Today is the last day of the rest of Netscape's life. AOL, which bought the browser when it purchased Netscape Communications Corp. in 1998, is ending all support for it tomorrow. It will stop issuing updates and bug fixes and instead is pointing Netscape users to two newer browsers, Firefox and Flock.Fare thee well, my first browser of choice.
Irrespective of one's opinion of Hillary Clinton's new campaign ad, which can charitably be described as an appeal to fear, I really don't think it's going to work. The people on whom that sort of emotional imploration work already made up their minds long ago.
They're both sick fucktards who hate dogs:
Hoenig: Snacky dog is property. If I want to take Snacky’s head and smash it against a brick wall (I’d never do that to you) it’s my right to do it!This is just too good. While receiving kisses from his loveable Snacky Dog in this interview, Hoenig thinks he is 100% entitled to smash Snacky's head into a wall, without any fear of consequence. I guess he never heard of those pesky things we have in this country called animal cruelty laws. It is hard to keep up with this stuff if you're busy hanging out in parks with a magnifying glass and killing ants. But hey - by all means smash that dog's head, Hoenig, and be sure to tell the judge and your subsequent prison inmates about those rights you have.
It’s my right to do it….
After he left the presidential race, one could have forgiven John Edwards if he just wanted to go back home to enjoy a period of semi-retirement. Spend time with his wife and kids, kick back, relax after running for president for pretty much seven years straight.
Fortunately for the rest of us, that's not what John Edwards is doing:
A coalition announced Monday and called Iraq Campaign 2008 seeks to tie anxiety over the faltering economy to anxiety over the duration of the war. Part of its agenda is targeting what it calls "obstructionist" members of Congress—Democrats as well as Republicans—that don’t seek a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. The campaign has an attention-getting front-man: former presidential candidate John Edwards. The effort, however, is not without problems—not least of which is the conundrum of whether antiwar activism turns out to be counterproductive to ending a war.
"People don’t understand why we’re spending $500 billion and counting in Iraq," Edwards said in a Monday conference call, "when at the same time we’ve got 40-plus million Americans with no health care coverage, 37 million-plus living in poverty. It doesn’t make sense to them."
The effort is the brainchild of a group of liberal organizations: MoveOn.org, the Service Employees International Union, the VoteVets progressive veterans network, USAction and the Center for American Progress.
…to Steve at Per Aspera, celebrating two years of vocabulary-inflicting and fiasco-mongering.
...and to Phydeaux, celebrating one glorious year of pseaksing. ;-)
And a happy leap-blogiversary to Sean!
One of Shakesville's earliest Shakers, Darryl Pearce, died suddenly on February 19. Some of you might know him as the Fuming Mucker, which was the title of his blog, but he always commented here—and at Echidne and Eschaton—as Darryl Pearce.
He was a truly wonderful guy—clever as hell, funny, and insightful. He was so encouraging about the work being done at this blog, way before I deserved it, even as his comments helped lay the groundwork for this community.
I'm really so terribly sad to hear of his passing.
Here's Darryl, in the picture he sent for the Shaker Mosaic project.
Hey Shakers! It's me, Kenny Blogginz again (I'm kind of a big deal) and I'm slipping into my Writing Boots to dance out another golden egg for you. Semi-Pro came out today and it's got the whole blogosphere talking about America's not-favorite pastime, basketballz. I decided that it would be a good idea to go out in the streets and ask a few of my fellow teen heartthrobs what they thought about the sport.
I headed down to the local Christian Teen Basketball House to meet some athletes. The first youth I accosted was attempting an "Olley-Oop Triple Dunkover." He missed, though, so he didn't get any of the points.
KenBlog: Hey kid! Get the fuck over here!
WeirdKid: You talkin' to me?
KenBlog: Fuckin' DUH I'm talkin' to you. Get over here so I can talk to you about basketballz!
WeirdKid: Oh, in that case, you got it. No problem. I love to talk about basketball; what can I say?
KenBlog: I'm Kenny Blogginz, and I write for a cyber weblog on the internet called Shakethatass. I'm hot shit, as opposed to your cold diarrhea. So why don't you tell me your name and a little bit about yourself? In case I feel like pretending to care.
DunkOver: I don't know what the heck the internet is, but around here I'm the hot shit, and you're the cold diarrhea. I can tell you're a maverick with a fierce aura, however, so I'll let it slide. My Christian name is Bill Tipper, but around these parts, they call me Dunkington Layover. That's on account of how great I am at layovers and slam dunks.
