Well, this election isn't ONLY a woman's right to govern her own body.

I recall something about War with Iran, the right not to live in a police state, etc. But then, maybe you're comfortably insulated from these consequences as well.

Have your heard that the insurance companies (in this case going by the name American Medical Association) are trying to outlaw midwifery?

http://safebirthohio.org/blog/

This is disgustingly Patriarchal and Authoritarian. Choice matters, and so do results. Midwives have been helping women birth babies safely and naturally for centuries. And yes, midwives are highly skilled professionals who aren't turning their backs on medical advances, but using them as part of an approach that values "patients" as human beings.

(And no, I'm not saying doctors don't. There are obviously great ones all over the place. But this stinks.)

Hey Salon, how about some Feminism with social consciousness?

Good point. I'm not ready to say he's the same as McCain, and I'm willing to listen, but I sent Obama a letter today voicing my concerns.

"Who can forget white New Yorkers Michael Schwerner, 24, and Andrew Goodman, 20, who were killed by klansmen in Nashoba County, Miss., as they, along with James Chaney, a 21-year-old black Mississippian, went to investigate the burning of a black church? They had spent the day registering black voters.

Rita Schwerner, Michael Schwerner's wife, already had spent six months organizing in Mississippi the day her husband was killed."

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/20/news_pf/Opinion/White_friends_of_civi.shtml

touche!

too subtle for me, i reckon

apologies

I bet lots of 'em —who grew listening to hip hop and interacting with all kinds of different people—were just ticked off by Clinton's documented pandering to the "I won't vote for a black man" crowd. The "He's not a Muslim AS FAR AS I KNOW" bit. The "he's only winning because he's black" business.

How many of you would've absolutely flipped the fuck out if a male Obama supporter had said Clinton was only winning because of her gender? Be honest.

And many think about "feminine" characteristics like open discussion over combativive debate, like non-jingoistic and militaristic foreign policy, which aren't exclusive to biological females.

Yes, we should all stick together, I favor progressive humanism, and it's absurd to label all Clinton supporters as racists, but let's not pretend these things never overlap.

If you think the only conceivable reason a person wouldn't vote for Hillary is that they're Sexist, would the same logic apply to anyone who didn't vote for Obama, making them de facto Rracists?

They would all, of course, be Agists if they didn't vote for McCain.

Glad we cleared this up. Time for bed.

yeh, i misread you comment and thought you were expressing the sentiment you were actually disagreeing with

i apologized several pages back now

Here's something that's awfully relevant (and might be why they love to get us factionalized and at each other's throats):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Corporations used the provision meant to extend rights to former slaves to get the right of "personhood" without the responsibilities.

Why are so many black men in prison? Well, lots of reasons, but the prison industrial complex is a huge part of it.

Why do so many women have body image issues (which can be deadly in the form of anorexia/bulimia)? Well, lots of reasons, but the "women's bodies are commodities" ad industry is a huge part of it.

Why do so many Americans not have health care even though they finance the drug companies with their tax dollars?

Well, you know where I'm going with this.

this should be recognized

and it should be a reminder to Feminists that wars have all kinds of consequences for human beings, many of them women

and now for something completely different:

the AMA wants to outlaw midwifery--protecting patients, or denying women (whole familes, very often) a valuable choice to increase the drug companies' monopoly?

http://cfmidwifery.blogspot.com/

"It helps to quote people so they have some idea of what you're referring to."

Lol, you're a real charmer.

Yes, true, my finding a random (poorly and quickly chosen) online example isn't a strong refutation of your overall point.

And I get that "race" isn't just about melanin/genetics, but culture, class, economics, etc. Wanting to live in colorblind world doesn't change the realities, I know.

And I can see why you would want to refute the people who get all up in arms about about the historic nature of a woman's shot at the presidency but seem strangely mute/unaware/even hostile to the historic nature of an African American's shot (or mixed race person).

But I do tend to shy away from contests to decide who's suffered most (or who's ignored the suffering of others), as they're hard to resolve and ultimately not that productive.

As Zinn points out, indentured servants and slaves sometimes banded together out of common interest, and so institutionalized racism was encouraged to divide and conquer.

Let's not be divided, is mostly what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to pile on, but there sure was a flurry of responses, aye?

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.