Levy's main target is Leslie Sanchez's book You've Come a Long Way, Maybe: Sarah, Michelle, Hillary and the Shaping of the New American Woman (note the first names), in which Sanchez comes out against "bra burning" and in favor of "calm concern for how women [are] faring in the world." But how they're faring seems to mean mostly whether or not they have jobs in government and corporations. This isn't, of course, a trivial measure of women's success, but as Levy points out, it isn't the whole story. Sanchez is a Republican political strategist, and her prime example of successful contemporary womanity is Sarah Palin. She writes, "most of us are Sarah Palins to one degree or another," and complains that Gloria Steinem's criticism of Palin sent the message that, "you can run, Sarah Palin, but you won't get my support because you don't believe in all the same things I believe in."

Which, well, duh. The idea that men had the luxury of choosing candidates they actually agree with but women had to vote with their vaginas was one of the most upsetting things about the 2008 election, and the fact that Sanchez doesn't think Steinem's beliefs are an acceptable basis for her political choices says a lot about how women are, in some quarters, expected to behave. The message of Sarah Palin's entire vice presidential bid was that women were supposed to care not about issues, or even about competence, but simply that one of "their own" appeared on the ticket. As Levy says,

If a demand for revolution is tamed into a simple insistence on representation, then one woman is as good as another. You could have, in a sense, feminism without feminists. You could have, for example, Leslie Sanchez or Sarah Palin.

In a way, feminism-without-feminists is a depressing reversal of the optimism of the second wave. Movements for womyn's lands and political lesbianism implied that there was something special and good about being a woman, and that all-female societies and relationships would necessarily be healthier and more feminist than the messed-up mixed-gender world. Womyn's lands themselves may actually have been (and continue to be) feminist havens, but the idea that women leaders are always better for women is all too easy to turn on its head: if women are so great, people like Sanchez can say, what's wrong with Sarah Palin?

The truth is, equal representation for women is important — but as an end, not as a means. Women deserve opportunities to serve in government and the corporate world because it's fair and right, not because they will necessarily act as advocates for feminist causes. Just as feminists need to accept that not all women will share their goals, non-feminists must understand that feminism isn't just "identity politics" — feminists won't sit down and shut up just because there are, as Levy says, a significant "percentage of people with government jobs who wear bras." Levy writes persuasively of the real need for government-subsidized child care that still goes unmet after a near victory in the seventies, and there are many other issues from reproductive rights to equal pay that won't be resolved by electing George W. Bush clones with two X chromosomes. In order to resolve them, women need to claim not just representation, but another right that men have always taken for granted: the right to stand up for what we believe in, even if it means disagreeing with one another.

Image via The New Yorker.

Lift And Separate [New Yorker]
You've Come A Long Way, Maybe: Sarah, Michelle, Hillary, And The Shaping Of The New American Woman [Amazon]

After winning the silver medal in the 800 m at the Asian Championships in July 2006, Soundarajan was asked to undergo sex testing. Soundarajan had won the same medal the previous year, and in college she set the Indian record for the women's 3,000-m steeplechase, but officials were at the Asian Games became suspicious she was using performance enhancing drugs. Soundarajan was tested, and she failed.

Soundarajan was later diagnosed with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), Time magazine reports. People with AIS are genetically male, but their bodies do not recognize the male sex hormones, including testosterone. This leads their bodies to appear externally female, although their chromosomes tell a different story. Soundarajan reportedly attempted suicide after she was stripped of her silver medal, but she denies these allegations. She has, however, quit running, and there is little chance she will ever return to the track. "I am physically and mentally broken," she says.

Soundarajan now works as a coach. "It was difficult but now finally I feel O.K.," she said in a recent interview. "I like to train children who have not much money but lots of talent. I am living my dream through them."

But she hopes that Semenya will fight back where she was could not. "She should not let them take away her medal," Soundarajan says. "She is a woman and that's it, full stop. A gender test cannot take away from you who you are."

Gender And Athletics: India's Own Caster Semenya [Time]

Hillary Clinton is a woman. Barack Obama is black. We've been talking about this for at least six months. If Traister had found a new way to look at the identity politics in this race, I'd be all ears. But she hasn't. Her essay doesn't draw any conclusions about this sexism — Traister merely points out its existence. And the simple demographic facts at this point show that most of the people who are voting for and supporting Barack are not these Jon Stewart-loving, powerful-women fearing upper middle class man-children whom Traister derides. There is a whole diverse country out there, many of whom could give a shit about Hillary's vagina and Barack's lack thereof.

