But the way our political system works, you have to keep enough people on your side if you want to get anything done. If you tick too many people off you get nothing done.

Yes, while I have questioned some of Obama's appointment choices, I think he's keeping enough conflicting opinions that we'll get some consensus and move forward, and it's important to keep the "other side" with us. Without some of their votes, we can't go anywhere.

Small steps forward are better than not moving forward at all. You should always keep that goal in mind, but I see no problems with being a pragmatist as long as none of your compromises move you backward or hinder forward movement.

 Reply

Obama is not a stealth leftist or a secret feminist, and insisting that he must be is a recipe for complacency. He's a centrist to his core, who sees both sides of the abortion rights debate as making good points that he agrees with. To say that he's an improvement on Bush is damning with faint praise.

 Reply

Someone makes this argument whenever there's a post about feminism that's about something other than, say, acid attacks in Pakistan. To me, all of it should matter because it's all part of an oppresive system. Obama's sexist critiques of Clinton and his disagreeing of the specialness of her candidacy matter because he made these things okay to do for any female candidate. Retaining a speechwriter who groped an image of his female opponent matters because it's the universal way of cutting a woman down to size. Flirting with women on the campaign trail, calling them "sweetie" and "feisty" while dismissing them and having Jezebel laud him for it matters because that's how we're all written off. Larry Summers, Father Pfleger, Bernie Mac, Jesse Jackson Jr., Donnie McClurkin,Rick Warren, all of it can't be swept under the rug because he's technically pro-choice. It should also matter what common ground he sees with pro-lifers.

 Reply

I'm not sure what you disagree with that I wrote, but you're someone who's opinions I respect, so I wish I knew.

 Reply

And I wasn't suggesting that there is no room for frivolity. I was suggesting that in striving for a goal (which is what this discussion is, whereas the question of Bret Michaels wig clearly is not), it might serve us better to keep our eyes on that goal, rather than to spend our limited energies discussing a magazine cover.

Which wasn't doctored -- it was created. It was a piece of illustration.

To the extent that that cover raised reasonable conversation in which people treat each other with respect and learn from each other, that's a good thing. To the extent that people treat each other poorly and draw ill-considered lines in the sand, I think it's a waste of time and energy.

 Reply

Are you more frustrated about women outside of this site (granted, the Jezebel readership is probably a lot more educated than the average demographic) or in this site?

I don't want to take you the wrong way, but you really seem to be seething about this issue.

Now, I agree, putting Obama up on a pedestal is a horrible thing to do. But for the first time in a long time those of us with these ideals have a symbol to rally behind, and people are excited and inspired. We should be keeping everyone we know educated on the important issues and holding all of our elected officials and ourselves accountable to make sure we get as much done as we can in the next four years. It's not going to be easy, nor glamorous, but people being excited or hopeful is not a bad thing. If you don't have hope that a change can happen, then why even bother?

 Reply

I'm not seething, per se, but I do not understand this aspect of American political culture very well, no, and it does seem to me that whenever America starts getting all puffed up about itself that it starts to go wrong, because it gets complacent about whatever else is happening in the country.

 Reply

That being said, I share your concerns about all the fancifying given the economic situation of so many.

 Reply

"Wahmbulence Chasers" "If I'm nominating people to shut the fuck up about feminism..." "Caterwaul" are all plainly, unambiguously disrespectful, as is your misrepresenting them as saying that feminism is only about getting women into office, that they're only sore losers because of Clinton not getting the nomination, and that they're mad that it's a man, instead that it's this man. "it's still only the composition of his chromosomes that matter to some"

Again, can you offer one instance in which you have disagreed respectfully with ANYONE who doesn't uncritically support Obama, feminist or not?

 Reply

But the fancifying, while ultimately, you're right, there's a need to be honest about it -- well, people need joy. Even people like me who tend to quote that old bumper sticker: "If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention." We need joy. And today and tomorrow, and probably all week, we'll have it, and we'll have it in a way that we haven't had access to for years and years. I, for one, am going to wallow in it.

And then I'll get up and get moving.

 Reply

"Written or oral statements, or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceeding in which it is offered, are inadmissible, if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein."

[www.irb-cisr.gc.ca]

[expertpages.com]

I know I'm just being picky but it's a pet peeve of mine. Sort of like people misusing "begging the question"

 Reply

@Megan: Yes, so it hearsay to me. I never said Smeal was not told the statement initially.

 Reply

I keep hearing from his fans what a huge feminist he is, but no one can seem to explain why, beyond standard Democrat stuff, and the vague "feeling" they just have.

 Reply

If you think Obama's a feminist, why is that? Seriously, when ever I've asked this on Jezebel, no one has given me an answer. They just know.

 Reply

I believe that Barack Obama is a feminist because of what he has said, and what he has done. I believe he treats individual women as his equals, and in word and deed has worked to advance women generally. I don't agree that his opposition to Clinton was sexist, and I don't think that using terms like "sweetie" carries the same weight as important as being clearly pro-choice.

Ultimately, I can't "prove" to you that he was or was not (for instance) sexist in the way he treated Clinton, or that woman he called sweetie. This is opinion, not fact.

 Reply

I don't think calling a reporter "sweetie" as he brushed her off is as important as being clearly pro-choice. But it's not something someone who treats women as equals would do. Still, sweetie isn't the whole of it, and he's talked out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to abortion rights, while his legislative record is tepid to nonexistent. He admires John Roberts and would have voted for him, until he was told it would hurt his chances. There's more on that stuff here:[pizzadiavola.wordpress.com]

You say I probably have a narrow definition of feminism, so I'll explain what it means to me and let you decide. I think a feminist is any person who believes in and supports equality of the sexes, and that means acknowledging that men, straight, and cisgender folks are advantaged over women, gay, and transgender folks. It means being against sexism and understanding that the little stuff is connected with the big stuff.

Ulookinatmyjunk is complaining about feminists who are complaining about sexism and doing so in the exact way that antifeminists try to silence all of us. It doesn't require a narrow definition for me to simply ask how this fits into feminism. My feminism is broad but not to the point that I'll equate an achievement for another group with an achievement for women.

 Reply