KenBlog: Your attitude's a little bit spicy, but I'm going to swallow it, along with my pride, for my cyber-fans. There's a new national sensation that's called Semi-Pro starring Will Ferrell, and it's sweeping the internet like some kind of deadly combination of a hurricane and a wildfire. A hurrifire. Tell me; did you start playing basketballz when you saw Semi-Pro earlier today, in order to be more like Will Ferrell, star of Semi-Pro, rated PG-13?
DunkOver: I haven't seen Semi-Pro yet, and I started playing basketball when I was 13, because my parents made me. I hated it at first, until I got real good at it. Then I loved it.
KenBlog: What kind of awards have you won for your basketballz skill?
DunkOver: Well, I won the 1998 Southern Illinois Dunk'em'up Contest, the 2002 Triple Hoop Dip-off, and. of course, the coveted Christian Youth Dribble-Drabble.
KenBlog: I'm sure your parents are very proud of you.
DunkOver: They really are. [gong noise] Oh, that's the coach's gong, I'd better get going.
KenBlog: Bye!
Next, I visited the Cradle 2 tha Grave Christian Street Ballaz over at the YMCA. I talked to the founder, Pastor-Coach Doug Dean, Shining Knight of Dunk Slamming, who sidled up uncomfortably close to me for our interview.
KenBlog: Uh, hey buddy! I'm interviewing basketballz enthusiasts about their favorite sport, in light of the new film Semi-Pro.
DougDean: That sounds like a simple, relevant topic for an article.
KenBlog: Thank you, it truly is. So riddle me this, sir; has Semi-Pro reaffirmed your love for basketballz, or has it made you love it more?
DougDean: I haven't actually seen Semi-Pro yet. Is that the new sports movie with Will Ferrell?
KenBlog: Yes. And it's totally not like any of the other sports movies with Will Ferrell.
DougDean: I see.
KenBlog: Why don't you tell me a little bit about your team, coach?
DougDean: I'm the coach of the Dundee Mutant Badger Wolverbeasts. You might know my team by its previous controversial and embargoed-by-court-order mascots like Big Chief CasinoAlcoholic and KungFu Ricefucker, or our current mascot, TopHat Spatsley, the hilarious faux Briton. We've won 9,000 Regional Championships, and we've won the SuperBowl twice.
KenBlog: That's very impressive. How would you say Will Ferrell's new movie, Semi-Pro has improved your team?
DougDean: Well, I wouldn't say that it has at all...you said it just came out, right?
KenBlog: Yes, just today.
DougDean: Well, then I don't see how it could have possibly influenced my team...?
KenBlog: Go on.
DougDean: Please take your hand off of my leg.
Doug Dean was a terrible source of information. Shakers, that interview was like trying to squeeze blood from a stone, or some other such difficult task. My basketballz bush was still a-burnin', however, and there was only one man with the juices to quench it—Slam-Dunk Steve, of the Ohio FreedomHawks. I met up with him at his $900,000,000 estate on the moon.
KenBlog: Thank you so much for sitting down with me. I've been interviewing people all day about the ramifications that the new film Semi-Pro could have on the basketballz world.
SlamDunk: It's a pleasure to talk to you, Kenny; I'm a huge fan of your work. I often pleasure myself to your articles at night, here, in my house, which happens to be on the fucking moon. I actually saw Semi-Pro earlier today, and I thought it was a true Laugh RiotTM. I'm a little bit worried, however, that this film could make a mockery of basketball.
KenBlog: Please elaborate, sir.
SlamDunk: Well, I'm afraid that children will watch this movie, and think that they can be basketball stars when they grow up by working on their comedy routines instead of practicing The Fundamentals. This could potentially turn basketball into a nationwide Harlem Globetrotters association.
KenBlog: No offense, sir, but that sounds like heaven on earth.
SlamDunk: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I couldn't bear to see my proud profession slip into lunacy because of Mr. Ferrell's knee-slapping romps. How would you like it if some upstart came along and started writing fake interviews with a bunch of colorful characters, and started making more money than you?
KenBlog: I would go to the store, buy the largest gun I could afford, and blow my fucking brains all over the ceiling.
SlamDunk: Well, now you know how I feel. Good day, sir!
KenBlog: Good day. Have fun in your fucking moon house.
