Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Goodbye to All That -- This Time, In The Elections

By Robin Morgan, Women's Media Center. Posted February 5, 2008.


Long-time feminist Robin Morgan updates her famous essay, arguing that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified and the most ground-breaking candidate.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

AlterNet is a non profit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by our writers are their own.

"Goodbye To All That" was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).



During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women's movements, I've avoided writing another specific "Goodbye … " But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities -- joint conscience-keepers of this country -- been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.



Goodbye to the double standard …

-Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who's emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

-She's "ambitious" but he shows "fire in the belly." (Ever had labor pains?)

-When a sexist idiot screamed "Iron my shirt!" at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted "Shine my shoes!" at BO, it would've inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

-Young political Kennedys -- Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr. -- all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort "See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him." (Personally, I'm unimpressed with Caroline's longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe's suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick).



Goodbye to the toxic viciousness …

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary's "thick ankles." Nixon-trickster Roger Stone's new Hillary-hating 527 group, "Citizens United Not Timid" (check the capital letters). John McCain answering "How do we beat the bitch?" with "Excellent question!" Would he have dared reply similarly to "How do we beat the black bastard?" For shame.



Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged -- and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.



Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan "If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!" Shame.



Goodbye to Comedy Central's "Southpark" featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC's vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.



Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not "Clinton hating," not "Hillary hating." This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage -- as citizens, voters, Americans?



Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice …

The women's movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC's Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments. But what about NBC's Tim Russert's continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN's Tony Harris chuckling at "the chromosome thing" while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that's not even mentioning Fox News.



Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white …


Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages--not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and -- hey, every group, because a group wouldn't exist if we hadn't given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist -- but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it's the "norm."



So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?



Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites -- especially wealthy ones -- adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were black or he were female we wouldn't be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn't stand a chance -- even if she shared Condi Rice's Bush-defending politics.



I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote -- until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they're being called "race traitors."



So goodbye to conversations about this nation's deepest scar -- slavery -- which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.



Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men -- though not all the same as one another -- and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.



We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate -- they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women's rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)



Goodbye, goodbye to …

-blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys--though unlike them, he got reported on). Let's get real. If he hadn't campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

-an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it's "cooler" to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

-the notion that it's fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.



Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts "entitled" when she's worked intensely at everything she's done -- including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.



Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.



Goodbye to the phrase "polarizing figure" to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women's movement that quipped, "We are becoming the men we wanted to marry." She heard us, and she has.



Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn't as "likeable" as they've been warned they must be, or because she didn't leave him, couldn't "control" him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn't bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She's running to be president of the United States.



Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries' history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power -- granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our "land of opportunity," it's mostly the first pathway "in" permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan … far too many to list here.



Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide …


Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous "Obama Girl" flaunting her bikini-clad ass online -- then confessing Oh yeah it wasn't her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said "made me feel like a dork."



Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they're not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can't identify with a woman candidate because she actually is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking "what if she's not electable?" or "maybe it's post-feminism and whoooosh we're already free." Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, "I could have saved thousands -- if only I'd been able to convince them they were slaves."



I'd rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men -- of all ethnicities and any age -- who get that it's in their self-interest, too. She's better qualified. (D'uh.) She's a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let's hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)



I'd rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how -- and he'll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he's an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who've worked with the Kennedys' own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it's only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn't it about getting the policies we want enacted?



And goodbye to the ageism …

How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it's useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country's history: the boomer generation -- the majority of which is female?



Old woman are the one group that doesn't grow more conservative with age -- and we are the generation of radicals who said "Well-behaved women seldom make history." Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we're back!



We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women's studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.



We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.



Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There's not a woman alive who, if she's honest, doesn't recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media's obsession with everything Bill.



So listen to her voice:



"For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.



"It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.



"Women's rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely -- and the right to be heard."



That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).



And this voice, age 22, in "Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969."


"We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands … searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living … [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences … Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it."



She ended with the commitment "to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible."



And for decades, she's been learning how.



So goodbye to Hillary's second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?



"Our President, Ourselves!"




Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy -- as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.



Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she's the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because she's refreshingly thoughtful, and I'm bloodied from eight years of a jolly "uniter" with ejaculatory politics. I needn't agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama's -- and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she's already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first U.S. woman president, but as a great U.S. president.



As for the "woman thing"?



Me, I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman -- but because I am.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: elections, gender, barack obama, hillary clinton

Robin Morgan's new book, Fighting Words: A Toolkit for Combating the Religious Right, comes out in September (Nation Books). She is a co-founder of The Women's Media Center.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Litmus Test
Posted by: LMNOP on Feb 5, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was and is no acceptable excuse for voting to authorize Bush to go to war. It was clear by 2002 that Bush and Cheney were hawks and liars and not to be trusted about weapons of mass destruction or matters related to oil, that he and the neocons had been champing at the bit for war with Iraq since 1998 or earlier (Project for a New America), that Hussein and 911 were not related and that the appropriate response to terrorism, if there were foreign terrorists at all, was a police action, not a military response. What did I forget?

I knew not to authorize that war, so Senator Clinton did too. Yet she did, and continued to support the war effort thereafter. Who does she represent if not Halliburton and the corporatocracy? If she was sincerely looking out for our interests and not deliberately sustaining the war to bolster corporate profits, then her judgment is abysmal and unacceptable. What else do you need to know to disqualify her?

