MtnBiker
07-29-2008, 05:27 PM
A perspective from a liberal female UC Berkley professor;
It may seem as though the Democratic Party can give a sigh of relief: Women have returned to the fold, and will support Barack Obama for president - and presumably his party - after all. But not so fast.
While I and many other women in my demographic (older, professional, liberal) are likely to vote for Obama in November, our feelings about his party (and ours) are not so clear. We remember the perpetual misogyny and sexism of the media during the primary campaign - misogyny aimed less at Hillary Rodham Clinton herself than at "uppity women" (like ourselves) in general. And many of us feel that the Democratic Party is even more to blame than the media.
Let me mention a couple of reasons why I am thinking this way:
First, of course, is the failure of the party leaders to comment on the sexism rampant in the media, especially the liberal media, for months on end.
Second - and this factor bothers me, and no doubt others, perhaps the most: Why did the superdelegates move in such numbers to support Obama? Why did this occur, especially after Clinton victories? For example, I am thinking here of Robert Byrd. After Clinton's impressive victory in West Virginia, the senator and elder statesman representing that state came out in support of Obama. Because the superdelegates were created to ensure that the Democratic candidate be a centrist, why did so many superdelegates - including liberals and many women - support Obama? Two arguments were made: They wished to follow the will of the people in their district; and they believed that Obama was more electable. But as the Byrd case shows, the first claim was often false; and no one has any idea which of the two, Clinton or Obama, would be more electable in November. It seemed to me that the term was more often used as a kind of excuse, "I'm voting for Obama, but I can't really tell you why," than a reasoned argument.
So many women feel that the election was somehow stolen, and by their own party, to boot. They thus feel much the way many Democrats feel about the 2000 election: bitter.......
I am reminded of a particularly chilling passage in Vladimir Nabokov's novel "Lolita." Humbert Humbert, after raping the 12-year-old, is pondering why she has come back to his bed. "You see," Humbert tells the reader, "she had absolutely nowhere else to go."
That's just how I feel. And they want my enthusiastic support? The Democratic Party can fend for itself.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/28/EDCC120QOH.DTL
Whoa, did she just equate the democrat primary to being raped?
It may seem as though the Democratic Party can give a sigh of relief: Women have returned to the fold, and will support Barack Obama for president - and presumably his party - after all. But not so fast.
While I and many other women in my demographic (older, professional, liberal) are likely to vote for Obama in November, our feelings about his party (and ours) are not so clear. We remember the perpetual misogyny and sexism of the media during the primary campaign - misogyny aimed less at Hillary Rodham Clinton herself than at "uppity women" (like ourselves) in general. And many of us feel that the Democratic Party is even more to blame than the media.
Let me mention a couple of reasons why I am thinking this way:
First, of course, is the failure of the party leaders to comment on the sexism rampant in the media, especially the liberal media, for months on end.
Second - and this factor bothers me, and no doubt others, perhaps the most: Why did the superdelegates move in such numbers to support Obama? Why did this occur, especially after Clinton victories? For example, I am thinking here of Robert Byrd. After Clinton's impressive victory in West Virginia, the senator and elder statesman representing that state came out in support of Obama. Because the superdelegates were created to ensure that the Democratic candidate be a centrist, why did so many superdelegates - including liberals and many women - support Obama? Two arguments were made: They wished to follow the will of the people in their district; and they believed that Obama was more electable. But as the Byrd case shows, the first claim was often false; and no one has any idea which of the two, Clinton or Obama, would be more electable in November. It seemed to me that the term was more often used as a kind of excuse, "I'm voting for Obama, but I can't really tell you why," than a reasoned argument.
So many women feel that the election was somehow stolen, and by their own party, to boot. They thus feel much the way many Democrats feel about the 2000 election: bitter.......
I am reminded of a particularly chilling passage in Vladimir Nabokov's novel "Lolita." Humbert Humbert, after raping the 12-year-old, is pondering why she has come back to his bed. "You see," Humbert tells the reader, "she had absolutely nowhere else to go."
That's just how I feel. And they want my enthusiastic support? The Democratic Party can fend for itself.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/28/EDCC120QOH.DTL
Whoa, did she just equate the democrat primary to being raped?