Letters to the Editor
-
@At least it isn't the mommy wars
Captainlarab, thank you for your service. If you want to talk about your experience, I am here to listen.
CindyLu, I just had an interesting realization. I don't know if it -is- women vs. women, a few clever careerists looking to add to their resumes, or various aspects of the media sniffing for fresh prey, but whis older versus younger women situation...when I was a young feminist, back in the day, I used to be happy that we weren't replicating the behavior of men, rebelling symbolically and sometimes not so symbolically, against their fathers.
Oedipus is a fascinating archetype, as is Electra, but they're not particularly helpful or kind; and both caused a -lot- of trouble.
Ooops, forgot. There was a time when feminism wasn't supposed to be "about" this type of competition (personal best, yes; grabbing other people's share of the pie, no) or hierarchy. At least, I think there was. But I am, as I am told, old and my memory is probably faltering. "I grow old...I grow old..." nope, too stupid to remember Prufrock OR Michelangelo, too.
As I told Mandos, who wasn't listening, it's karma. Us Boomers were so busy griping about the establishment that we didn't realize what we'd set ourselves up for. It's funny, in a sick way. But wishing people out of the race and off the planet because THEY WANT is counterproductive. If we're going to clean up the sequential messes that have been made, we're going to need all hands.
-
What about the Middle East? A feminist view.
Feminists are complicated people and, hopefully, understand that sexism intersects with class/race/sexuality/gender in real peoples' lives.
I don't support Clinton because she is a hawk. She continues supporting this war in Iraq, she continues to believe every excruciatingly foul scare/threat from Bush (like the new focus on Iran) and she is running an ugly campaign. I've been a feminist since the first Boston collective in the late 1960s, but I also am an activist against the occupation of Palestine and Clinton's utter lack of sympathy or consideration for the plight of the Palestinian people turns my stomach.
I wouldn't support a woman just because she is a woman -- not after spending my whole life fighting against the idea that biology is destiny. Hillary's got to do a lot more than display certain secondary sexual characteristics to gain my support. She's got to have politics that reflect a feminist mindset in the broadest sense - a different approach to foreign and domestic policy.
This is a woman who said that both she and McCain - the ultimate warmonger - are ready on day-one (as opposed to Obama). Yeah, what's she ready for?
www.suekatz.com
-
@Valhalla
"captainlarab, had you been a bit less defensive and shout-y, I'm guessing most older feminists would be rather interested in your experiences."
Um, well, no, actually, I don't think I got "defensive and shout-y" until someone posted a message to this board suggesting that the younger generation hasn't been through anything and our only contribution to women's equality has been participating in a few "take back the night" marches. That's the point at which I got shout-y. I've posted several times on this subject, and mostly I get ignored.
The divide between civilian feminists and female veterans is a longstanding one, and it's not just a generational one. Part of the problem is, the feminist movement has its roots in the 1960s anti-war movement, so the feminists of that generation don't quite know what to do with women who genuinely like the military (same goes for the gay community in a lot of ways). So, mostly, they ignore us. Even when they're speaking out about issues like sexual harassment in the military, they draw their own conclusions about what's going on in the military and then make their own public pronouncements, many of which seem premised on the notion that the military is inherently evil and the institution as a whole is up to no good. Meanwhile, those of us who are or were in the service often cringe at what's being said and wish that someone would consult women who've actually worked inside the system.
I'm watching our three-year-old by myself today, so I'm not really in a position to rehash all my Army experiences in a Salon.com posting. When I get a chance, I'll give you all some good reading materials, if you're interested. In the meantime, let me just set forth one guiding principle that largely determines how much respect a woman can receive from the predominantly male military:
You cannot be a leader and be a victim at the same time.
This is a guiding principle throughout military culture. It's not just about women; it's part of the reason why so many POWs come back so messed up--they want to think of themselves as warriors, or heroes, and that is inconsistent with their memories of being helpless, being victimized. And in the military, nobody waves around their minority status. The mantra is, "I'm no different from anyone else." The minute you deviate from this mantra, you're an outsider.
That is what has continually concerned me about Clinton and the way she has at times conducted this campaign. There's just been one too many times where she and/or her surrogates have thrown down the penalty flag over what seemed to me to be minor slights and not necessarily driven by sexism. I don't doubt that sexism is *a* factor in the way she is sometimes treated, but where there could be other factors as well, it's just extraordinarily unwise to bring it up at all.
-
surprised
surprised? you should be because bill clinton's experience when he took office is NOTHING like Obama. Stop drinking the koolaid and repeating the lies. Bill Clinton was attorney general and then Governor of Arkansas before running for president. I believe Obama was in the state legislature of Chicago before the US senate elected him 2 years ago. This is not the same experience at all. We generally elect governors as president because they have experience running a state. While this year we have nothing but senators, it is not typical.