and she's never even run for office (yet is still far more qualified to be President than Obama--imagine that). Hey she's also black, too, even blacker than Obama, but she's the second black the GOP has tried to recruit to run for President(many Republicans tried to get Colin Powell to run in 1996).

Eric, if you really think that either Rice or Powell could actually get the nomination in a party that depends on the southern strategy to win elections, then you may be the dumbest person on the planet, and that's saying something, based on this thread.

Jeez, Ezra, I have no idea if you even keep reading after the first three comments or so (I'm guessing the volume is just too high) but if you do, let me say thanks. This was a balanced and thoughtful post, and I'm sorry it means you're getting slammed by a bunch of idiots who can't tell the difference between "hey, guys, maybe when voicing an opinion you should keep in mind that there's relevant experience that you don't have direct access to" (which I take to be your position) and "therefore you should shut up and never have an opinion ever" (which I assume isn't.)

Seriously, I would be out there campaigning for Obama right now if I hadn't gotten so thoroughly sick of his smug, nasty supporters.

If the ability to rattle sabres, to campaign so that she wins or the party loses, to endlessly fluff McCain, and to run as a Republican while being female is your idea of feminism, then HRC retaking the White House will indeed be historic.

If your idea of feminism has actual humanitarian or ethical or economic principles of any sort attached, not so much.

It's reminiscent of the RNC argument that resistance to Clarence Thomas's authoritarianism was racist. Where would black male children be without Justice Thomas to be inspired by?

President Darcy Burner would be historic for feminism. President HRC would be historic for K street.

"President Darcy Burner would be historic for feminism. President HRC would be historic for K street."

Again, I think I'll give more weight to what actual feminists, with experience on the matter, say.

"Having talked this through with some of the women in my life, I'm now convinced that, as a white guy, you, and I, have no idea what it would mean to see a woman elected to the presidency. It's just not within our universe of experience."

Bullshit. I understand it just fine.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we won't really know what Hillary actually means to feminism until her part in the current spectacle finishes playing out. Maybe that will be at the convention. Maybe that will be on Election night. Maybe it'll even be eight years from now.

But it's kind of silly to talk about what meaning this will have for feminism until it's over and we've all had time to digest what's actually happened. At least, that's what it seems like to this white male who supports Obama.

I doubt that Barack Obama or John Edwards would be were they are right now if they hadn't married smart, strong, articulate, dymanic women. I would even venture to say that both of those women have their husbands beat in some of those categories. Anyone who could find anything to disgree with in what Ezra said is nothing but an obnoxious idiot. And anyone who would minimize Hillary's abilities or accomplishments because she is married to Bill is even worse.

Anonymous, It is hard to ignore than Hillary has essentially spent most of her career as a tool of big business, especially the credit card and banking industries.

No matter what Hillary may mean for feminists and for women, that can never change the fact that she is nowhere near the champion of the downtrodden that she likes to pretend that she is.

Feminists, in general, don't give a flying fuck about class issues. Most of them are middle-to-upper class white women, and most of them are as blind to those issues as Ezra thinks men automatically are to 'womens' viewpoints. So no, it's not appropriate to only take their word for things like this.

jbdo, words have meanings. He didn't say 'think before you speak'. He said 'don't speak'.

Somehow, I doubt he'd tell feminists that they aren't allowed to weigh in on race issues. I doubt he'd tell rich people that they aren't allowed to weigh in on class issues. He shouldn't be telling men they aren't allowed to weigh in on feminist issues. It's absurd.

Soullite-
Your right. Hillary was so in the pockets of the credit card companies that she voted against putting a cap on credit card interest rates. Actually, NO- that was Obama. I am sure it was an accident, or there is an aid to blame, or he just didn't know what he was voting for. Sorry to interrupt. Please go back to spewing your hateful lies.

Seriously, I would be out there campaigning for Obama right now if I hadn't gotten so thoroughly sick of his smug, nasty supporters.

This has to be the absolute worst reason not to support a candidate. Both he and Clinton have been busting their humps on the campagin trail for about 15 months, and you would reject a candidate you otherwise like because of what some anonymous people are typing on the internet?

We won't know what this means for feminism until the little cherubic five-year olds watching how their parents are behaving now grow up to be us. Are we elevating the discussion or are we simply reverting to our five-year old selves and worrying about who is going to give us cooties? My experience over the last year speaks more to kindergarten arguments with high school grammar than adult arguments as far as Clinton is concerned.

As far as I am concerned, Clinton helped women when a small girl told me that she hadn't known that a girl could be president. We can argue about other women whose politics we like more but they CHOSE not to run, they stayed in the background and they are not taking the heat right now for those little girls who didn't know that they could aspire in the USA to be 'King of the Mountain'.
Win or lose, little girls should know that they have every right to climb the mountain.

'This has to be the absolute worst reason not to support a candidate.'

That may be so but people have been turned off candidates and campaigns for less and I have heard from women who have worked tirelessly for Democratic campaigns for years who will vote for the nominee but will sit the campaign out this time round if the vitriol continues uncontested by the campaigns. They are just tired of feeling that their concerns don't matter or should be pushed aside again for the greater good. The question comes up- when are our concerns the greater good?