Traister also talks a lot about second wave feminists, whom the media has largely portrayed as strident Hillary lovers. For many of her points, Traister relies on anecdotal evidence (for instance, she quotes Feministing founder Jessica Valenti, who says, "I pinpoint sexism for a living. You'd think I'd be able to find an example [of sexism against Hillary]. And I hate to rely on this hokey notion that there's some woman's way of knowing, and that I just fucking know. But I do. I just know."), and I will do the same. The two biggest Obama supporters I know are my mother and my boyfriend's mother. Both went to elite universities in the late 60s/ early 70s. Both have held high-powered jobs. Both live in liberal enclaves. And both these second wavers are so fucking PISSED at the Clintons for ruining the democratic party. My mother especially thinks that Bill completely neglected his presidential legacy and the health of the party to support Hillary's senate run, and later her Presidential run. She feels that time and again, Hillary has chosen self-promotion over party preservation.

That's just one example of Hillary dislike that has nothing to do with her gender. There are so many other reasons out there for loving or hating either of these candidates, and not just if you're white and a college graduate. Can we please, please start discussing those?

Hey, Obama Boys: Back Off Already! [Salon]

Another of this weekend's Times pieces — this one by op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd — reinforces Michelle Obama's assertion that Hillary polls better than Barack amongst African Americans because blacks have been systematically oppressed and therefore believe that "somehow, someone is better" than they are. Dowd likens Obama to "a child prodigy" in a completely condescending piece that both infantalizes him and ignores Obama's agency. Ms. Dowd goes onto claim that what Americans want is a father figure as President, but with Obama they're getting a petulant kid, and that those " enraptured with his gifts urge him on, like anxious parents, trying to pull that sustained, dazzling performance out of him that they believe he's capable of."

The question is whether Oprah, with her rhetoric of positivity and inclusion can help Obama pull out that "sustained, dazzling performance" and encourage "oppressed" African Americans to vote for him. Political scientist Ross K. Baker, in the paper's Sunday Styles section says: "Obama is a post-polarization candidate and Oprah is a post-polarization celebrity...Whereas people like Barbra Streisand and Jane Fonda make you think of taking to the barricades, with Oprah it's conciliation and brotherhood." (Obama claims that "I'm not somebody who believes that her endorsement, or anybody's endorsement, actually secures me votes." But honestly? The woman got millions of people to pay for the hardcover copy of a book about hiding vegetables in brownies. We're pretty sure her endorsement will wrangle at least a few thousand votes from suggestible couch surfers.)

Lastly, Frank Rich gets in on the Obama act, saying that Hillary's candidacy is nowhere near a forgone conclusion, and that Obama is an equally formidable Democratic opponent to any possible Republican candidate. Hillary's Achilles heel is no doubt her flip-flopping on Iraq, and that makes her an easy target for anti-Dem rhetoric. Meanwhile, according to Rich, Obama signifies a "mainstream multiracial and multicultural America," and if he were matched against either Guiliani "who was forged in the racial crucible of New York's police brutality nightmares of the 1990s, or...Mitt Romney, who was shaped by a religion that didn't give blacks equal membership until 1978, [the bid for Presidency] would be less a clash of races than of centuries."

So can Obama pull it off? Will Oprah's support push him over the edge? Will African Americans ever stop loving Bill Clinton?

Feminist Pitch by a Democrat Named Obama [NY Times]
O Brother, Where Art Thou?[NY Times]
Who's Afraid of Barack Obama? [NY Times]
The Oprah Party Wants You [NY Times]
Why Black Women Prefer Clinton To Obama [CBS News]

Earlier: Do Black Voters Favor Hillary Because They've Been Oppressed?
Feminists Might Like Hillary, Or Not

She also said she had faith that eventually "black America will wake up." Now, I am not the most objective observer of the Obamas, and I have also not really been oppressed, and while I would like to think this statement was borne of something other than cynicism, you know what? Maybe I should bow out of the controversy here. Maybe, for once, if I don't know what to think, I shouldn't go running my fucking mouth. Maybe I am not the person to be preaching to you about race relations in America, or the nuances of the decision-making processes of black voters, or how best to re-kickstart the process of unraveling the country's formidably institutionalized racism. Maybe that is one of the reasons I would like to elect a black president. But, you know, to each his own.