feminist blogs in english

"The Day of the Women of the Americas was established in 1982 by Resolution CIM/RES.587 (XII-0/82) of the OAS General Assembly to commemorate the creation of the Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM) in 1928. In doing so, the Assembly recognized the vital role that the women of the Americas have played as agents of social change. The main objective of this day is to stimulate new initiatives and establish programs of action dedicated to involving women fully and permanently in the countries’ development. Twenty years later, the CIM encourages the participation of all Member States to celebrate women’s roles as fundamental actors and vital constituents to their societies.

The CIM maintains a constant dialogue with women of the Americas in order to exchange ideas and experiences and to promote policies that will increase women’s voices in the development process."

It’s time for another edition of “comments that should have been posts.” I’m elevating this one to post status because a) it’s true, and b) it’s the kind of thing that gets our stomach acids going for days here in the Smoking Lounge.

At any rate, over in the Hillary poll thread, Alice P. said of Sarah Palin:

I cringe at the idea of someone who is a fundie being the first woman president.

And I said:

A factoid that’s bandied about is that the first woman leader in most countries is usually a conservative. Somehow that eases the path, since it means that she’s not threatening the patriarchal status quo completely.

Hillary was our nation’s best chance to avoid that fate. She was and is a feminist Democrat. She’s to the left of Obama.

Which of course is why it was such bullshit for the faux-feminists to pretend that they couldn’t support Hillary because she was so “right-wing” or “not feminist enough.” As opposed to Barack Lieberman Obama.

Ironically, Palin really is the right-wing woman that the faux-feminists claimed Hillary to be.

Sarah Palin is a gifted politician. She may be crazy and wrong about a lot of stuff, but she’s still a charismatic leader. Read, for example, this thoughtful comment by Ciccina — who, I assure you from secret personal knowledge, is as much a radical feminist as myself. As Ciccina says, “she’s their Hillary.”

Sarah Palin is running for president. Whether she’ll still be running for president in 2012 is anybody’s guess, but I’m betting she will. And there’s a very good chance she will become the Republican nominee.

That will make her the first woman candidate for president on a major party ticket. Bite that.

So I’m wondering: what will Hillary do? I’m wondering it so much that I decided to make a little poll here and ask you all what you think.

I forgot Chris Matthews was sexist for an hour last night.

Following the State of the Union address Matthews said of President Obama, “I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It’s interesting; he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. He’s gone a long way to become a leader of this country and past so much history in just a year or two. I mean it’s something we don’t even think about. I was watching and I said, wait a minute, he’s an African-American guy in front of a bunch of other white people and there he is, president of the United States, and we’ve completely forgotten that tonight — completely forgotten it.”

Here’s a clip.

Wow. So does that means Matthews definition of post-racial is color-blind? A world where black leaders actually seem white – whatever that means? Oh Chris, you really stepped in it this time.

And then, I was watching and I said, wait a minute, he’s a sexist guy in front of a bunch of television viewers and there he is, chauvinist Hardball host, and we’ve completely forgotten that tonight – completely forgotten it.

This is the same Chris Matthews, after all, who linked Hillary Clinton to a she-devil, Nurse Ratched and Madam Defarge, referred to her as witchy, described her laugh as a cackle, and compared her voice to fingernails on a blackboard.

Do I think Matthews meant well last night? Probably. After all, Obama sends thrills up his leg.

But anyone who was surprised by Matthews’ comments last night has a short memory. He’s stepped in it before and he will surely step in it again.

Or maybe 2016. We gotta plan ahead.

Read Falstaff on the incompetence of the Obama administration (more on that later) and Hillary Clinton’s prospects:

The most interesting thing to me, political-leader-wise, is Hillary’s position. I think she’s holding a remarkable hand. If/when it becomes obvious to a majority of Americans that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter II — i.e., a flop as president — she’s got two options: She can either resign from the Administration over some matter of principle — and ipso facto become the presumptive nominee (doing to this one-term Carter what Teddy couldn’t do to the first one) — or she can choose to ensure his re-election by accepting his desperate plea to run with him as Veep in 2012… and then get elected President on her own in 2016.

Kinda reminds me of Wanda Sykes on “Clinton panties”:

As for Lady Gaga, I’m very pleased to see that she’s evolved from her earlier “I’m not a feminist, but…” stage to “Of course I’m a feminist!” By 2012 she’ll be leading Take Back The Night marches (wearing a phosphorescent bodysuit and fishnet stockings, I’m sure). We all saw last year that fame, youth, and a good voice is what packs ‘em in at the polls, so put Gaga on the ticket!

But seriously (and yes, I’m kidding about Lady Gaga), let me circle back now to this business of Obama’s alleged incompetence. Incompetent at what? At good government? At enacting progressive policies? Yes, if such a thing was ever his intention. But I don’t think it was. I’ve been saying since March 2008 that he’s a Republican in everything but name. Obama’s great gift is his ability to pretend he’s on the side of the progressive angels. And in our sound-bite culture, pretending is apparently enough.

Did you all see that news item the other day about the White House issuing a directive for government transparency? If you’re a political junkie and you know that behind the scenes Obama is pushing hard to renew the Patriot Act, then you know that the “Open Government Directive” is just bread and circuses. But most people aren’t political junkies. Most people probably don’t know about the Patriot Act renewal. All they see is a headline about Obama calling for transparency in government, and they think, “Gosh, he’s doing exactly what he promised! What a great guy!”

Same thing with healthcare. My own mother says, “Isn’t he trying to get real reform? Isn’t it the Republicans who are stopping him?” That’s certainly what Obama wants us to believe:

“As we head into the final stretch on health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo.

“So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.”

Gawd. It’s soul-stirring, isn’t it? Obama’s emails should come with embedded mp3s of the theme from Ben Hur. But Jane Hamsher sets the record straight:

It’s time that people took off the rose colored glasses and faced the fact that Obama’s “leadership” on health care was empty and passive. He went for the corporate-friendly “win” that enriches the insurance and drug companies, just as he has enriched the banks and failed to hold them to account. Those who look first to others as scapegoats for his actions have apparently not come to grips with the fact that as President of the United States, he’s a very powerful man who is not using that power to advance the progressive agenda they attribute to him.

I’m not sure about the “empty and passive” bit; in that same post Jane stresses that Obama has been closely involved in the healthcare reform process all along. It seems to me he’s pretty active — just not on behalf of progressive interests.

And now the banking regulation deal looks like the same thing. The Huffington Post reports that “the Obama administration” is pushing for tougher regulation of the financial services industry. The administration is opposed, allegedly, by a group of pro-bank Democrats led by Representative Melissa Bean. But it turns out that Melissa Bean is part of the same money-soaked Chicago circle as Obama (hat tip to lambert). As Little Isis summarizes:

Regardless of who Bean is taking her marching orders from, Obama’s inner circle retains significant leverage over the Representative from Illinois. To understand her as a rogue element within her party, doing Wall Street’s bidding and crossing senior leadership, is to completely disregard the roots of power in the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

This kind of two-faced strategy reminds me of the Obama campaign in 2008: nice on the outside, nasty as shit behind the scenes. That was one reason it was so hard to get dazzled Obama fans to understand how awful his team really was. “He’s such a lovely man!” people would say. Yeah, right.

It was another busy week and we are glad it is winding down. We’ve compiled some follow up reading for you on the topics we covered this week. But first, some news.

Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley announced today the endorsement of Gloria Steinem, founding editor and publisher of Ms. magazine, co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus and long-time women’s rights activist.

What is exciting and significant about this endorsement is it is yet another example that Coakley is not afraid of gender. Other women candidates often feel pressure to downplay women’s rights for fear of being seen as “just” a woman’s candidate. On the flip side, if they talk tough or wear pantsuits instead of skirts, they are criticized for being a “woman acting like a man.” Coakley is simply running on her track record and the important issues, one of which is women’s rights. Her opponents aren’t trying to hide the fact they are men and she’s not hiding the fact she is a woman.

Speaking of the Massachusetts Senate race…

Sexism Alive and Well: Joan Vennochi at The Boston Globe had a great op-ed this week on the old boy’s network.  It talks about how the network protects the men’s club.  Read it here.

National Day of Action: For a round up of actions and articles on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and the fight to protect women’s rights visit The Women’s Media Center.  And yes, Senator Nelson is still working on his Stupak-like Amendment.

World Aids Day: Another round up of blog posts this time on World Aids Day can be found here at Global Health Progress.

Turkeys: Roman Polanski made bail and moved to his ski chalet. The New York Times wrote a story about it and never used the word rape.  Not once.

Chris Brown will tell the world tonight he is “really sorry” about beating up Rhianna. As my daughter would say, “Whatever.”

And Tiger Woods, well, we still think his problems are personal and none of our business. This whole incident is however, a good reminder that sports stars are superb athletes, not heroes. Imagine if we found our role models and heroes in our own lives instead of on the television? After all, small, everyday acts of kindness impact our lives much more than the fame and wealth of strangers.

Lest you think we were making any progress with regards to gender issues, allow me to burst your bubble. The primary election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts is less than a week away (Tuesday, Dec. 8 — don’t forget to vote if you live in the Commonwealth) and the media seems to be running out of things to write about in this race. So they are reverting to some old school tricks.

Most political watchers consider this a dull election. It is highly unlikely that a Republican would ever take the Kennedy Seat, so the only real race is among four hopefuls from the Democratic party. But many see these four candidates Attorney General Martha Coakley, Rep. Michael Capuano, businessman Stephen Pagliuca and City Year co-founder Alan Khazei as so similar that it doesn’t make for good politics or much voter choice.

Choice, however, has been the one key differentiator among the candidates. Martha Coakley quickly took a stance on the anti-abortion Stupak-Pitts amendment added to the House healthcare bill and said she would not vote for a bill that included it. Stupak-Pitts was a so-called concession in the House vote last month. The compromise: women’s rights in exchange for healthcare reform. Coakley says she is confident we can pass healthcare reform without sacrificing women. Capuano has waffled on the topic. Pagliuca and Khazei vow not to let a little something like women’s access to reproductive rights get in the way of progress.

But apparently, the two main newspapers in Massachusetts don’t feel this issue is exciting enough and doesn’t make for good newspaper copy. So they are relying on a tried and true approach to sell papers: sexism!

 Those of us in Massachusetts were not surprised by Howie Carr’s column yesterday in The Boston Herald. (Insulted and annoyed? Yes. But surprised? Not at all.) Carr wrote:

“If you want to know which men in your neighborhood are henpecked, check out the houses with the Coakley yard signs out front.”

and

“I wouldn’t go so far as to say if her name were Martin Coakley, her candidacy would be a joke.”

and

“She is woman, hear her roar, or is it purr?”

But Alex Beam’s column in The Boston Globe today, “The Babe Factor,” was a surprise. After telling us women told him not to write this and his editors will pretend they didn’t know about it, Beam shares this gem:

“…someone has to say it: Martha Coakley is a very good-looking woman…Call it the babe factor.”

He goes on to say, “I know what you are thinking, and you are right. She does not photograph particularly well.”

Nope, that’s not what I was thinking. I was thinking Alex Beam is a jerk.

He then enlightens us that Coakey is better looking in person and that women over 50 can indeed be attractive before he launches into a discussion about her wardrobe. Coakley, he says, “…looks great in pants suits; Hillary Clinton without the baggage, you might say.”

It seems to me Coakley carries the exact same baggage as Clinton. A powerful woman, a true contender, is once again reduced to her looks and wardrobe by the mainstream media. What are you so afraid of Mr. Beam?

Thank God for men like my henpecked husband (we have a Coakley sign out front) who said of the column, “Beam and his editor should be fired for that.”