Thought I'd wheigh in...

[eumelia]

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.

Comments

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm annoyed she's referred to as 'hilary' too.

It does worry me a lot though that she has more than a little bit of Thatcher about her.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

She is certainly more Center than others in her Party, but I think that's the song and dance she has to do at the moment.

I dunno, she impresses me a whole lot more than Barak Obama.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I quite like Edwards, the one who has said he's going to go after the big medical insurance companies, and the media conglomerates, because he thinks they have too much power, so of course he gets practically zero coverage from the media.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Edwards will most likely the Running Mate to whomever gets the nomination.
Whether it's the White Woman or the Black Man, they need a White Man with them for the push, I think.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I don't know, Obama/Clinton, people won't know who to hate most, it might work for them.

It does worry me though, Clinton is about the only candidate the Democrats could nominate who has a significant chance of losing the election.

[bitter-moss.livejournal.com]

You know i hadn't noticed the Hilary thing before (but then it's not like i pay a great deal of attention to the American political race beyond the basics.) Now that i have, yes it does annoy me :/.

doesn't anyone think that perhaps the System (society, culture etc.) is flawed and that we should aspire to change that I agree! Although i see my job more as being a reformist for now, i think that every complex problem requires a variety of answers & methods for positive change.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I think it's important to give credit to the fact change has happened AND to never stop striving towards even more positive change and to not just accept the status quo.

Reform and Radical change both have their places and necessities and both should be acknowledged and not be dismissed as often happens.

[lifeofresearch.livejournal.com]

In light of what you said I think we are caught in the winds of change and a push to return things to they way they think they were. For example, women in our country have the right to have a say so on their reproductive rights. There are groups who are trying to deny this right. If you can keep a woman fearful of becoming pregnant you can pay her less and keep her dependent. Mainly because of the long time it takes to raise a human compared to other animals. Your country is about the only democratic country in your region. Again the idea of democracy in practice is a new thing. Even the west suffered two world wars in the adjustment to having democratic rule. Those who oppose this idea of democratic rule are doing everything possible to stop and reverse the trend. I could to on and on as including gay rights besides these other issues. Change is slow and painful. Thank you for putting your thoughts in writing.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I agree, everything is very dynamic everywhere at the moment and that tends to put people into a general panic and wanting for things to stay as they remember them to be.

[stateofwonder.livejournal.com]

I very much agree about changing the system rather than attempting reform within our fatally flawed society. Global capitalism basically demands that someone be subservient, and that someone right now are women and people of colour. I don't see that changing easily within these constraints.

Steinem's article really bothered me for several reasons. First of all, although she says she's not trying to create a competition for who has it toughest, she's blatantly doing so. Discussing race vs. gender, she seems to be talking about white women vs. black men exclusively (see her section on why the sex barrier is more serious than the race barrier.. I'm sorry, do women of colour not exist? Oh right, they're invisible, as usual). Comparing these oppressions are basically impossible, since our histories are so complex and also intertwined. And comparing these oppressions are not useful in any way; that kind of discussion only serves to alienate those who work both for feminist and anti-racist causes. This is why there are so many different branches of feminism, and why so many feminist women of colour feel that they are fighting a different fight than old-school white feminists like Steinem. Saying stuff like "because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was" is so dismissive of the realities of people of colour in the US, and I find that really disrespectful.

Also, her claim that black men received the vote a half-century earlier than white women doesn't take into account the realities of black people not being able to vote even when it was "legal", and the systemic racism which still discourages black people from voting in some areas of the States even today. Illiteracy, access to polling stations and intimidation of black voters are still issues. She also conveniently skips over any mention of slavery and segregation, which are still huge parts of black consciousness in the States (and to a lesser extent Canada).

Steinem also mentions that women over 50 and 60 in Iowa disproportionally voted for Clinton. And while I agree that this is a huge indication of older womens' support for Clinton, it might also be an indication of older people not wanting to vote for a black man. It's probably a combination of the two factors. Just a thought.

Obviously I don't discount the awful things that Clinton has had to go through during this race. It is very difficult for women in politics because they're damned if you do and damned if you don't -- if you try to be approachable and warm and receptive, you're too soft, emotional, weak. If you try to be tough and just focus on business, you're cold and shrill and a bitch. Sexism is definitely a huge barrier to Clinton right now, but that's not to say that it's the "most restricting force in American life".

Sorry, that got really long and ranty :s

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

No, no this is so interesting.
As the local* WASP I can very easily overlook lots of things to do with race, because I'm, ya know, privileged in the fact that I'm white and of a huge amount of power compared to the vast majority of other citizens and non in my country.

So, perspective is of the good.

*Ashkenazni (white) Jewish.