... indeed. Thanks!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

But it's hard to comment about it. I can guess where this is going, but it's hard to talk about it, having only read the first part.

Still, I am now eagerly anticipating the conclusion.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

for doing this important work that obviously very few people in PB1.0 are willing to do.

I would add that the simple lack of interest in women's issues as central issues of progressive politics itself is telling.

And of course, there is the absolute blindness of PB1.0 and the Obama campaign to their own misogyny. All discussion of sexism is dismissed as "it's all in the media" but not in progressive circles. As if there had been no Fatal Attraction jokes or no rank misogyny all over the Big Blogs by the writers and commenters, which continues to this day.

well, thanks for commenting on it anyway. ;)

Its tough to know whether people think this kind of thing is pure bs, unworthy of serious consideration, or like it but see it as "complete".

The thing is, its not complete.... the original title was "An attempted approximation of a feminist/womanist....", because thats what it is -- merely an attempt to define/differentiate a FW perspective, and provide an example of how that perspective "works" (i.e. that a FW perspective includes an understanding of Hillary Clinton's and her role in a historic context).

What I'd really like to see is people try to come up with other definitions of a "FW perspective", and alternative FW interpretations of the historic context of Clinton's presidential bid.

One of the problems with what happened at OpenLeft is that its an Obamablog, and because Sara, Pam, and rikyrah were writing from an Obama-ist perspective, there was a tendency to approve of what they'd written uncritically.

I don't want that -- but what I also don't want is criticism from outside the FW perspective. While a comprehensive critique of the primaries requires a multitude of perspectives, the aim of this piece/series is to come up with FW critiques that makes sense.

I've considered writing something like this, but since I'm not a 20th Century historian, I've hestitated because it would mean doing some serious research. But, your work looks solid and I'll look forward to the next installment/s.

One thing I'd like to point out--and something you suggest--is that HCDS has always been integral to CDS. One of my theories about CDS and the contempt the village always had for Bill Clinton is that he wasn't married to a traditional political wife--that is, totally submissive to his career and ambitions because she is without ambitions of her own. He was therefore seen as gender queer, in a way: sexually promiscuous outside of his marriage, and unable (or worse yet, unwilling) to bring his wife to heel and force her into the traditional political wife role. And Washington, a deeply conservative and provincial place, didn't know what to do with a heterosexual power couple that openly defined their marriage and their own careers so differently from most other Washington heteros. So, Clinton's masculinity was seen as threateningly unstable--sometimes threateningly powerful (in his attractiveness to other women) and threateningly revolutionary (because of his wife's career and role in his administration.)

Absolutely necessary and really important...

And a pb 2.0 on this would be fantastic.

I will have more comments later, I promise!

John Rawls formulation offers an obvious inclusion of a F/W perspective. I have my books packed up and don't have access to them so I can't get too much into detail, but I'll try to get a post up today or tommorrow on this, along with party invariance, which I think is related to "justcie as fairness".

i saw this over there this morning. all i can say is that i'm a coward and don't want to join this dicussion. keep up the fight, friend. you're not wholly wrong, and i'm glad someone is willing to say these things.

I'm missing those flowers!

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

physiologically female, and I write from the perspective that the shape (and/or size) and/or color of the physiological body I inhabit shouldn't hinder me -- or anyone else -- from being judged on the quality of the work I do and the behavior I exhibit toward others.

Money's almost as useless a measure as what you drive, when trying to pigeonhole a person; skills should be more important than gender identity, but they're not.

Until we get that fixed, whatever you have to be to want it made right is what I am. Is that womanist? Is it humanist?
Is it pro-equality? Is it feminist? (I have my doubts about that, because there are some feminist writers and thinkers I neither find comprehensible nor sympathetic.) I like to think of it as being christian (not Krystyun) -- I try my dead level best to treat others as I would like to be treated. That said, the classic Kenny Rogers semi-Western movie had a point, too: After you get slapped in the face the second time, you're out of cheeks to turn.

when so many are still pretending they don't understand...let me cynically predict that some will admit afterwards, like Kerry's swiftboating, well yeah I kinda never thought that was true. But it is sad and wrong that attacking women is being worn as a badge of honor, like those purple heart band-aids.

Thanks for working on this.

Would you consider slightly downplaying several of your historical points especially about ER? Although the "great" man or woman theory is always popular, and ER was a great leader, she did not represent the end of absolute patriarchy: the US did not have an absolute patriarchy. (Although you could easily tweak that a little to reflect more the political domain, which she famously complained heartily about women being excluded from--she herself having to listen outside the door during an early Democratic convention committee meeting when she was chair. The next time it was different.)

The general point is well-taken: that ER and HRC are inspiration and standard-bearers for women makes them more attacked. Some really fear (even still) Clinton as a rival to Obama.

This is something that historians are perhaps not best equipped to deal with--the role of the subconscious in the exaggerated hostility and overreactions to women like ER and HRC. Perhaps sociologists like FrenchDoc or other social scientists--psychologists? cultural anthropologists?--can be more insightful. (I don't see history as a social science, but rather as one of the humanities.) But, historians can mine primary sources for language and ideas that suggest larger patterns and widely-held prejudices that may shed light on these questions.

to take this on. I appreciate the effort and think you get a lot right here. I need some time to comment more meaningfully and right now RL isn't providing that.

