Accomplishments! What dadgum accomplishments?!
First, some definitions per Merriam-Webster's On-Line Dictionary:
feminism: 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
sexism: 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
A few days ago the Boston Globe ran an idiotic page 1 story on the laments of "feminists" becuase the "experienced" Sen. Clinton was losing to the inexperienced but "eloquent" Sen. Obama. My unpublished letter:
Editor,
Can we please stop with the unwarranted praise of Sen. Hillary Clinton and her “experience” (Clinton's struggle vexes feminists, February 19, A1)?
My goodness, do not “accomplishments” matter?
If Sen. Clinton could point to a single accomplishment then maybe I could understand the vexation of certain women.And, let’s not confuse our definitions. Women desirous of electing an unaccomplished woman are more accurately referred to as "sexists" not "feminists"; the former should not be allowed to sully the latter. (End of letter.)
Of course, Sen. Obama is even less accomplished than Sen. Clinton. Never has anyone so unaccomplished (except maybe President Harry Truman before the fact of his Presidency) traveled so far in American politics. When reasonable, logical people make this observation during the general election, look out for the race card.
If people are so impressed by Sens. Clinton and Obama's lack of accomplishment, I can only imagine how awed they must be by Sen. McCain's resume! Whether you agree with the legislation or not, it's McCain-Feingold. It's McCain-Kennedy. It's McCain-Lieberman. McCain. McCain. McCain. McCain legislation everywhere. Leaders lead, for the umpteenth time in this space.
These were the four letters the Boston Globe chose to publish on the "vexed" feminists article:
Letter 1:
"CLINTON'S STRUGGLE vexes feminists" (Page A1, Feb. 19) vexed me in turn. Senator Hillary Clinton's years as a corporate lawyer and first lady now constitute "hyper-substantive" preparation for the presidency; Senator Barack Obama's years as a community organizer, teacher of constitutional law, and member of the Illinois Legislature evidently have no relevance.
Clinton's legislative record raised doubts about her judgment; the way she has run her campaign confirmed them. Yet some of her supporters want me to stop at her ovaries when I evaluate her as a candidate. Can't we have Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius? (End of letter 1 by Deborah.)
Letter 2:
SUSAN MILLIGAN'S story accurately highlighted my frustration with the Democratic primary contests this year. While in many respects it is gratifying to see two Democratic candidates from backgrounds unique to presidential politics (Blogger's Note: cathartic, liberal guilt), it has been frustrating to watch Obama's style eclipse Clinton's experience (Blogger's Note: what freakin' experience?!). As a woman, I am proud that Hillary Clinton is such a viable presidential candidate; I am even more proud that my daughter was able, and enthusiastic, to cast her first presidential vote for a woman (Blogger's Note: can you say "sexist"?).
However, I have been dismayed that Obama has garnered so much attention and support, despite his relative lack of experience, essentially because of his speaking style. I am concerned that an Obama victory would convey to young women this message: Work hard, amass an impressive resume of experience, and expect success - unless, of course, a charismatic man comes along, in which case your experience will become irrelevant (Blogger's Note: Much like young women are learning if you work hard, amass a truly impressive resume as a lobbyist your experience will become irrelavant if you lobbied an influential, conservative US Senator, huh?). (End of Letter 2 by Cynthia.)
Letter 3:
I'M A feminist, which means I vote for the candidate whose policies will most benefit women. Many women are stuck in low-paid Wal-Mart-type jobs; Clinton was on the Wal-Mart board of directors. Many women's families have been devastated by the Iraq war; Clinton voted to authorize the war. Many women find themselves suddenly single mothers with no safety net; Clinton speaks enthusiastically about her husband's welfare reform, which made it tougher for some low-income women to get education and training. Unlike the women quoted in "Clinton's struggle vexes feminists," who seem to look only at her gender, it's because I'm a feminist that I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary. (End of Letter 3 by Betsy.)
Letter 4:
CLINTON WAS not the "experience" candidate running for the Democratic nomination. Bill Richardson had by far the most substantive and relevant resume, and she crushed him in the early primaries. Likewise, she greatly outgunned the much more experienced Joe Biden. Anyone have a gender explanation for that? (End of Letter 4 by Sharon.)
Naturally, I think my letter was the best of the five.
