The Bitch That Gets Stuff Done

By now millions have probably seen the video (or the live telecast) of Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live sketch entitled “Bitch Is the New Black,” in which she humorously capitalized on Hillary Clinton’s “bitch factor.” Fey made a case for perceiving this characterization as a plus, “She is (a bitch). So am I. Bitches get stuff done. That’s why Catholic schools use nuns as teachers instead of priests. At the end of the year you hated those bitches, but you knew the capital of Vermont.”

 

After viewing the segment, I thought how brilliant a move it would be to actually GO with the bitch thing instead of complaining about it; instead of analyzing it; instead of going against the tide. The analysis has been done after all, but not many are buying it. As a woman Hillary is a victim of thousands of years of misogynistic, patriarchal and dualistic constructions of “womanhood.” In the eyes of millions she will be perceived either as “likeable,” in which case she must be demure, “feminine” and passive. If Hillary was this kind of woman she could kiss her chances at the Presidency good-bye.  On the contrary Hillary is tough, assertive, vocal and strong in which case she is characterized as The Bitch. I wish I had a nickel for every newspaper headline, television news broadcast and Internet feed that contains both the words “Clinton” and “attacks.”  When she is critical of Obama, when Obama’s campaign plays dirty and she calls him out on it, when she casts doubt upon his policies and “eloquent” emptiness, she is the wicked stepmother poking the broom at Cinderella.

 

The collective, national reaction to the expression of emotion through quivering voice and misty eyes has also been analyzed by others more qualified than I, but I cannot help but comment. It is  clear that the interpretation of quivering voice and misty eyes in Hillary is perceived much differently than when say, George Bush or Mitt Romney display such expressions of emotion . The men cry and the reaction is, “Awwwwww. See Mitt cry. Look how sensitive; how moved he is.” In Hillary it is interpreted as weakness or as a “typical” feminine ploy that when she’s not getting what she wants, she’ll cry (here’s to you, Maureen Dowd). Or it is interpreted as womanly emotion, surely evidence that a woman cannot be President. There are those I think, who actually imagine Hillary launching a nuclear weapon on a whim brought on by some post-menopausal hormonal imbalance. I suspect that all Barack need do to wrap this whole thing up is shed a few while in the passionate throes of one of his rhetorical speeches.

 

Tina Fey turned the image of Bitch on its head and in some sense forced us to look once again at America’s fear of female power steeped in sexism. Oh yes, I know. I will receive comments on this blog that will protest that sexism has anything to do with it. I will hear ad nauseum that the speaker does not oppose Hillary AS a woman but because she is HILLARY. And this may be true for a handful of you; as for the rest, save it. I wasn’t born yesterday. America’s collective psyche cannot escape the archetypal constructions, socially conditioned through thousands of years of patriarchy. The same mentality that maintains Clinton cannot be a good President by virtue of her sex is the same mentality that results in a Christian school's forbidding a woman to referee a boys’ basketball game. Administrators of the school recounted the ancient words of the First Letter to Timothy that echo back from the grave, “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.”

 

When I debate Hillary’s struggle from the evidential argument of sexism, invariably I am presented with a comparable appeal to Obama’s obstacle of racism. But historically, America has always been more prepared to welcome African-American men before women into the halls of power and fame. In the passage of suffrage, African-American males were afforded the right to vote 50 years before women. In the elected offices of Governor, Senator and Congress, a pattern emerges and it is quite stunning. In all of these offices, the first African-American male was elected before the first woman by a span of 50-60 years. It may simply be Hillary’s misfortune to have been born too soon.

 

A friend of mine recently sent an article to me entitled, "It's OK to Vote for Obama Because He's Black," written by, Gary Kamiya, Executive Editor of Salon.com in which he wrote the following:

Obama's blackness is his indispensable asset. Without it, he would not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected president.

Obama's charisma, which is his unique political strength, is real, but it cannot be separated from the fact that he's black. When Obama speaks of change and hope and healing divisions, his words carry an electric charge because of who he is: He embodies his own message, the very definition of charisma. As a black man offering reconciliation, he is making a deeply personal connection with whites, not merely  a rhetorical one.

So white enthusiasm for Obama isdriven by his race. But there's nothing wrong with that fact. Those who criticize it are simultaneously too idealistic and too cynical: They assume that it's possible to simply ignore Obama's race, while also imputing unsavory motivations to those who are inspired by it…having a black president would give the country a deeper comfort level in talking about racial issues. It would help Americans…break out of the sterile guilt/victim dialogue…

I don’t know how a friend of mine could send this article to me as an appeal to consider Obama as my choice for Democratic nominee (or to understand his), without knowing that I would read Kamiya’s essay and turn the feminist hermeneutical eye upon it. Kamiya’s analysis was stunning to me for several reasons. For starters, he wasn’t afraid to write it.  But what knocked me right between the eyes was his use of language; words like “reconciliation,” and “guilt/victim dialogue” and “healing.” Those who know me know also that one of my particular areas of interest is the study of the dynamics of forgiveness and reconciliation in culture and religion. The elements of reconciliation occur in stages. In order for reconciliation to occur there must first be acknowledgment of the injury by both parties. Secondly, the offending party must make a gesture of atonement or an expression of remorse and only then can the two be reconciled. If Kamiya is right and one of the key factors in America’s embrace of Obama is the attempt to reconcile its racist past, then it became crystal clear to me why Hillary Clinton as a woman (which is not possible to “simply ignore”) is not being extended the same conciliatory hand. America has not yet acknowledged its misogynist past. America has not yet struggled with, confronted nor admitted its pervasive sexism. America has not yet offered a gesture of atonement or an expression of remorse for its historical unjust treatment of women. 

If nine years of experience teaching feminist critical analysis in a college classroom can serve as a microcosm of American attitudes towards gender critique, then my analysis is valid. There is no issue in my classroom more contentious, more likely to incite hostility and protest, or more denied,rejected and dismissed. The token month of March is set aside as “Women’s History Month, “ but in most treatments of these 31 days, American classrooms celebrate the achievements of the exceptions; those few women who were able to rise above an America characterized by impossibly unjust laws and institutions. Students do not learn of the ideological and practical heinous treatment of women both in the public and domestic spheres. They do not learn of laws denying women inheritance rights, property rights, jurisdiction over their own children and legal protection from violence and abuse. They do not learn of practices, which allowed a man to hire out his wife and keep her wages. They do not learn of fatal force feedings of women imprisoned and engaged in hunger strikes, demanding the right to be considered American citizens and to have a voice in choosing those who would legislate their futures.  If I have 35 students in a classroom, two or three (in a good semester) have had previous exposure to feminist theory. Case in point: just a few weeks ago I presented an introductory lecture on feminist critical analysis. I described the critique of patriarchy (shoot, I had to define the word). I explained the consequences of a system in which men possess dominance in every area of public and private life; a system designed to keep women legally bound to men, dependent, uneducated, confined. And in a classroom moment that took my breath away, a young woman raised her hand and asked, “What’s wrong with that?” I cannot imagine an African-American student in response to a lesson on racism, slavery and segregation raising a hand and asking, “What’s wrong with that?”

Tina Fey’s little sketch may uncover more truth than even she might have guessed. Bitch is the new black. And America simply cannot reconcile it. I hope that it won’t take 50-60 years for America to elect its first woman president after it has elected an African-American male. I hope the same strides that have been made with respect to an analysis of racism in this country occur with respect to its analysis of sexism. I hope that every child in every classroom will not only celebrate the sheroes of March but  will be taught a  more accurate accounting of America’s dark sexist past, and of the American way of life experienced by the millions who are not named.

And then perhaps, if history must repeat itself and IF Obama is the Democratic nominee and should be elected President of the United States of America in 2008, I may have the opportunity in 2012 to proudly wear on my lapel a political button that reads, “Hillary Clinton for President: The Bitch is Back.”

Wake Up and Smell the Republicans

Just recently I wrote a criticism in this blog of those who would argue for Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee on the basis of his ability to garner the Clinton vote in November while maintaining that the reverse is not likely to occur. I criticized this way of thinking as petty and trivial. I judged it to be a blatant disregard for the (in my view) nobler concern of best candidate for President, rather than merely best candidate for the party’s nomination. But it appears that there are others who are preparing to elect the one they perceive as the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. This morning on a national network, there was a political statistic that made me realize how naïve I have been. It seems that in the most recent primaries there has been a “trend” among Republican voters that has not emerged until the Republican candidate had all but been signed, sealed and delivered. The trend consists of Republican voters eschewing their Republican primary booths and (in the states that allow it) voting in the Democratic ones. Republicans are deciding not to “waste” their vote in their own primaries. Why? Because they KNOW who their candidate will be in November. So instead, they are entering their polling booths and are casting their votes in their state’s Democratic primaries. And for whom are they voting? Barack Obama. But they are voting for him not because they have abandoned their Party. They are voting for him not because they want him to be President. They are voting for him because they believe him to be the Democratic candidate most “beatable” against John McCain.

 

I have to admit, this shook me up. I began to really analyze the implications of the “Obama cult.” Yes, cult. I have been a student of religion for too long not to recognize the characteristics of “religion” when I see it. You think I jest. I do not. The best scholars in the field have made analogy between religion and American sports; between religion and NASCAR. The seminal scholars in the field offer theories, which eerily reflect the Obama cult.

 

Sigmund Freud, in his psychological analysis of religion spoke about faith [in God] as “illusion.” And essential to Freud’s theory of religion is that its potency lies not in its quality of truth, but simply that one wishes it to be true. Applied to the Obama cult then, Obama’s popularity lies in the strength of the “fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes. (The Future of an Illusion).”  Obama is America’s redeemer because some wish him to be. After eight years of despair, war, threat of recession, frightening foreign policy and stupidity beyond belief, “we would rather face things as we did in the sunnier days of our childhood. Then there was always a father to reassure us against the dangers of the storm and the darkness of the night. Then there was always a voice of strength to say that all would be well in the end.” (Eight Theories of Religion, Daniels L. Pals, 2006, p. 70). I have been saying all along that the power of the Obama phenomenon lies in the fact that Obama supporters HOPE that he is who he says he is; WISH that he can deliver on the impossible promises he has vowed.

 

Emile Durkheim in his sociological analysis of religion focused on “’the totemic principle,’ which stands at the center of all of the clan’s beliefs and rituals. Behind the totem is an impersonal force that possesses enormous power, both physical and moral, over the life of the clan. People respect it; they feel a moral obligation to observe its ceremonies; and through it they feel tightly bound to each other in deep and abiding loyalty.” (Pals, p. 99). I have experienced this as  well, as one “outside” the sacred realm of the Obama cult. As a Clinton supporter I have been judged as one who is the “pessimist,” the one who does not believe; the one who cannot see. I do not belong to the ranks of those who possess “the hope,” and as such I have been found wanting, defective, blind. “Durkheim vividly describes the sentiments that ‘bubble up’ in the excitement of [the] group’s ceremonies. They are ritual times filled with energy, enthusiasm, joy, selfless commitment, and complete security.” (Pals, p. 101) And “it is in the midst of these effervescent social environments and out of this effervescence itself that the religious idea seems to be born, (Durkheim, emphasis mine)”. Does the analogy escape you? Have you not witnessed the evangelical quality of Obama rallies, with their frenzied energetic adoration?  