One of the many fascinating things about this election campaign has been the need of so many to deny that sexism or misogyny existed or that they were leveraged and used by either the Obama campaign and/or its supporters. Because, of course, you can be a woman and believe Obama, his supporters, etc., were sexist at various times and still support Obama. It might not be consistent with your feminist values, but as McEwan pointed out in her essay at Open Left feminists often have to vote against their feminist values. And, who is to say you have to value feminism more than you value other things. You could make an argument, for example, that your opposition to Iraq was more important than having a candidate who did not rise above the sexism inherent in our culture. But instead of making these kinds of arguments, they simply deny Obama or his supporters ever used sexism or sexist language.

Yes, many thanks for taking this on, Paul. There's much to be said about this, and your phased approach is great. Your comparison of attitudes toward earlier first ladies was very revealing and productive. I look forward to more of your thoughts.

I've been wondering about BDBlue's point about the widespread need to be "pure" in our candidate allegiance: "You could make an argument, for example, that your opposition to Iraq was more important than having a candidate who did not rise above the sexism inherent in our culture. But instead of making these kinds of arguments, they simply deny Obama or his supporters ever used sexism or sexist language." I wonder if this mindless purity is ingrained or recent, perhaps stemming from talk-radio-style party polarization.

Obama seldom makes any specific progressive policy commitments, preferring to present himself as a tabula rasa or Rorshach Test inkblot. Given his weak substance re: progressivism, identifying him with something as anti-progressive as sexism would jeopardize his identification as a “progressive.”

It is easier to acknowledge your candidate’s weak points if there are strengths you can point to that offset them, but it's more difficult when your guy's shtick is merely leading a personality cult.

Horselover Fat

It is easier to acknowledge your candidate’s weak points if there are strengths you can point to that offset them, but it’s more difficult when your guy’s shtick is merely leading a personality cult.

I would just add that Obama's supporters were at a major disadvantage when it came to criticism of their candidate. Those of us who supported Clinton could always accept criticism about her, and explain it as necessary political expediency. Obama's supporters couldn't admit that he was "just a politician", because it conflicted with the "fundamental change" and "process" message.

But Obama's "purity" had to be maintained for another reason -- Obama had never actually accomplished any of the "fundamental change" he promised -- support for Obama was based on "faith" that he both could, and would, achieve what he promised. ANything that raised doubt had to be rejected, because entertaining doubt is the road to apostasy.

and to tie this back into the FW perspective, it was this need for purity that required that any criticism of Obama be met with a counter-attack, and resulted in the adoption of sexism-based HCDS criticism of CLinton.

The one area where Clinton has always been strong is on women's rights issues. It's the one area where she hasn't compromised, has repeatedly spoken out and is a true leader (see her work to make Plan B available OTC). Her record goes back to her Wellsley days. And, of all the candidates, she's the one I trusted most on feminist issues. Not only does she have the best record, but women are her base and Presidents don't usually support legislation that reduce their own rights.

Now, for many people, feminism is not their number one issue and that's fine, but for women who write about feminism and whose public persona is as a feminist and who didn't support Clinton, Clinton's outstanding record on these issues - and that she's less likely to treat women's equality as just another political issue - is kind of an awkward fact. One that can be justified because even feminists have other things they value, but it's still awkward. I think it's one of the reasons for all the allegations of racism or why every thread on misogyny seems to be hijacked by discussion of racism - to try to diminish Clinton's feminist record.

Because whatever else Hillary Clinton is, good or bad, she's a feminist. That's why she's so hated by many on the right and left. You don't think Keith Olbermann, with his recurring video segments where he gets to call young starlets sluts, hates her because she wants Universal Healthcare, do you?

There were reasons to oppose a Clinton nomination, but her record on feminism wasn't one of them. Indeed, it was one of her strengths. And the misogynistic onslaught she faced was a reminder to many of how important feminism still is. Which is why in some quarters, the misogyny must be denied.

NOTE - Of course, there are Obama supporters who recognized and were alarmed by the misogyny displayed during the campaign. These folks are not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people who seem determined to deny any misogyny existed.

When your closest tool to hand is a hammer, it’s easy to find ways to bang on things. Here, the handy tool was the media.

Bob Somerby discussed this. Media is like a big high school, where the opinions of
Kewl Kids like Jack Welch, Tim Russert, Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews etc. are very fraught. All of these people very obsessed with gender roles.

As for the bloggers, many appeared to be aspiring to graduate to the MSM. Consider, for example, Josh Marshall smearing Sen. Clinton for "attempting to get David Shuster fired." (Which is the time when I fired TPM from my bookmarks).

Horselover Fat

appears to be mad as Hell, and not ready to make nice, not this time. Meanwhile,the Pelosi/Obama wing of the party appears to have no idea of how to effectively reconcile to it, other than to forcibly bring it to heel, absorbing whatever long-term disaffection that policy engenders (in the form of withheld votes, donations, GOTV effort etc., including party disaffiliation.) So there appears to be a serious split within the Democratic party over feminist/womanist perspectives, with no obvious path to reconciliation visible while the present party leaders remain in power.

Which is why I think the present party leaders need to go. Their leadership is disastrous and untenable.

You could characterize the split as being more broadly over the anti-progressive nature of the Pelosi/Obama wing. But a big part of this anti-progressive stance is the tolerance of misogyny, which should be incompatible with being progressive.

Horselover Fat