Hey, There’s a Bird in This Mirror!

Diversion Enthusiast Society, est. 2007

Our Daughters’ Daughters Will Adore Us.

with 11 comments


Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my last post… it should be noted that I resent the hell out of the notion that voting for another woman is the natural choice for all women. If this was the case, why aren’t we seeing masses of Republican women jumping the fence?

To begin, I’d like to note, since I have yet to hear anyone on CNN or NPR point it out – Hillary Clinton is the first woman in our country’s history to win a state Presidential primary.

I read this NYT opinion piece from Gloria Steinem this morning and find that her argument drags me back into the undecided camp. As a Wisconsinite, I have until the 19th of February to make up my mind (provided that Super Tuesday doesn’t do it for me), but I don’t think it’s going to be easy. Glassbooth is telling me that I should be voting for Kucinich, Kuninich is telling me that I should vote for Obama, and my instincts are telling me that Senator Clinton is, somehow, getting a raw deal in all of this. This is not a feeling that I’ve been able to substantiate. Yet.

I believe that, if we are to understand what is truly going on behind the curtain during this election cycle, the talking-heads are going to have to bring their A-game. Spending air time contemplating whether or not a woman, who also happens to be a politician and a presidential candidate, showing emotion in a cafe two days before the primary positively impacted the outcome of said primary isn’t going to cut it. Calling the horse race is easy when all of the horses are white, middle-aged men. I think that our traditional approaches to communicating about politics are going to fall short. It’s a shame, really, because, if we were well-equipped and ready for it, this election cycle could be a springboard into a wonderful national conversation about race, gender, and the status quo. But, instead, those of us who have spent some quality time in women’s or ethnic studies courses are going to get to spend the next ten months alternating between bemoaning and mocking the obvious gaps in the mainstream coverage of the Democratic Presidential race. But, hey, we’ll have fodder for our theses and dissertations for years to come. Anyone out there who’s into Foucault should probably brush up on the feminist take on his ideas about power relations, and, if Clinton secures the nomination, brace for a dramatization. It’s going to be fascinating.


Written by Raina

January 9, 2008 at 12:48 pm

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is why I don’t fucking vote.

    Patrick Ripoll

    January 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm

  2. I thought you didn’t vote because you weren’t old enough to during the last presidential election… 😉

    You’re of age now, kiddo – POOR. EXCUSE.


    January 10, 2008 at 3:15 pm

  3. …I didn’t vote in the senatorial race…

    Patrick Ripoll

    January 10, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  4. I actually offended one of my coworkers a week after meeting them by saying “Here’s what I have to say to people who don’t vote: Fuck you.” To which she responded “I don’t vote.”

    But yeah, Patrick: NO EXCUSE.

    Brendan (Rath)

    January 10, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  5. My excuse is that I don’t care.

    Patrick Ripoll

    January 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  6. Just say, instead, “I voted for Nader.” Doesn’t matter the election. Just stick to Nader.


    January 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm

  7. I don’t believe in the political process, I only believe in sex and death.

    Patrick Ripoll

    January 12, 2008 at 11:40 pm

  8. Oh, for God’s sake…

    Patrick. Baby. I love you, you know I do, but come. on. You’re smarter than at least 80% of the electorate – do you really want miyagi and all of his friends making your political choices for you?

    Like Dre said, if you really don’t want to talk politics, just bring up Nader. Everyone will leave you alone and you won’t end up sounding like a gothtard.


    January 13, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  9. One thing that you seem to be missing in your view is that Hillary Clinton is NOT just a “woman politician” – she brings an enormous amount of baggage with her, far beyond what any other female politico that I can think of would.

    She is so well-known and polarizing it is quite impossible to judge her actions and the reactions she evokes in terms of any sort of generality.


    January 13, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  10. This is true, and there are other female politicians who might have encountered an easier time.

    But a lot of that baggage comes from her being perceived as a powerful woman in the first place. The hate directed her way from the right even when she was first lady always seemed incredibly disproportionate, considering how little actual power she wielded. Also, a lot of the coverage takes her on in terms of her not just being a polarizing figure, but a polarizing woman.


    January 14, 2008 at 8:49 am

  11. I didn’t mean to speak strictly in generalizations, Chavito, though I do think that it is compelling to think of Senator Clinton in her role as a powerful woman, without all of the baggage. When you bring the baggage into the equation, as Dave pointed out, it gets a lot more complicated, partially because of her gender, and partially because of her political history. It’s a lot to think about all around.


    January 14, 2008 at 10:16 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: