Bush is leaving and his visit passed without any major disasters. Protests and Demos from both sides of the spectrum, for completely different reasons, but once again we see the two sides of the fence united in their dislike towards The Prez.
Soon he'll be gone, he's already somewhat of a lame duck, but soon (and hopefully) some sanity will return to the White House.
Speaking of which, the brouhaha on the net concerning Gloria Steinem's NY Times Op-Ed
about Hillary Clinton (and BTW am I the only one annoyed that in the media she is called "Hillary" while everyone else is referred to by their surname?!).
Gender is still divisive, no doubt. It is probably the most divisive tool humanity has invented and we still have a long way to go which seems to be something Ms. Steinem doesn't want to see, at least that was the impression I got from the op-ed.
The whole "Weeping Woman" thing with Clinton in New-Hampshire was, in my mind, blown out of proportion by the media.
At this point in our collective history true equality does not exist. Mainly because the game played is the same, only with a little more diversity when it comes to gender and race. Women if they are to be successful (i.e. make money) have to work as men have worked. This isn't so different from before Suffrage in the late 19th century to early 20th century and the Civil Rights Movement era, during which many, many groups demanded recognition and self-determination, the Women's movement was big then. But the revolution is over and all men and women, of every race and ethnicity are equal. Right?
Eh, not so much.
The world in which we live in demands that women do exactly the same as men in the name of equality, to be "as good as the next guy".
A great aspiration indeed.
Though not the entire or even the goal at all.
Ms. Steinem is being a little unfair, because change and the relations between the genders are different from the time she stood on the podium and demanded to be recognized.
We have progressed, but to where?
That's the question.
There is a difference between Reformism and Radicalism. At the moment there is reform going on, changes made in the System to accommodate the change going on (much too slowly).
But doesn't anyone think that perhaps the System (society, culture etc.) is flawed and that we should aspire to change that, a few grassroots at a time.
Reform is good for now, the immediate, because we have yet to reach a critical mass where the overhaul of a the machine in which we live is viable, at least in my opinion.
That doesn't mean we mustn't cease to move towards a more radical solution in order to end these oppressions, which while are not protected by law any more, are still entrenched and instilled into us from babyhood.