I flew back to earth in a daze. Slam-Dunk had really opened my eyes to the dangers of the basketballz world. He really reminded me of just how delicate life is. If your Pep-pep is still alive, I urge you to find him and give him a large hug, or a firm handshake. Or maybe just a nod and a wink. Or a high five. If you have a secret handshake, then do that too.
If you ask me, this is long overdue. Finally, some mathematically-minded, industrious folks (see them all at flickr) have taken some of pop music's most beloved gems and broken them down into simple, easy-to-comprehend charts to help us better understand and appreciate the art.
Case in point: the measurement of irony levels in Alanis Morrissette's "Ironic" (which actually seems to chart a series of events that are mostly just bummers, not examples of irony - how exactly is a black fly in one's chardonnay ironic? And for that matter, what other color do flies usually come in?).
I just don't have the words to do this justice, so I'll let the site speak for itself:
Food Fight is an abridged history of war, from World War II to present day, told through the foods of the countries in conflict. Watch as traditional comestibles slug it out for world domination in this chronologically re-enacted smorgasbord of aggression.
Posted without comment, save that I'd like to see an open letter to American feminists sometime soon. I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBTAmericans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system. The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives. We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBTAmericans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.
Via Sully
If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, what happens if that friend is your enemy? Does that make him your frienemy?
I don't know, but I guess I'm going to find out, because right wing nutjob Bill Donohue, who is both the Catholic League's president and entire membership, has denounced John McCain for being supported by an anti-Catholic bigot.
The bigot in question is John Hagee. Mustang Bobby noted his foul stench below, but now even inveterate wingnut and Republican apologist Donohue is upset.
I know, I know, it's making my head hurt too, but I swear it's true:
The president of the Catholic League today blasted Sen. John McCain for accepting the endorsement of Texas evangelicalist John Hagee, calling the controversial pastor a bigot who has "waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church."Now, granted, this is just a guy that John McCain invited to come on stage at an event in San Antonio and endorse him. It's not like he's a just-hired, mid-level staffer who never met the candidate. So I'm sure our nation's media can't be bothered to pay attention to Billy D and his outrage-a-tron. But still, they might want to give him a call, and ask him what he thinks about McCain's campaign actively courting the crazies.
Hagee, who is known for his crusading support of Israel, backed McCain's presidential bid Wednesday, standing next to the senator at a hotel in San Antonio and calling McCain "a man of principle."
But Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that Hagee has written extensively in negative ways about the Catholic Church, "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'"
"Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee," Donohue said.
McCain has also campaigned with an anti-gay "Patriot" pastor who has declared among other things, that hate-crimes legislation is a “deceptive ploy of [the] liberal, homosexual agenda"; that we should prosecute adulters as criminals; that Planned Parenthood is comparable to the Nazis; and who addressed a "War on Christians" conference with the admonition: “I came to incite a riot! Man your battle stations! Ready your weapons! Lock and load!”Will McCain repudiate Hagee? Will he reject him? Denounce him? Of course not! Hagee's a good Christian hater, and he's white. That's totally different than Louis Farrakhan, who is both African American and Muslim. You see how completely different it is? Plus, John McCain is a Republican! So this is all totally okay.
What was the first movie you ever saw in the cinema?
The first film I remember seeing was Condorman, starring Michael Crawford. I was six years old and mightily impressed by the jaw-dropping special effects and nail-biting action sequences, not to mention the acting, which would put Olivier to shame, as I'm sure you'll agree after viewing the below clip.
Hmmm. I'm beginning to suspect that the GOP is doing a better job reading liberal blogs than the DEMs are.
This week, John McCain immediately disavowed inflammatory comments by Bill Cunningham made during a campaign appearance introduction, both McCain and Karl Rove have counseled fellow Repubs to stop throwing Obama's middle name around, and the RNC has apparently issued a stern warning to the Tennessee GOP for a press release in which Obama's middle name was used:
"The RNC has notified the Tennessee GOP that they do not support or agree with their approach," said this source, requesting anonymity to discuss the private conversation between a staffer in the national committee's political department and a top aide at the state party. "If they don't refrain from doing so again, they will be publicly repudiated by the Republican National Committee."McCain's campaign publicly repudiated it too, in strong terms:
McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker noted that her candidate condemned the press release and apologized to Obama. It was the second time he had to do so in as many days.Huh.
"There will be times in this campaign where people do and say stupid things," Hazelbaker said. "It's a fact and it's beyond our control."
"We will continue to condemn [such comments] in the strongest language possible and reitterate our commitment to running a positive campaign based on the issues."
Also see: Circular Firing Squad.
This oft-wielded cudgel to silence feminists who cry foul at sexism expressed by political allies is wrong for the following reason, which I cannot state any more succinctly than this: When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility.
It is, simply, not the duty of any person who is repeatedly subjected to alienating language, images, behaviors, and/or legislation to nonetheless never complain and pledge fealty from the margins. If women, men of color, gay/bi/ trans men, et. al. are valued, then they should not be demeaned—and if they are demeaned, they should not be expected to pretend it does not matter.
Pretty straightforward stuff. There are some related ideas I want to address, though, which complicate the issue, especially from the perspective of those who earnestly cannot understand why feminists don't see the "perfect logic" of:
• Candidate A is sexist, and at worst will not make things any worse for women.
• Candidate B is sexist, and at best will not make things any worse for women.
• Therefore, feminists should vote for Candidate A.
I get why that appears to make sense—and for some feminists it does, particularly Democratic partisans, which is totally legitimate—but then there's that whole my vote is mine thing, and this subject is really bigger than for whom anyone will or will not vote, because the (typically) unspoken corollary to "Therefore, feminists should vote for Candidate A" is "…and they should not do anything to undermine him like point out that he is a sexist."
The reasoning behind the "perfectly logical" calculation above—and the related compulsion to cajole alignment with that strategy and/or silence feminist criticism—is predicated on a couple of commonly-held (and oft-cited) assumptions:
1. Voting for/Supporting the more liberal of two mainstream party candidates is always and necessarily the most consistent with feminist principles.
2. Voting for/Supporting the more democratic of two mainstream party candidates is axiomatically the most feminist choice.
3. Feminism is an "issue" or a "cause" akin to other political issues or causes like protecting social security or fair elections.
4. The best possible America for a straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy man is the best possible America for everyone.
5. More rights for "everyone" means more rights for women.
All of these are wrong—or, at minimum, not always correct. Let's take them one at a time.
1. Voting for/Supporting the more liberal of two mainstream party candidates is always and necessarily the most consistent with basic feminist principles.
Occasionally, supporting the more liberal candidate (i.e. the Democrat) is entirely consistent with basic feminist principles. The vast majority of the time, the candidate represents a platform which has some inconsistencies with those principles, often by sheer omission of basic tenets of equality, e.g. a commitment to eradicating the pay gap, active recruitment of female Congressional candidates, support for the ERA, etc. In the current campaign, the current Democratic frontrunner has used sexist dog whistles and language that precipitated some concerns about his commitment to women's issues, as have candidates before him.
Clearly, that strategy is incompatible with feminism—which is why the exhortation "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is as inaccurate as it is condescending. A sexist candidate with an incomplete or incompatible platform is not "good," even though, by any feminist reckoning s/he is better than the major party alternative. Feminists are well within their right by virtue of their basic tenets to take exception with the expectation that they recognize a sexist candidate as "good," which is by no means a synonym for "not as bad."
All of which means that voting for/supporting a third-party candidate, depending on the candidate and platform, may well be the choice most consistent with basic feminist principles. Reminders that Democrats are more inclined to make court appointments favorable to feminists are accurate, but ultimately irrelevant to determining which vote is most intrinsically feminist—third-party candidates would do the same.
The important point here is that while voting for the Democrat over the Republican may indeed have a pragmatic rationale from a feminist standpoint, it is wrong to conflate "pragmatic rationale" with "consistent with feminist principles." Feminists must often, in fact, vote counter to their principles to be pragmatic voters. That is not a small thing, and it should not be treated as though it is.
2. Voting for/Supporting the more democratic of two mainstream party candidates is axiomatically the most feminist choice.
This idea is closely related to the previous one, but turns on the presumption that democracy is inherently more feminist than other forms of government, represented in comments that exhort feminists to recognize the imperative of keeping the nation's leadership out of the hands of those who have effectively tried to approximate a rightwing dictatorship.
It's treated as axiomatic that preventing America from becoming a dictatorship is somehow simultaneously a fight for women's rights, but that's not necessarily true. Women's equality is wound up in national politics, certainly, but it is also largely independent of them, too. It is a misunderstanding of what women experience to suggest that protecting our democracy is the same as championing feminism.