 

Edward Evans-Pritchard in his anthropological analysis observed that a religious view sometimes inhibits the broader understanding of the believer to such an extent that they are unable to entertain or perceive the world through any other perspective, “their blindness is not due to stupidity, for they display great ingenuity in explaining away the failures and inequalities of the poison oracle [read:Obama], and experimental keenness in testing it. It is due rather to the fact that their intellectual ingenuity and experimental keenness are conditioned by patterns of ritual behavior and mystical belief. Within the limits set by these patterns they show great intelligence, but it cannot operate beyond these limits. Or, to put it another way; they reason excellently in the idiom of their beliefs, but they cannot reason outside or against their beliefs because they have no other idiom in which to express their thoughts.” Have you ever tried to argue with an Obamanite? It is impossible, because their position is directed by the idiom of their belief  in “the oracle.”

 

And so, I return to the realityof the Republicans and their conviction, backed by strategy, that they can beat Obama in November (and NOT Clinton). I fear Jon Stewart’s prophesy that the Democratic Party will once again manage to elude the arrow of victory, because while the Republican Party is craftily strategizing its effort to defeat the Democrats in November, Democrats are arguing over what constitutes a proud American. While Republicans are planning their assault against a candidate of THEIR choosing, Democrats are still arguing over “hope” and “inspiration.” I fear that while John McCain is enjoying inauguration ceremonies in January and taking the oath of Office of President of the United States, Democrats will be sitting around campfires singing, “Kumbaya, Obama,” wondering as they did in 2004, “HOW could this have happened AGAIN?”

 

 

If Obama Was a Woman, Part II

I have received some responses from Obama supporters to my initial blog post “IF Obama Was a Woman,” (see below) and would like to respond. I have a few comments to make with regards to recent developments in the campaign as well.

 

**One responder charged that I judged Obama unfairly regarding his statements on his willingness to invade Pakistan if the intelligence was “actionable.” The criticism alleged that I took Obama’s comments too seriously because they were made in reference to a “hypothetical.” Well, the way I see it, statements made by both candidates in an effort to present to voters what they might do, would do, will do, could do IF (“if” being the hypothetically operative word here) they become President are ALL “hypotheticals.” And should all be taken "seriously." Campaigns are built upon proposed promises, plans and objectives for the future. And the future of course, is by its very nature hypothetical. If all hypotheticals must be eliminated from the discussion, from the deliberation and the assessment of character, then what do we have left? Oh, that’s right…the PAST i.e. what the candidates HAVE done, HAVE accomplished, HAVE already proven. If that be the case, I’m sticking with Hillary.

 

**I have been hearing for quite some time now the rhetorical argument that Obama is “The Unifier” and that Clinton “polarizes.” Thank goodness they have not resorted to calling her “The Polarizer.” She might just have to start wearing Ray-Bans at every appearance and then those who spend their time commenting on her hair and clothes would have new material for their trivial, chauvinistic concerns. I would pose several questions to those who would accuse Clinton of polarizing and who, at the same time, continue to advance these polarized characterizations (anyone see the irony here?). To begin, I have no idea what this means. Just what groups does Senator Clinton “polarize?” Blacks and Whites? Republicans and Democrats? Men and Women? The poor and the wealthy? NY Yankees fans and Boston Red Sox fans? At least with regard to this last, Massachusetts AND New York unite behind Hillary. That’s some resounding chord of unity if you ask me. Would someone actually attempt to look me in the eye and seriously suggest that Hillary Clinton is responsible for the division that exists between these sets of groups? Unfortunately, those divisions and separations have been around for a long time, long before Hillary Clinton was ever born, some of them for many centuries.

 

** One argument for Obama that has emerged and surged in the days immediately following Super Tuesday insists that Obama is the best Democratic choice for the November election because he is able to carry Clinton voters, while Clinton will not be able to carry Obama supporters. I have several things to say about this.