As far as her being a woman, so what? What we need is a feminine sensibility, not two X chromosomes behaving like a man. Clarence Thomas is black. So what? He's as antithetical to black interests as Strom Thurmond was, and as a black man, more dangerous for it. Likewise Hillary. Gore and Kerry were both more in touch with their feminine side than Hillary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Afterthoughts Posted by: LMNOP
GROW UP!
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 5, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Got it. Excellent article. Think I'll read it again. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you Robin
Posted by: Arlene on Feb 5, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I joined the National Organization for Women back in 1973 and am gratified that NOW has endorsed Hillary for President. The traditional media has sunk back into its sexist morass that it occupied prior to the 1970's. What is different, though is that many of the news readers are now heavily made up, dyed blonde attractive thin women. Print media are likely to have female bylines although editors are still male and determine content and presentation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not the gender, or any of the side issues you mentioned.
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 6, 2008 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes opposition to a candidate, has nothing to do with the gender or race. Occassionally, and yes, the media typically neglects to mention it, but on occassion, its the actual positions.

That is the case with Hillary. When you look at Hillary's stance on almost ever position, it is obvious that she takes the side of government control over personal responsibility. She is a socialist, barely masquerading as a progressive. She believes that you can measure opportunity based on outcome (a rediculous concept). She was the largest supporter of the Iraq (not named Bush or Cheney), claiming that she knew it was the right thing to do from the information she got during her time in the White House. Obviously her honesty is in question and has been for quite some time. A former board member of Walmart is NOT a person to expect to help unions, nor cut down on the imports from China.
This is why I'm voting against her. These are the reasons that most people who are voting against her are doing so. None of them have anything to do with her gender, or woman's rights. Villifying people because they disagree with the person that you support because (as you put it), you're a woman, is placing sexism INTO the political arena, a place that it does not belong.

I fully support women's rights. Most thinking people do. But I won't support a dishonest closet socialist in the name of women's rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

terrible article
Posted by: lovepassionfury on Feb 6, 2008 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary would not be a good president. End of story. Theres no way around it.
1. shes part of the estabolishment. She will change NOTHING.
2. While on the walmart board she did nothing to help the unions...
3. she has almost no experience, even though experience does not necesarily equate to quality.
4. Does anyone else see anything wrong with bush/clinton/bush/clinton
5. little off topic but needs to be said. Bill Clinton was not a great president when it comes to the economy as everyone says he was. HE had the fortune to be president when the internet hit. the internet is the most powerful force created since the nuclear bomb and is more responsible for the great economy than anything he did.
6. Shes for NAFTA and wants to increase it? export more jobs, sounds good hilldawg.

Let me just say, i would love a woman president. im just as sick of this dominant monkey ego male shit as im sure you are.
BUT HILLARY IS NOT THAT WOMAN! this country cant afford her right now. Sure her ideas sound good as sound bytes- "universal health care" but that would bankrupt us at the moment.

i havent heard her say anything about the federal reserve.. that should be a red flag to anyone with 2 brain cells. How can she be for america if shes for the reserve which is probly the single greatest threat to the economy and the world. please google the reserve and find out what exactly it does..aka print money out of thin air.

Im a democrat, however this season im voting for republican ron paul (kinda ironic since its my first election i can vote in). Ron Paul is the only candidate left who is actualy for the people, not political or dynastic power. Please google ron paul and see what he stands for b/c the mainstream media certainly wont!

also id just like to point out that the womans movement was started by masonry. Because, they could only tax half the population (men)and why not have the ability to tax them all?
its a rather sad point! But yes i would like to point out that there is a "good 'ol boy" network that wants to keep things the way they are and unfortunately hillary is just another part of it. same with obama! CFR anyone?

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton

these people are agents of change yes, but is that change in your favor?

sorry about the spelling and whatnot

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Article is Another Classic
Posted by: Equalitynow on Feb 7, 2008 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wonderful, fabulous, thought-provoking!It is hard to comment on perfection. I have been emailing this wonderful article to all my friends. This article is an explanation of the both subtle and overt sexism and misogny which has been so pervasive in the political talk media (TV and radio)and in the blogs aainst Hillary Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Arcticle is Offensive to Young Women and Not Truly Feminist
Posted by: vegangypsie on Feb 8, 2008 4:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To imply that the only reason a young woman would support Barack Obama is "to win male approval" denies my agency in the political process. I am a feminist, a professional woman (an engineer in fact), and a proud Obama supporter for many reasons, not the least of which is Hillary's support of the Iraq war, which I had the foresight to oppose from the start, and was amazed at how many didn't. It seems Obama was one of the very few with common sense. Hillary engages in behavior you would not let her get away with as a male, and would probably blame on too much testosterone if she did posses a y chromosome.

I think that some of your ageist rhetoric is due to a cognitive disonance in the baby boomer generation. You were never supposed to get old - "never trust anyone over 30" and all that - and now you are all 60, this wasn't supposed to happen; youthful optimism is supposed to belong to only you. You bemoaned the "apathy" of the youth until it evaporated and threatened your status-quo. Please consider the possibility that a healthier way to deal with these changes may be to work with the younger generation of feminists, and maybe even listen to their input. Many of us feel that different types of oppression and -isms are related, and that they must all end for any of us to be really free. Consider being more open to the young idealism that once was the basis of so much of what you now point to as your feminist accomplishments.

my feelings about this type of HRC supporter are more eloquently expressed in the article "Feminist Ultimatums: Not In Our Name" by Kimberle Crenshaw and Eve Ensler. Which can be found on huffingtonpost.com. If something about Robin Morgan's article felt wrong to you as a woman, you may like to read and widely forward this one instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement