Letters to the Editor
-
@ CeliaInSF: I am truly beginning to think that you have a reading comprehension problem.
This is utterly impossible! Ignoring the needs and concerns of the other of half the human race will not get you anywhere. This promted the need for feminism in the first place! And no, I don't buy into the idea that we have aachieved equality but I don't see how pitting groups of people against eachother will help attain that. Are men the enemy then?
Do you think wanting women to be safe from domestic violence pits women against men? Do you think that wanting child molestors to spend a long time in prison pits women against men? Do you think that wanting to prevent rape pits women against men? Do you think that believing that it is women who get to exercise a right to choose over the objections of men (including boyfriends and husbands) pits women against men. Do you believe that believing women should have pay equity pits women against men?
I never said men are the enemy. In fact, I oppose a draft as being discriminatory to men. However, their are circumstances where the interests of men and women might diverge. If a man you know wants to rape you, should we flip a coin to see whose interests should prevail?
For goodness sake- I know I have my blindspots and weaknesses, I'm human. But I cn not understand how someone who is clearly so smart can be so blinkered to think 'women first' or anyone first for that matter.
One of your problems seems to be reading from an impassioned or emotional context when you should be employing either logic or basic comprehension skills. Putting women first in causes pertaining to women's rights does not necessarily mean that the rights of men are neglibile or should never prevail.
As an example, I believe in affirmative action. Do you? You do understand that there may be two equally qualified people for a job. Why should the person of color prevail? Many reasons. Redressing historical injustices is one of them. Countering the possible racial prejudice of the interviewer is another. In this case the point is not that the rights of the white person are negligible but rather that rights of the black person not to be discriminated against are important.
Maybe that is why you are so uncomforatble about Obama- assuming that everyone puts their identities above all else and wishes everyone else to go to hell? That is not the case. That is some people and it is a dangerous stance but thank heaven that is not everyone.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. My main problem with Obama is his health care plan and his lack of experience in national affairs.
Also, using anti-feminist jibes like your bros and hos and chicks up front, is really ugly. Just part of the chauvinism
If you are going to buy the belief system, you might as well wear the t-shirt.
-
AKA Smith
You do understand that the feminist movement is designed to provide equal rights for women.
Whose feminist movement? The above statement perfectly illustrates the schism, and later split, between black feminism and white feminism; it also illustrates differences, to some extent, in second wave and third wave feminism. Black feminists and third wavers don't consider themselves the winners of the oppression sweepstakes; we realize other people, matter race, gender or class, suffer from discrimination for EXACTLY the same reasons we do. ALL OF IT comes from the same place and we must fight for people equally.
That's why it's important, for example, to consider Hillary Clinton's privilege when we talk about issues of sexism. I know this is like beating a dead horse with you, but I truly want for you to "get" what I'm saying. How does Hillary's race and class work in her favor? How might a DIFFERENT woman be treated. Alls I'm asking for is a deeper analysis rather than a knee-jerk reaction to some jerk's sexist name-calling. Like Celia pointed out earlier, we live in a society that normalizes this kind of language. Instead of pointing the finger, what we feminist should be concerned about is our (and I mean men, women, white, black, rich, poor, gay, straight) consumption on a higher lever, why it's OK to call women sexist things.
You should check out the book "Black Feminist Thought." First book I read many years ago about black feminism. Really, I'm serious. You might enjoy it.
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!
-
@ softdog
I don't think you have read the entire thread and therefore do not understand the context. Nowhere do I argue that Clinton should become president before Obama because she is a woman.
That's nonsense. I don't even argue that women should vote for Clinton because she is a woman. I also think it is silly for black people to vote for Obama because she is a man.
Softdog, if you are a man and not a feminist, it is possible that you simply do not understand the argument going on here which is far more about feminism than about Clinton or Obama.
My first post in this thread related to the assumption that women who have felt insult be sexism from the Obama camp have no obligation to give up the distaste that they feel and vote for Obama in the fall. They just don't.
I won't be voting for McCain, but the level of overt sexism that some Obama supporters have directed at Clinton make it hard for many of us to contemplate voting for Obama. I don't blame any one for choosing not to do so.
Moreover, as to your so-called quote of Clinton racism, it is utterly lame. Please see my post to micro ms. on the same quote. The commas separate the the groups.
-
Calling out jeffersonian - again
"...the plastic popup in billary's meaty thigh has popped."
So now she's a side of beef named 'billary'. And you expect me to show respect to your candidate? Don't hold your breath, bucko.
-
Correction to second sentence, second paragraph:
I also think it is silly for black people to vote for Obama because he is a black man.