a feminist working for the "good old boys"

[aliasmisskat]

In this article on Jezebel, quite a debate raged in the comments on the existence and pervasiveness of sexism in modern culture, and the stigma of being labeled a "feminazi" when one asserts herself as an empowered woman

Comments

[jymlarin]

I agree that both minor and major affronts against women will continue to happen through the foreseeable future. Note that I'm not saying, "women and other groups," because that would decentralize the core of the feminist project -- attention to issues that are specific, for the most part, only to women. But I think a centralizing or single agenda for the feminist movement would be just as problematic. I'm afraid something similar to the NAACP flag debate would happen. Many on the Left say the NAACP spent too much time arguing over issues of minor importance (e.g., the debate over the Georgia state flag) at the expense of other issues more directly related to the quality of African-American life.

Is there a true disparity between insult (implied or otherwise) and larger "practical" issues such as the glass ceiling, the prominence of the Male Gaze in film and media, unequal pay, and the legal injustices prominent in rape cases? Will a unified group, with a unified agenda, confront some of these issues at the expense of others?

What frustrates me so much about the media's treatment of Hilary is that there is no recognition of how complex the issues are for Hilary as a female in general, and as a possible Commander-in-Chief in particular. Instead, the usual suspects of chauvinist journalism come into play: Hilary is acting "masculine" when talking about the 3:00 am phone call and national security; she is "feminine" when she shows emotion. These gender distinctions are just as pervasive as calling her "bitch," "cunt," "iron lady," etc. It seems to me that the still prevalent gender distinctions in leadership are exactly why such terrible slurs are so readily available to us. They belie the fact that Hilary, as a candidate not born into the privileged gender, will have something different and enriching to bring to the table. As president, she would not favor women over men, but she would certainly bring women's issues into the spotlight, a spotlight which male issues have enjoyed almost exclusively. She would utilize unique skills born out her struggle as a women seeking social and political equality, skills that men, as part of a patriarchal hegemony, cannot develop because of their privileged position.

I think we should be wary of the media commentators who even implicitly link dishonesty to emotionality, and emotionality to weakness. This is part of the media's widespread oversimplification of political and social issues. (Besides, all candidates lie!) Hilary could bring something different to the office, no doubt -- skills developed because of her class, gender, education, and overall social position.

What Hilary represents, if indeed she is to usher in a "fourth wave," is an intensely pragmatic feminism, not a unified, essentialist agenda. This is what the religious Right fearfully calls "moral relativism." This pragmatic feminism will no doubt appear to deal with certain issues at the expense of others, but will in fact attack injustice at its source.

So, the question is whether Hilary will win or lose the candidacy (and election) on her own terms, or on the terms established by the 43 male presidents before her.

(Oh, this is Spike, by the way. I'll be friending you shortly.)

[aliasmisskat]

"Is there a true disparity between insult (implied or otherwise) and larger "practical" issues such as the glass ceiling, the prominence of the Male Gaze in film and media, unequal pay, and the legal injustices prominent in rape cases? Will a unified group, with a unified agenda, confront some of these issues at the expense of others?"

Yes, I believe there is. Consider race, with it's various epitaphs; it is no longer acceptable to be openly racist, particularly in public forums. It is, however, generally expected women put up with all kinds of dehumanizing comments and behavior from the general public. Chauvinism is charming, whereas open racism is decried as an outrage. As much as I feel like an ass for saying it, women have been treated as property far longer than black people have, and continue to be. Where are my reparations?

As far as Hil's campaign, I'm waiting to see where it goes. There is the voice in my head telling me I should vote for her based on the fact she is a woman capable to doing the job. I'm not sure she is more or less qualified than anyone else. The unfortunate result of pitting a black man and white woman against each other is the social stigma pity card they both have at their disposal, and that so strongly undermines their actual message.