chromosomes or melanin

First it was Gloria Steinem; now it's Robin Morgan who is calling global feminism to order. It is time to support Hillary Rodham.

Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she's the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she's refreshingly thoughtful, and I'm bloodied from eight years of a jolly "uniter" with ejaculatory politics. I needn't agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama's -- and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she's already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, and because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

As for the "woman thing"?

Me, I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman -- but because I am.

*

So there is a gender gap among Democrats. According to exit polls (certainly, a precise science), older women go for Rodham, white men go for Obama (other gaps: young people for Obama, latinos for Rodham, lower income for Rodham, higher income for Obama, lower education for Rodham, higher education for Obama, blacks for Obama, labor for Rodham). Identity politics 101. Hence the Democrats face two choices with historical implications. Either nominate a woman or a black male. Morgan, picking up Rodham's talking points, finds her more qualified. That's the bottom line; but above the line is the resentment of years of taking a back seat, of deferring, of being bypassed by someone younger, etc., und so weiter...Moreover, the nomination of Rodham is an opportunity to stick it to the Republican hatemeisters. On these points, one can agree with Morgan. But the last sentence sticks in the mind: vote for Rodham because of your chromosomes, not because of Rodham's.

*

Is this what Second Wave Feminism has come to? The Second Wave, splintered by the divide between cultural feminists and sex radicals and the divide between "women of color" and "white feminists", has become virtually invisible as a political-cultural force (just the opposite of the presence of feminist theory as an intellectual force in the academy). I once posed a question in an undergraduate classroom: who among you identifies as a feminist? Not more than five hands went up among the sixty in attendance. Are we now in a post-feminist situation in which the recriminations of the 1980s and 1990s, and the decades of anti-feminist conservative backlash, have made the idea of feminism itself an impossibility? The glass ceiling remains and masculinist symbolic and physical violence continues to define and restrict the social space for women. What does a Rodham presidency portend for changing these conditions? 

*

What is interesting in this season of XX, XY and melanin sufficiency is that presumed "loyalties" have been affirmed and transcended. Black politicos are barracking for Rodham; Women politicos are barracking for Obama. Is this progress? I view it as such. I fall on the side of transcendence rather than strategic essentialism. It is possible to deconstruct gender and racial profiling without remaining within the episteme. Rodham and Obama have mostly sought to do this. It would be nice if their supporters would get this clue.

*

Women's Liberation Front 1987 (for Alison)+

Against the grand conspiracy

-- essentialist philosophy of history

Of primordial white-male supremacy

-- got to keep it away from me

Fists punch through the cloudy sky

--I'll seek my salvation

To keep the dogma free of lies

-- in a hormone-free situation

United by anatomy

-- I won't deny the difference

Become the wrath of society

-- but won't inflate its significance

________________________________

+ Ascona (1987)

cry me a river

Big girls don't cry. Or maybe they do. And when they do, their sins (and ours) are washed away. It appears that an emotional "moment" has derailed the Obama Express to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Or has it? Pull up a tissue and let's figure it out.

*

There are two views (because I say there are!) of the Great Meltdown of 2008. One, which will necessarily find association with the Royal Society of Hillary Haters (the RSHH), sees these bitter tears as just more manipulation,  an orchestrated bit of classical Clintonian triangulation (or cryangulation), a brand of glassy-eyed political strategy. As the two chaps in the Guinness beer commercial say: Brilliant! And the RSHH says: How Dare They! A few drops of water cascading from the eyes of the Ice Queen of American politics does not make her human, nor should we be duped into thinking otherwise. The other view, which seems to coalesce a non-existing coalescence of Oprah (who supports Obama) and Gloria Steinem (representing resurgent 2nd wave feminism), holds that it's OK to cry and, gosh darn it, there's wisdom in those soggy eyes. "It's My Turn" is the unofficial theme song of the Emotionistas, the "Girlfriend Mafia", the BFFs in their global sisterhood. Confronted by these opposed viewpoints, what are we to believe? What exactly happened in New Hampshire and will weeping be the factor that decides the Democratic Party nomination contest?

*

From our stiff upper lipped perspective, one thing is clear: the pollsters got it wrong when it came to Clinton. From now on, it would be better to consult a poison oracle than to believe the predictions of quantitative research. Also, our post-election hermeneutics are likely to only reveal partial aspects of an irrational reality. All we know for certain about Clinton is the following: veni, weepy, vici. It could be that the gender gap swung in favor of Clinton in New Hampshire (unlike in Iowa) because women saw the video of The Moment. Or maybe they heard about it. Or maybe they were on Clinton's side already. Who knows and who bloody cares! Get over it.

*

In reality, we must focus on the sorrows of the young Obama himself, which can be traced to his campaign strategy. He needs to talk to Democrats about the things Democrats care about. We (i.e., we Amerikuns) are not in a "crisis" on the order of the 1860s that calls for Lincolnesque eloquence and a lofty vision of America the Beautiful. There are things like foreclosures, health care, and the state of public education on the minds of the Democratic voters. Clinton, the Yoda of Wonk, has mastered the art of talking about these things in detail. Tedious, yes. Effective, yes. If the theme of "change" can be co-opted by Clinton, so can the wizardry of wonkism be mastered by the Harvard J.D. 

*

So let's pen no more sonnets about the Deluge in the Diner. Pull yourself together and get on with it!

forget Larry Summers

Norway has figured out a practical and effective way to shatter the corporate glass ceiling.