Thanks for your wonderful article.

I must say, though, it's not the first time we've confused empowerment with Stepford-style acquiescence. The latter has *always* made women powerful in American society. Museums and libraries and garden societies would not have had any board members at all if it wasn't for women (typically, women of privilege) settling for that kind of service and social rank or position. Methinks the shock of the author has much to do with the fact that she must either be pretty young or she grew up with feminism being taken for granted in her household. I'm pretty young myself in fact, but I can remember distinctly debates about whether we really needed feminism because women had plenty of power -- just look! the entire opera board is run by women!! all of the PTA moms are women. All of the nurses are women! Nurses rule! Especially sexy nurses! Gee, all of the Girl Scout leaders are women! I appreciate how horrifying is the spectre of Wonderland feminism (upsidedowninsideout) that the Republican Party thinks will "pass" for genuine equality and that much of the mainstream media seems to vaguely go along with as an acceptable substitute to real empowerment. I just think we've been living with this nightmare for a long time.

I'm losing patience with the many ways people are veiling their racism. However, one thing makes me laugh ironically.

Rural voters not connecting with a black man?? Come on. If it hadn't been for African-Americans (originally slaves), we wouldn't have had a burgeoning rural economy in the U.S. Ever.

Sigh. Hoping for the best still. Working for good candidates who have rightly left the 17th-20th centuries behind. Let's do it! Let's elect this promising, smart, and dedicated ticket.

What's next, people?

Ours is a ridiculous form of "capitalism," as you rightly point out. Thanks as always for your incisive writing.