Letters to the Editor
CeliaInSF
Published Letters: 495 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Hillary dropped the Rodham and is certainly NOT running as a feminist
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Forgive me if this has already been addressed- I was following the discussion last night and am catching up on comments today over lunch.
But it occurs to me that I haven't seen anyone mention in any of the discussion that I have read that Hillary is running as Hillary Clinton. NOT Hillary Rodham Clinton. There is distinct difference in her campaign website and her senate site. I noticed this a while back and checked out her sites. When looking for Rodham on her presdential campagn site the only mention I saw was in reference to her father.
Was this a preemptive strike against sexists who don't like women who retain and use their birth name in conjunction with their married name? Would anyone believe such people would vote for her anyway?
Obviously what we choose to call ourselves is a personal decision. I wouldn't make any kind of point about it if her campaign and senate personas were not different.
Looks like more triangulation. She is running on her husbands experience and legacy. An apprentice? give me a break. I'm a feminist and I find the apprentice bull a lot more insulting than someone calling her nasty names. Hey maybe that's not nice- but I'm not pretending that riding on my husbands coatails would be a victory for women. How could it be?
She has whined and cried at the poor treatment she has received. Understandable- human, yes. Calculating- perhaps. Feminist role model - I think not. Instead of countering the bogus shit she has faced she gets all weepy - exploiting women's feelings and similar experiences.
Yes, I've faced harrassment - and it made me sad and angry and I have cried. But I also stood up to it in official capacity. didn't use it as a way to manipulate people to my favor but addressed it head-on. I find it appalling when I see her exploit the sexism being hurled at her. Rather than confront it - with anything like the race speech that Obama gave- she will continue to exploit it.
I find that disgusting, disingenuous and perhaps one of the most damaging things to happen to feminism in a long time. tons of people don't like her for a host of different reasons- right, wrong and in between. But if she loses this nomination it won't be becasue she is a woman- it is the same reason she had a shot in the first place- because she is Hillary Clinton. I think her decision to run will greatly hurt the chances of having a woman president in my lifetime.
That of course doens't make the bullying right by any strectch. But HC's response to it has been deplorable.
-
@ -- weeping for brunnhilde
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love your posts- your thoughtfulness and true desire to untangle some of these throny issues. I have been reading a lot of salon for a long time but only have been posting recently. (I fear getting caught up to emtionally in just these sort of flame wars.)
But I've been posting a bit lately because I'm concnered about the puritanical bent of a lot of the feminism/sexism related posts, especially in broadsheet. I wish it were easier for people to understand the model of sensitivity you are talking about.
A renewed movement of PC authoritariansm is not going to get us any further. Thoughtful, substatantive debate that you bring to the table, is IMHO what we need much more of if we are to overcome our limitations and create an improved discourse.
Policing morality and obscenity always - and justly- produces a backlash.
It may be difficult to see the diference because in many instances, as here, you will arrive at the same conclusions, from very different starting points and reasoning. But I think how we get there matters.
I wish more on the left- progressives, liberals, whatever you will call us, would leave the morality and obscenity policing to the right wing. We can do better.
-
@ weeping for brunnhilde
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for your kind response. That- and the thoughtful discussion that has emerged here - makes me feel a little less squeamish about joining the discourse. I love the conversation but I get agita from flame wars and tend to recede....
What you said about about Versailles is so right on and a wonderful example. To extend that notion- about the dangers of acting from our grievances is exactly why I have so much trouble with Hillary Clinton. A lot of her supporters seem upset that some can't get past HC's vote for the war. That acting out is what it is for me. To wit: if we take HC at her word that she thought Bush would not use the war powers granted him (and that is a tough pill to swallow) but only meant to threaten Iraq- that is acting from that same place of righteous victim hood. The idea that because we had been wounded- and no doubt we had (but not by Iraq) is justification to lash out in anger with threats and actual violence. It is a frightening and dangerous concept.
That is not to say there is no place for self defense or even the projection of power. But we can't run around justifying murder and recklessness because we have been brutalized. It only creates more brutality. The zero sum game as you put it. That is why I can't support anyone who supported the war.
That is why I (another feminist woman to be added to the list!) support Obama. He really seems to represent another path. I hope we get a chance to walk that path. I don't think it is necessarily an easy way but the right one. If that is not the case, I will pull the lever for HC but it will be with great heaviness in my heart.