Mara, if I could answer that question I'd probably be a whole lot better a person than I am.

I think it starts with an acknowledgment that we're all subconsciously trying to hold onto the privileges we have in this society. My little spiel above about feminism isn't so much 'feminism is evil' as it is 'feminism is restrictive'. But the similar arguments can be made about Marxists and black activists as well. a lot of white class-types seem to poo-poo the idea that racism is something separate from classism, when it obviously is. Its not hard to see that sexism and homophobia are as rampant in black communities as they are in the white ones.

To some degree, we all have to start looking at the problems in our own houses, and that probably means listening to each-other a bit more. We're more likely to see the problems in others than we are to see the problems in ourselves.

Anonymous, yeah, when she decided she needed to start building a campaign resume. Before that, it was all bankruptcy bills and The Fellowship.
She belongs to an organization that says the wealthy elite are wealthy and elite because God has chosen them to be so. That poor people are naturally inferior to wealthy ones. Don't sit there and act like she's the peoples candidate. She thinks of the people as children to be taken care of, not as citizens to be given every opportunity.

Hawise, and a whole lot of black people are sick of white candidates making the argument than a black man can never be President, as Hillary is to super delegates.

How can you sit there and in one post say Hillary is a great human being for making girls think they can grow up to be President, when she's actually out there trying to stomp out that dream among black children?

Hawise, you act like this hasn't been the 'Abortion is the only issue that matters!' party for the last 15 years.

Every time I say the Democrats are worthless be they are corporate shills, you know what people like you throw in my face? 'You have to vote Democratic because of Abortion and the Supreme Court'. Every time I say the Democrats are worthless on human rights and the rule of law, all I hear is 'abortion, abortion, abortion'.

Go. Pack. Sand.

Where have I ever said that I think that she is a great person for any reason? I think that they both are weasels for different reasons, as they are different people who have come to their weaseldom along different paths.

I believe that the point that I am trying to make is that the top of the mountain should be available to anyone who wishes to make the climb and that all children should be made aware that they are eligible to take on the challenges, the risks and obviously the mindless vitriol that all sides of the debate feel is their right to spew.

I do not feel that abortion is the only women's issue that requires attention (it probably requires less attention)but it appears to be the only one with traction because it involves sex and that appears to be the only area where women can get allies these days. So you know where you can pack that sand.

Ezra, as a man, I am deeply offended that you would imply that I somehow lack the ability to verbally express what it is like to be a woman or how I would feel about a particular event if I were a woman, which I am not. I bet you'd never say that to me if I were a woman. That just proves that you're a sexist hack.

Hawise, it's not the only women's issue, but it is certainly a women's issue. Don't sit there and pretend anyone else honestly cares about abortion. When was the last time poor folks even got that much from this god damned party? Never. They are lucky to see an increase in the pathetically low minimum wage every 10 years or so.

You act like Hillary is losing because she's a woman, and thats bull shit. All that time in congress, you honestly think if she had spent it standing up to Bush, rather than behind him, that she wouldn't have been the nominee 2 months ago? You're willing to ignore that because she's a woman, but a whole hell of a lot of people aren't. That doesn't make them sexist.

"Name another first-world majority-white country that's elected a visible-minority leader. Whoops, you can't."

Does Alberto Fujimori count? He was born in Peru but his parents had immigrated from Japan, and he had dual citizenship. But that's the only example I could think of, and he stood out in my memory because it seemed so odd that someone with his name was president of Peru. Obama's election would be far more historically unprecedented than Hillary's.

In fact, Hillary's election would be only a footnote, historically, compared to Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher was a well qualified woman who rose to power on her own (not as somebody's wife or widow or daughter) and who then made a strong impact on the world as a powerful leader of a major country. I don't know as much about Angela Merkel, but coming after both, an inexperienced wife of a former president just isn't that big an event.

The relevant precedents for Hillary aren't so much Thatcher and Merkel, or other women presidents and prime ministers who succeeded on their own, such as Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese, Agatha Barbara, Ruth Dreifuss, Tarja Kaarina Halonen, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Michelle Bachelet Jeria, Pratibha Patil or even Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (who became president when Estrada was forced out) or Aung San Suu Kyi (who was only 2 years old when her father was assasinated and who has been a powerful and independent advocate for change, even through all these years of house arrest).

The relevant precedents are the many women who got the top job through family connections: Benazir Bhutto, Maria Peron, Indira Gandhi, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Sonia Gandhi, Megawati Sukarnoputri, Cory Aquino, Violeta Chamorro, Hasina Rahman, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Chandrika Kumaratunga, Khalida Zia and Hasina Wajed.

Yes, I know that the US is the leader of the free world and all, but the story of a woman getting a country's top job, much less getting it through family connections, has played out so many times in the last half-century that one more replay just doesn't compare to a story like Thatcher's.

o.k., Ann, which female US president would Clinton be most like?

Ezra, as a white man myself, I really think you're wrong about this and that my opinion desperately needs to be heard.

