Comments on: WaPo resurrects finger-shaking at young women who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton

By: KendallJ

KendallJ — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:32:39 +0000

Well women of all ages lament about who they should have voted for, I can comfortably say that I voted for Hillary simply because she was the BEST candidate, as well as being the best candidate for WOMEN, 52% of the population.

All women should take notice of how Obama refuses to stand up for their rights, from pulling contraceptives from the stimulus bill at the first republican whine, to his MIA approach to the anti-choice amendments in both versions of the health-care bills. And additionally, he has made clear that he will sign pretty much any bill regardless of whether it eliminates abortion access.

Hillary would NOT have done so, and would have been much more involved in making it clear that she would not sell women out to get a bill passed. It was always a no brainer!!!!! As attractive as Obama is, I didn’t vote with my genitals, I voted with my brain. I wish more younger women had as well.

I can only hope that when my 10 year old daughter grows up, she will have the access to the full range of reproductive health that people like Hillary Clinton have spent their entire adult lives fighting for.

Watching Clinton at the state department speaks volumes about who she is and what her priorities are, as well as her commitment and resolve to fight for them.

Its been a year since this guy took office and I still can’t figure out who Obama is or what he stands for. He’s all over the place and doesn’t seem to have the grit to stand his ground on anything, except lining the pockets of Wall Street banksters.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:59:44 +0000

AC:
i don’t believe that many feminists are interested in the sex of the candidate RATHER than the candidate’s politics, or we would have seen a much larger number of self-proclaimed feminists voting for sarah palin. i also don’t believe that we should discard gender as entirely irrelevant (as you suggest it should be) to our choices. there is a difference between the “quest for No Differences” and the quest for electing a capable, qualified female candidate to the presidency. there is a difference between No Difference and Completely Different (44 male presidents, 0 female ones…) while in my post i suggested that we should not pit one goal against the other (electing a female candidate versus a black one), it seems equally wrong to suggest that there is no value whatsoever (symbolic, instrumental) in electing a qualified, capable candidate who isn’t male/white/both.

By: AC

AC — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:05:13 +0000

This is just identity politics writ large. When feminists are obsessed by making sure that every stratum has an exactly equal number of men and women (except jails and asylums), why not treat the Presidency as another political football in the quest for No Differences? In this zero-sum worldview, the Man’s victory is always the Woman’s loss.

Ask yourself this: why else would some feminists be interested in the sex of the President of the United States, rather than his politics?

By: makomk

makomk — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:48:12 +0000

Lady: personally, I wouldn’t expect Gloria Steinam to know better. The identity politics and the treatment of sexism as some extra-special problem that’s more fundamental than racism look about par for the course for a high-profile feminist of her generation. (As, indeed, are the transphobia and the anti-pornography viewpoint.)

Also, she really claimed that because Hillary Clinton is female she has “no masculinity to prove”? That’s silly. In fact, arguably female leaders have more to prove…

By: tinfoil hattie

tinfoil hattie — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:22:16 +0000

In my opinion, it’s much more important to have women in positions of high authority than it is to have more men in those positions. Misogyny is so pervasive we don’t even know we’re soaking in it. It’s not about voting for a similar set of genitalia. It’s about getting the voice of the “other” 51% heard.

By: Lady

Lady — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:04:04 +0000

Earlier last year (2008), Gloria Steinam wrote an article in the NYTimes, where she repeats the same argument: “that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html

It’s always reductive when people we expect to know better insist that the intersectionalities between race and gender can be so easily dismissed. In any case, WaPo’s piece is nothing new.

By: Franki

Franki — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:02:10 +0000

Silly girl. Identity politics are so much more important than actual politics. Women don't know anything about the issues so they have to vote on gender lines. Also, all feminists are white. Black feminists are only such until a Strong Black Man (tm) enters the room. Complexity of thought, identity and ideology are nothing more than myths and lies spread by the liberal media.