 

1) The argument has now focused on who is the party’s best candidate for the November election, NOT the Presidency. This is comparable to sending in the Corporal to win the battle when only the General can win the war. I know. Please pardon the militaristic nature of the analogy. I’d be open to other suggestions. Perhaps, "sending in the rookie to end the inning even though he can’t deliver the game?”

 

2) Senator Obama himself has been exploiting this ploy in speeches made recently. He actually articulated the idea that he is the party’s best candidate for the election because he will carry Clinton supporters while the opposite is unlikely. Unbelievable. Does he not realize that by merely suggesting this strategy, he is sending a message to his supporters tojoin him in this line of argumentation? Does he not recognize that by utilizing this as a method of political strategizing he is encouraging his supporters to voice their resistance to electing Clinton if she becomes the party’s nominee? WHAT could possibly be more divisive than that? Essentially what he is doing is dividing the party from within, jeopardizing the potential for future party unity, particularly in November. Unifier, indeed. I know it would be just too naïve of me to suggest that Obama might instead encourage his supporters to give up their childish, petulant, “if I can’t win, I won’t play” mentality and support the party’s nomination for President no matter whom that happens to be. No, I don’t expect this. But, neither did I expect him to promote this “polarizing” idea by actually appealing to it.

 

I have met many Obama people who have told me that they’d be more than willing to vote for Clinton in November, so he misjudges (or misrepresents) his own supporters anyway. Does he really think that his voter base would abandon the party by voting for the Republican candidate instead of Hillary Clinton? Or does he think that they would relinquish the right to exercise their vote altogether and risk a Republican victory merely by their absence at the polls? In either case it would be unconscionable and not only does Obama misjudge them, he insults them. If it is an accurate presentation of the majority position then shame on them for what they might risk (but I have more faith in them apparently than he does). So, voting for Clinton's opponent or simply not showing up seem to be the only options available according to Obama. But no, wait. He might advise Obama-Democrats to simply show up at the polls in November and cast a vote of “present,” in protest of the choices...

 

Also, by way of post script to the original journal entry on the campaign, I would like to add that appeals to Obama's capacity to "inspire," and to provide "vision and hope," imply that Senator Clinton does not do these. Rest assured. As I speak and listen to her supporters; nothing could be further from the truth. Her inspiration, leadership, grace under fire, intelligence, diligence and tireless work represent indeed, a new hope for us all.

 

 

If Obama Was a Woman

 

It’s true. I haven’t written a blog post since Christmas Eve. When a friend asked me about this I said, “I guess I just haven’t had anything to say.” He looked at me with that, “Yeah right,” look and said, “You might as well have told me, ‘Feminism? Not so much.’” That’s how much he believed me. But yesterday a young man asked me to build an argument for Hillary Clinton because he was deciding his vote. I have decided to post what I said to him.

 

Let's start with their respective health care proposals.

Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?em&ex=1202533200&en=dd6d5bc79c7f4fd9&ei=5087%0A

Secondly, make no mistake. That Hillary is not sweeping the Dems' primaries is a clear case of national misogyny. Imagine two lists of credentials; one list of Hillary's and one list of Obama's. Now at the top of the list identify each by switching their genders, so that Clinton's credentials would be identified as the male's and Obama's as the female's. Obama would not have a snowball's chance in hell as a woman, with his credentials. If Hillary was a man, her credentials, her record of work for the poor, bill sponsorship, public service, experience would make her the clear front runner.

Thirdly, many Americans are once again supporting a candidate with no experience, no substantive political WORK, no evidence of competence. Invariably when I ask an Obama supporter WHY they support him they stammer and stutter and start talking about "vision," "hope" and "inspiration." All this based on his ability as a great Orator. The man speaks well. It is the gift after all, that first propelled him into the national spotlight; a speech given on the floor of a Democratic Convention. Obama supporters are being swept away by their  desperation for faith. It is emotional and irrational. We have had eight years of the result of people voting on the basis of, "I don't know. I just LIKE him."

