sexism

OMG. OMG. OMFG.

Please to watch this NOW.

Have you heard those rumors of/statements from people (often white women, like me, except I haven't said this and it makes my mind boggle) saying that they'd vote for McCain over Obama because of the sexism Hillary Clinton had to deal with during the campaign?

Well, Tim Wise, perhaps the most prominent white male antiracist writer around, certainly has. And he's calling them out bigtime in an essay called "Your Whiteness Is Showing."

How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?

His last graf is a doozy:

You are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act.

Not that Obama is perfect, as he says. And some of Wise's hostility surely won't be taken well by women who have been watching the media pundit hostility toward Hillary Clinton and who are disappointed by the results of the primaries — do white women need another white guy telling them what to think?

But here is an analysis by Salamishah Tillet (from TheRoot.com) called "Obama and the 'Woman Question'" with the subhead With Clinton finally out of the race, Obama needs to tackle issues of gender equality in the same way he has talked about the nation's racial divide in Philadelphia, if he wants to win in November.

It is a huge slap in the face of all women, regardless of race, not to have had a viable female candidate for president until now. Women make up more than 50 percent of the U.S. population and outnumber men among voters, so it makes no sense that we are so under-represented in the nation's elective offices.

So, how underrepresented are women?

Today, 16 out of the 100 U.S. senators are women and 74 out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives are held by women. Seventy four women hold statewide elective executive offices across the country, 23.5 percent of the 315 available positions. In terms of ethnic diversity, 20 of the 87 female members of Congress, or 23 percent, are women of color. The statistics are much worse in elected state executive positions; only four, less than 6 percent, of the 74 are women of color.

(I'm noticing some weird stats there that make me want to fact-check that graf. How does 74=87? Or how would 74+16=87? Halp.)

How can Obama overcome the concerns some white women may have about how much he benefitted from sexism?

Much like his speech on race, I would like Obama to talk about gender and gender inequity as fundamental tenets of his campaign. He needs to spotlight his Equal Pay Act, speak more fervently about gender hate crimes and his commitment to boosting the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women, and he should continue to reach out to second and third wave feminists of all colors.

Good ideas. Betting there are more out there, aside from pointing out that white privilege thingy Wise so, er, furiously delineates.

Please discuss.

This is the head etc. of Salon's lead article right now, and the subhead/kicker/deck reminds me that I SO appreciate it when people who call HC "Hillary" also call BO "Barack" (or "Clinton" and "Obama"):

Image from Salon
Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!
Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary.
By Rebecca Traister

Read it here.

Highlights quoted from Traister's article:

• "I was confused by the saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion shown by my formerly cynical cohorts, especially when it was accompanied, as it often was, by a sharp renunciation of Hillary Clinton, whose policies are so similar to her opponent's. I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man –- but one whom even his wife calls 'just a man.'"

• "When sexism is acknowledged in this primary campaign, it has been attributed to either Chris Matthews or the conservative, Rush Limbaugh, Iron My Shirt brigade. Little open recognition has been given to the possibility that there might be some gender discomfort behind the army of liberally minded Obama enthusiasts. But progressive politics has not always been female-friendly politics; '70s feminism was born partly in response to the inequities of the antiwar and civil rights movements."

• And, quoting the woman who founded Feministing: "I spoke to a guy friend who said, 'You're being ridiculous. I'm not not voting for her because she's a woman; I'm not voting for her because she's a bitch!' He could not see the connection between the two things at all."

I just want to keep on quoting things that make me go, "Yeah!"

Instead, I suggest that you go read the freakin' article (as stupidly ignorant about "second-wave" feminism as it is), already.

Lots of election stuff, with bonus sports:

1. I listened to On the Media yesterday. In April 4's edition, Bob Gladstone talked about how there was really not a race anymore, how Hillary Clinton could no way win (well, there's a way, but it involves three specific and mostly unlikely scenarios).

Listen to it yourself:

2. But! Sean Wilentz makes a case that H.C. has won way more votes by population and by popular count than B.O. Wait, doesn't that sound like 2000?

3. And! Let's stop pretending Obama is progressive, shall we? (Not that Clinton is. Not by any means at all.)

4. Also! Kristof says we're racist and sexist. Just in case you hadn't noticed any men flipping out about Clinton or any white folks losing their shit over Obama.

5. Finally! HOT DAMN! Stanford beats Connecticut! I so love it when Connecticut loses. And I love it when Stanford wins. Go, hippie dippie West Coast! AND: Because Tennessee beat LSU in possibly the ugliest Final Four matchup of all time, both of the women's teams in the final are coached by women.* Gonna have to find me a way to watch this game. (Gonna be rooting for the Cardinal too, darn tootin'.)

*I won't care about this as soon as just as many women are coaching Div. 1 men's teams as men coach women's teams. You tell me when that happens. I'll go out and chop down a tree or something womanly like that.

Are you a Frida fan(atic)? (Also known as a "Fridamaniac" — check out this website for more links and details.)

Good news if you are a fan of Frida Kahlo and you're near Philly — which, hey, we're not, but what's a trip of 2975 (says Google Maps) or 2452 (says Great Circle Mapper) miles to a Fridamaniac?

The Philadelphia Museum of Art celebrates Frida Kahlo with a "centennial" exhibit. That is, Kahlo was born 100 (now 101) years ago, and Philly's going all out with Fridamania.

In The New York Times, Holland Cotter writes a pretty damn good article about the show. Cotter writes intelligently about Kahlo's biography and her art. But my favorite part is when Cotter writes this:

Like any cult figure she has detractors, who scoff at the meticulously calculated self-image in her art, at her opportunistic narcissism. Was she self-aggrandizing? Of course. As she said, she was her art. But her subjectivity was capacious and empathetic. It encompasses so much — politics, religions, sexualities, ethnicities — that it’s almost self-effacing. I would suggest that biographical detail is just the beginning for understanding Kahlo’s work. It is an art much bigger than the life that made it.

I would also suggest that accusations of megalomania derive partly from social biases. Picasso’s art is routinely viewed through the lens of biography, with groups of work said to be evidence of his emotional response to this woman or that, the active element being his genius. Few people seriously complain about this version of art as egomania. Picasso was expanding his creative territory. Kahlo didn’t know how to keep her place.

Unh hunh. Take that, sexist art historians.

And by the way, Kahlo and Diego Rivera's Casa Azul, now the Museo Frida Kahlo, is closer than Philadelphia to Eugene (2199 miles, says Great Circle Mapper). See you there!