First, some definitions per Merriam-Webster's On-Line Dictionary:
feminism: 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
sexism: 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
A few days ago the Boston Globe ran an idiotic page 1 story on the laments of "feminists" becuase the "experienced" Sen. Clinton was losing to the inexperienced but "eloquent" Sen. Obama. My unpublished letter:
Editor,
Can we please stop with the unwarranted praise of Sen. Hillary Clinton and her “experience” (Clinton's struggle vexes feminists, February 19, A1)?
My goodness, do not “accomplishments” matter?
If Sen. Clinton could point to a single accomplishment then maybe I could understand the vexation of certain women.And, let’s not confuse our definitions. Women desirous of electing an unaccomplished woman are more accurately referred to as "sexists" not "feminists"; the former should not be allowed to sully the latter. (End of letter.)
Of course, Sen. Obama is even less accomplished than Sen. Clinton. Never has anyone so unaccomplished (except maybe President Harry Truman before the fact of his Presidency) traveled so far in American politics. When reasonable, logical people make this observation during the general election, look out for the race card.
If people are so impressed by Sens. Clinton and Obama's lack of accomplishment, I can only imagine how awed they must be by Sen. McCain's resume! Whether you agree with the legislation or not, it's McCain-Feingold. It's McCain-Kennedy. It's McCain-Lieberman. McCain. McCain. McCain. McCain legislation everywhere. Leaders lead, for the umpteenth time in this space.
These were the four letters the Boston Globe chose to publish on the "vexed" feminists article:
Letter 1:
"CLINTON'S STRUGGLE vexes feminists" (Page A1, Feb. 19) vexed me in turn. Senator Hillary Clinton's years as a corporate lawyer and first lady now constitute "hyper-substantive" preparation for the presidency; Senator Barack Obama's years as a community organizer, teacher of constitutional law, and member of the Illinois Legislature evidently have no relevance.
Clinton's legislative record raised doubts about her judgment; the way she has run her campaign confirmed them. Yet some of her supporters want me to stop at her ovaries when I evaluate her as a candidate. Can't we have Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano or Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius? (End of letter 1 by Deborah.)
Letter 2:
SUSAN MILLIGAN'S story accurately highlighted my frustration with the Democratic primary contests this year. While in many respects it is gratifying to see two Democratic candidates from backgrounds unique to presidential politics (Blogger's Note: cathartic, liberal guilt), it has been frustrating to watch Obama's style eclipse Clinton's experience (Blogger's Note: what freakin' experience?!). As a woman, I am proud that Hillary Clinton is such a viable presidential candidate; I am even more proud that my daughter was able, and enthusiastic, to cast her first presidential vote for a woman (Blogger's Note: can you say "sexist"?).
However, I have been dismayed that Obama has garnered so much attention and support, despite his relative lack of experience, essentially because of his speaking style. I am concerned that an Obama victory would convey to young women this message: Work hard, amass an impressive resume of experience, and expect success - unless, of course, a charismatic man comes along, in which case your experience will become irrelevant (Blogger's Note: Much like young women are learning if you work hard, amass a truly impressive resume as a lobbyist your experience will become irrelavant if you lobbied an influential, conservative US Senator, huh?). (End of Letter 2 by Cynthia.)
Letter 3:
I'M A feminist, which means I vote for the candidate whose policies will most benefit women. Many women are stuck in low-paid Wal-Mart-type jobs; Clinton was on the Wal-Mart board of directors. Many women's families have been devastated by the Iraq war; Clinton voted to authorize the war. Many women find themselves suddenly single mothers with no safety net; Clinton speaks enthusiastically about her husband's welfare reform, which made it tougher for some low-income women to get education and training. Unlike the women quoted in "Clinton's struggle vexes feminists," who seem to look only at her gender, it's because I'm a feminist that I didn't vote for Clinton in the primary. (End of Letter 3 by Betsy.)
Letter 4:
CLINTON WAS not the "experience" candidate running for the Democratic nomination. Bill Richardson had by far the most substantive and relevant resume, and she crushed him in the early primaries. Likewise, she greatly outgunned the much more experienced Joe Biden. Anyone have a gender explanation for that? (End of Letter 4 by Sharon.)
Naturally, I think my letter was the best of the five.
posted by Zack at 8:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home