Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ Celia
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, I finally decided to check them out. I'd been resisting, mostly because I didn't want to pollute my beautiful mind, as it were. :) I watched about 50 seconds or so before I had to stop.
It's pretty repellent, but then, none of that is new.
That's just it!--none of that is new.
It's old.
This is why I think Obama stands the best chance of breaking the cycle--he's new. He's best poised to be able to say the emperor has no clothes, in this regard.
Clinton, being old herself, will only serve to increase the potency of such nastiness, because it will not just be nastiness, but familiar nastiness.
The same old rut.
I don't know if Obama, with our help, of course, can get us out of the rut, but I know Clinton cannot.
If he keeps doing what he's doing, stays on message (better angels, war is bad, Bush=McCain, etc.), I think he'll have a great shot.
None of this is to say I won't feel tormented to watch the nastiness unfold, I will, but I'm confident that if anyone can handle it, he can.
See, it's idealism but I'd like to think there's also some sound analysis mixed in.
We shall see what we shall see.
-
@ david
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seconded, David.
-
@ Lindy
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Like many Obama supporters (and others as well), I've become increasingly disgusted by Hillary Clinton's tactics. But I completely disagree that "stepping on the black candidate's message" is a racist thing to do, even if his message is a post-racial one."
Fair enough, Lindy. We'd probably have to first establish what "racist" means, as it's not entirely clear that we all mean it in the same way in the same context, but let that go.
Whether you call this particular tactic "racist" or not, do you at least see how the dynamic serves to infuse race where it need not be infused?
Could we say that Senator Clinton "racializes" or "invokes race?"
Is that a fair and perhaps more neutral assessment?
-
@ aka
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks, Aka.
There's actually something over there -----> on the ticker about Obama and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Some gay newspaper, the Philadelphia something was disturbed by what they thought was his snubbing of them, compared to Clinton's eager granting of an interview.
Also, there was something I read about his being symbolically invisible re: gay marriage in SF. Like he didn't meet with someone so as not to be seen too visibly supporting such a thing.
Something like that.
I believe Barack Obama believes in civil rights for gay people. I also believe he may have some discomfort, on a personal level, with homosexuality, something like John Edwards, when he declared, in one of the most heartfelt and honest moments in the campaign (or any campaign), that while he was personally uncomfortable with gay marriage as such, he recognized he was a fifty-something white guy from the south, and begged the patience of what he acknowledged was the more enlightened crowd at Dartmouth, where he was speaking.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some (or even a lot?) of political calculation. If he's to reach out to a broad swath of American people, including what I might term "religious zealots" (pick your term, it's not important), he can't go in with guns blazing. He first has to make friends with such people and lead them gently, rather than by compulsion, kicking and screaming into the future.
These "religious zealots" would also include the black community, which harbors what I consider a shameful degree of homophobia, in my experience.
Anyway, the bottom line is that whatever's going on, I can live with it because frankly, I trust Obama and believe his way (i.e. gentle suasion, genuine common ground, etc.) is better (at least, more promising) than the mortal combat approach.
But if I were in the gay community, I might see things differently. Then again, I might not.
Don't know.
Hope that's helpful.
-
@ XH
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Springtime for Hitlery!"
Oh, God, that's just *awful!*
I'm cringing...
"Winter, for Poland, and Fraaannnce!"
-
@ whitecat
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Recently, I learned that some airport shops are selling a “Hillary nutcracker.” She has a smile on her face and metal spikes between her thighs. I don’t worry about the candidate, who has learned how to handle such misogyny, but I do dwell on the young girls who might catch a horrifying glimpse of those steel jaws and decide that no woman should invite such vitriol. […]"
I basically agree with you point, but I think it's important to point out that misogyny is not the fundamental problem here, but rather dehumanization.
In this case, dehumanization takes the form of misogyny, of course, but the problem is that we're quick to dehumanize the other, wherever we find them.
I'm reminded of the cigarette lighter they sold when I was in high school, during the first gulf war: a caricature of a swarthy, fanatical-looking Arab in crosshairs with the caption, "Shiite happens"
Get it, eh, get it?
Repellent.
The point being, I'm not sure it's useful, in the example you provide, to diagnose the problem as being misogyny. Misogyny, I think, is just the symptom.
Basically, we need to learn how to respect one another's common humanity. Debasing images of human beings debase us all.
-
@ Lobelia
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My, you do have high standards, don't you?
Non-sociopath, you say? hmmm...
-
@ lobelia
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, and happy birthday, in advance!