Friday, January 11, 2008

people in sexist houses should not throw stones

Ok so first things first: I know I haven’t blogged in like, ten years. Its terrible. I’m ashamed. Laziness has reached an all-time high, and I apologize profusely.

But lets not cry over spilled milk. Moving on, I have a blog post in mind that I’ve literally been planning to write for like, a week, but only just now got the energy up to actually start writing. And I feel compelled to make an additional disclaimer that every single source for this entry comes from the new york times. Not because I think it’s a stellar paper or anything. Come on! Didn’t we JUST have a talk about how I’m lazy? Try and keep up. So here goes:

I hate it when forces outside of myself compel me to stand up for someone I don’t even like. It’s like in 2nd grade when everyone made fun of that fat kid who sat in the corner and had a bald spot on his head from where a fan fell on him. You didn’t WANT to say anything because you don’t want people to think you’re friends with him. But when they start throwing rocks, you’re kind of backed into a corner. This is how I feel about Hillary Clinton. She’s way too moderate for me and I don’t think I would love her as a president. But people have started throwing rocks, and now I’m going to have to kick their asses. Playground-style.

After this presidential race is over, I doubt people will even be able to make the argument anymore that race is a bigger deal in America than gender. Barack Obama is sailing along like everyone’s little black wonder-boy, and people clap their hands in glee over how articulate and clean he is. Don’t get me wrong, I get that that’s problematic. But at the end of the day, Barack is a man. Ipso facto, he can totally lead our country. Hillary? The Wiz shoulda had a woman singing that song “you can’t win.” I swear. I continue to be shocked by the lengths to which people will go to discredit this woman, and the lengths they will go to do so without ever touching on a single POLITICAL issue.

Case in point: this latest “crying” fiasco. Now I don’t want to point fingers or call anyone a crybaby, but John Edwards as far as I can tell has been crying himself to sleep every night for the past year, and people think its sweet. I think we all know Hillary can’t do that without getting labeled an emotional woman, incapable of leadership. So she shows a tough face. And people call her unlikeable. And then Barack throws her a bone and calls her “likeable enough.” What a swell guy. So she tears up. TEARS UP. She doesn’t even really cry. And BAM, everyone is all over it. Hillary’s too emotional. Hillary is a calculating bitch who only cried to get sympathy votes. Hillary can’t handle the pressure. Hillary’s desperate. Hillary is still married to a man who cheated on her so we should all think about that instead of her politics. Come. On.

I know this is getting long, but I need to make a special example out of just a few articles. For starters, Maureen Dowd: that woman gets on my last nerves. In her latest op-ed entitled “Can Hillary Cry Her Way to the White House?” she has the audacity to claim that every single one of Hillary Clinton’s political victories was a sympathy vote sparked by a previous embarrassment Hillary had suffered at the hands of a man. Dowd, who I’m certain considers herself SUCH a new-age feminist, seems to believe that not only is Hillary just some woman who would never have gotten ahead on her skills alone, but that the majority of voting-age women are completely incapable of rational thought, and are driven only by their traumatic memories of past wrongs.

Gail Collins seems to feel similarly about the new Hampshire win being a sympathy vote however she does make the astute point that Hillary seems to do best when she’s just speaking her mind, however boring that might be to watch on CNN. She’s not passionate like Barack, but she does have something to say. (unlike Barack? Oh. Snap.)

This is getting long so I guess I’ll end it. If you want to check out a couple other op-eds, I’m sure you’ll find them as fascinating as I did.

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10women.html?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/us/politics/09moment.html?fta=y

my point? I guess really my main point is just damn. If this is what it’s like to try and be a successful woman in this country, I’m glad I have no ambition. The rampant sexism and subsequent rampant denial that sexism plays any role in this whole campaign is absurd, and it makes me pretty pissed. Oh and don’t even get me started on the whole “you can’t count those 8 years she was living in the white house for shit because she was just a wife” business. If she had been president first (ha!) you can be damn sure everyone would be singing bill’s praises about how well he handled being the first ever first man, and how much he was able to accomplish politically while living with the president. Jesus.

Ok I’m done for real now. Lets all be mad about sexism together. And then a little sad about the state of our world.

Over and out,

kaya

2 comments:

Jessie Elizabeth Aku said...

kaya,

i love you. you are brilliant. i showed this post to some of the students here in accra and even they thought you were funny, which is a big deal considering the cultural and linguistic differences. hurrah! send me an email. i need some lovin.

jw

emily2 said...

a whole lotta ugly is being lobbed against both clinton and obama - from within the democratic party. it's really quite off-putting. but i suppose that's politics as usual.

see here for ny attorney general andrew cuomo's "shuck and jive" comment aimed at obama, for example. i mean, WTF!?!?!?!

anyway, back to the whole women thing... did you read this op-ed by gloria steinem in the new york times? i think she was earnest in writing it, but frankly, i think she's clueless. (so... women of color don't exist? and if you vote for hillary, you're more "radical" than women who don't?)

give me a BREAK! all of these stupid gutter-level barbs and jabs need to end from everyone!