Hey Dismayed Liberal,

Just to clarify, I'll vote for the guy if he's the nominee. I don't really have anything against him personally; I think he'll probably do fine if elected. But frankly, from what I've seen so far of his ground troops - I just don't want to be one of them right now. It's not a group I want to belong to. I do think the way people and their supporters campaign should have consequences. That's why I voted for Obama in the primary (I didn't like the way Hillary was campaigning) and it's why I currently don't plan to join Obama's ground troops (I don't like what I've seen of that side of his campaigning.)

soullite, I really wish that you would stop inferring what I want and believe without reading what I write. You can vote/support/bathe who you want for all I care and so can either of the two candidates but don't try to shut down debate by telling me what I should feel or expect from a political debate. By my estimation, they are both dilettantees who are bound to disappoint their more rabid followers and that appears to be the best that we will get this time around. If one of them breaks a barrier in the process then I say at least we accomplished something before the political gridlock returns.

Give me a politician who actually feels responsible for the vows that they make and judges who don't want to punish me for the sin of being born in the wrong body and I'm good. Anything beyond that is gravy.

Hawise, stop inferring what? I read what you wrote. If you meant to say something else, you should have said something else.

What other reason would you have for being so upset? The only other answer, that you're just pissed that you didn't get your way, isn't exactly mor charitable. Your candidate lost. Rather than explaining that you couldn't back Obama for ideological or political reasons, you said you won't do it because his supporters are mean and you're sad Hillary didn't win.

YOU'RE the one who said have heard from women who have worked tirelessly for Democratic campaigns for years who will vote for the nominee but will sit the campaign out this time round if the vitriol continues uncontested by the campaigns. They are just tired of feeling that their concerns don't matter or should be pushed aside again for the greater good. The question comes up- when are our concerns the greater good? like women are the only people in this party who have been taken for granted.

How the hell else is someone supposed to take that?

You act as if what you describe only applies to feminism, as opposed to anything that isn't in the corporate shill agenda.

soullite- this was a post about how women are feeling and not about you, you, you. Guess what, some of us are feeling that when we try to just get some basic decency in this campaign season then we are banging our heads against the wall. Or that when we try to get people to recognize us as people with legitimate feelings then we are told that we have to think of everyone else but us first. Been there, done that, no longer works for me and by extension, no longer gets work from me.

Hawise, so now you're going into the 'you're not allowed to have an opinion defense.' Grow the fuck up, we all resolved that little piece of self serving bullshit about 20 comments ago.

Maybe if people like you ever gave a flying fuck about people not like you, your candidate would be winning right now.

In sentence one, you say that my opinions and feelings don't matter. In sentence 2 you tell me I'm evil because I told you your opinions and feelings don't matter.

The cognitive dissonance involved in that paragraph would have made most people hesitant to press the post button.

Histrionic much are we? If your feelings and opinions were addressing the topic of this post then I would give you all the credit in the world but you are just proving the point. When women try to get recognition about our feelings and concerns we are not saying that your opinions don't matter. We are saying that ours matter as well. If you have found what you are looking for, great. I'll keep looking.

Soullite, there's a lot of dissonance in your argument that feminists don't care about class issues but do care about keeping abortion legal? Legal abortion is a HUGE class issue. If Roe is overturned and the determination of abortion's legality reverts to the states, women with economic resources will still have access to abortion. Even with Roe nominally intact, there are already so many hindrences to access---no local providers, waiting periods, parental notification, etc.---that not all poor women who want abortions can get them. The men and women fighting to reverse this erosion of reproductive rights are feminists, and they recognize that being able to plan your family is an economic right as well as a human one.

And do you really believe that only women care about abortion? In your estimation, do men not care about whether they become fathers? Or grandfathers? Your assertion strains credulity.

Az, a lot of people care about abortion. Only a small portion of them make it the end-all be-all of politics, and virtually all of them are womens issues voters. That is not nearly the same thing as them all being women.

But ask anyone who cares about other issues and constantly hears their issues denigrated, because we all have to vote Democratic because of abortion or we're bad people. No matter how little the Dems do about the issues we care about. Don't expect for a minute that doesn't cause resentment.

Hawise, I'm done talking to you. Nothing you say will change the fact that when you ran out of good arguments, you said that men should just shut up.

Even beyond what Ezra said. At least he only said we weren't allowed to hold one view. You said we aren't allowed to have any view on anything if it disagrees with you.

go back to alas, A blog or some other shithole where only people who agree with you are allowed to talk.

White woman here, age 43. Does that give me credentials to say what it will be like - or [ahem] feel like? It will be a continual embarassment to have a woman win this because of who she was married to, who cries and lies to get ahead, and gives us all a bad name.
There. Fyi and all.

"you said that men should just shut up."

thank "you."
they should; they know not of which they speak

Regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton, it's ridiculous to categorize her with wives who take their husband's places just because they're the wives. There's no doubt that Clinton has been strongly interested in politics and public policy since college. Had she not let her husband's political career come first, she probably would have run for office long before she did. This is not something opportunistic that she fell into. It's in her blood and always has been.

Amen, Denise!

I don't see there's a reason for us if the president may be an or woman.