Fourthly, Clinton has won the demographics of the poor, the disenfranchised. What does that tell you? It tells you that they know who fights for them. Just last month Hillary sponsored a bill to increase the minimum wage. Have you heard anything about this in the News? No. She is in the process of running this incredible, exhausting campaign and is STILL sponsoring bills in the Senate; STILL working at her JOB. Obama does well in caucus states because the poor and middle class cannot get to caucus. Why? Because they're busy working at THEIR jobs.

Fifth: The Media is soft on Obama, tough on Hillary. No one is asking him the hard questions. After Super Tuesday I heard analysts say that Obama won Minnesota and Connecticut because these states are traditionally "anti-war." Haven't the voters in Minnesota and Connecticut heard Obama say twice in the Democratic debates (once in SC) that he "would not hesitate" to "strike" Pakistan if the intelligence was "actionable?" When ABC News' Charlie Gibson responded by saying, "(this is) essentially the Bush doctrine: We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis," it was GIBSON who was criticized. Frankly, Obama's

comments terrified me. HOW would he do this? Where would he get the money to engage the U.S. in a third war? Where would he get the personnel? The Draft?? When I ask Obama supporters about this, three have told me that "the Pakistan LINE" was said to show that he is "tough on defense." My response? "Look, either Obama meant what he said about Pakistan, or he didn't. If he did, it's terrifying. If he didn't, and said it only to create an image, then WHAT ELSE should I NOT believe he's said because he's busy creating an image?" They look at me like a deer in headlights. When Clinton begins to ask questions like this, she is accused of "attacking" Obama and of being a bitch.

Sixth: The Media is determining this nomination. Pay close attention to the choice of language, the ordering of words, the slant of the questions. Once you do, you cannot help but see it. Examples: The day after the New Hampshire primary, one of the anchors for Good Morning America asked the network's political analyst, “What is it about New Hampshire voters that allowed them to overlook Clinton’s emotional outburst?” WHAT?? “OVERLOOK Clinton’s outburst?” This was the first political question of the morning. He didn’t ask, “What is it about New Hampshire voters that led them to judge Clinton as Presidential?” A recent Yahoo web page headline, “Obama Closes in on Clinton’s Double Digit Lead,” NOT, “Clinton Maintains Lead Over Obama.” After Nevada, AOL’s web page, “Clinton Survives, Romney Crushes.” WHAT? Clinton “survives?” She had just won NH and she won Nevada with over 50 percent of the popular vote among three candidates. On Super Tuesday, AOL’s page featured this line, “Why Feminists Say Don’t Vote for Clinton,” and then led the reader to some obscure person’s BLOG! On the Monday before Super Tuesday, I timed Good Morning America’s coverage of each of the candidates. Obama was featured in a little over 12.5 minutes of the broadcast. Clinton, just under four. Same day: when Michelle Obama was about to be interviewed the trailer was, “What does Michelle Obama feel when Bill Clinton attacks her husband?” Attacks? NOT “criticizes,” or “challenges.” The word “attack” was deliberately chosen to present a subjective image. It is a word loaded with bias. And this morning, on NBC, "Clinton appears to have won more delegates, but Obama won more states." Clinton appears to have won more delegates?? No guys. She DID. I am no longer watching Network news reports. From now on I'm watching The Jim Lehrer Report on PBS.

 (I don't have cable).

Want more? I got plenty.

 

Obama supporters, you are welcome to email me or comment below with an argument for your candidate. But be forewarned, I will NOT entertain an argument that has as its basis an appeal to “hope,” or “inspiration.” And yet, in the case of Obama, it just may be that faith and hope are the only grounds for argument. Perhaps because (and St.Paul may have described these best in the Letter to the Hebrews), "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." And I want to see more than possibility and potential. I want REAL evidence. And, should Obama win the nomination and the Presidency, I’ll wait a couple of years, thank you very much, before I declare him America’s Redeemer.