Forward movement for women can happen even in dictatorships, and can be reversed even in democracies—because women's equality is inextricably linked to so many other cultural variables, like religiosity. To presume that greater democracy will de facto mean increased equality for women is to tacitly buy into Bush's line about freedom magically emanating from any country deemed a functional democracy. It just doesn't work that way. A democratically-elected American theocracy would, for example, be anathema to feminism.
I have many good and important and personal reasons for not wanting America to become any less democratic than it is now—not least of which is because those agitating for increased authoritarian control of government are simultaneously agitating for increased control of women's bodies. I also have many good and important and personal reasons for fighting for my equality. Some of those good and important and personal reasons overlap. Some of them don't.
The important point here is that, while most American feminists are undoubtedly interested in voting for the most democratic candidate, it is wrong to reflexively conflate "more democratic" with "more feminist" (even though that's historically a safe bet). Feminists may, in fact, for reasons outlines above, have to vote counter to feminist principles to vote for the most democratic candidate of the two major parties. That is not a small thing, and it should not be treated as though it is.
3. Feminism is an "issue" or a "cause" akin to other political issues or causes like protecting social security or fair elections.
Feminism, especially for women, is not mere political advocacy, but a philosophy centered around advocating for personal equality. When feminists are inveigled to vote for/support the Democratic candidate (and refrain from questioning his commitment to women's issues lest his candidacy be undermined), because This Issue is so important, the implicit calculation is that This Issue is priority over women's equality, reproductive rights, etc.
Because feminists have increasingly resisted taking a backseat to issues like social security when their very value as human beings is up for debate, those using this rhetorical strategy have learned that nothing is quite so effective as using Roe v. Wade as This Issue, thusly reframing the argument from "Vote for the Democrat to get what you want" to "Vote for the Democrat to not lose what you've got."
It's a nasty little bit of blackmail, which fails utterly to take into consideration that the veiled threat of losing legal abortion because of one's uncompromising belief in one's own equality and autonomy is so bitterly ironic that it would be laughable if it were not so profoundly sad. Instead of demonstrations of commitment to protecting Roe as one among many commitments to the basic feminist principle of women's equality, we are meant instead to be motivated by menace and intimidation. We're supposed to gleefully hop on board with people who ominously warn that failure to do so will evoke tragedy by our own hands—and, if we succumb, we find that even asking for basic respect, for sexist words and images and behaviors to not be used, is considered too much, an impertinence.
All we are offered is the protection of what we've already got, and nothing more.
Which makes one wonder why we'd ever be given anything more, since the risk of losing one thing is greatest when there is only one thing to lose.
The compromise of everything else to protect this one thing is particularly problematic for feminists because being a woman is not a cause. If women's issues are ignored, we cannot simply change our skin like a losing lobbyist changes strategies. Always will we be women, and when we are asked to put our "issues" on the back burner for the good of "the larger cause," we are being asked to wait longer yet to have our equality fully realized. That is not an easy burden to indefinitely bear for thin promises.
4. The best possible America for a straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy man is the best possible America for everyone.
America being the best place it can possibly be for straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy men does not de facto mean it's also the best place it can possibly be for a poor, black, disabled lesbian. That seems like it ought to be obvious, but every time women or men of color or gay/bi/ trans men are told "just hold your concerns and focus on winning this election for now and then we can get to your issues," it's clear that there are people who don't understand how fighting for control of the White House/Congress and fighting for one's own equality are not the same thing for everyone all the time.
Sometimes those fights overlap; sometimes they are mutually exclusive; and sometimes they are in conflict.
It makes no personal difference to a man who is not the target of misogyny if a president is elected on its back—but it does make a difference to women (even those who don't care), because not only has misogyny not been repudiated, but has in fact been reinforced as a winning strategy.
For active feminists who are on the frontlines of fighting sexism every day, bringing themselves to cast a vote for a candidate who has used misogyny is a tacit approval of the strategy. Even if there are good reasons to vote for that candidate, it is still a self-defeating vote in some measure. It's not just holding one's nose and voting for an imperfect candidate; it's swallowing one's principles and pride and casting a vote that unavoidably consents to misogyny as a campaign tool.
It might not make any difference to the soul or the future of a man casting the same vote. It will make a practical difference to women.
Likewise, the presumption that who is the best candidate, what is the best campaign strategy, and which are the best policies for "the nation" from the perspective of privilege does not take into account that best is subjective—and "the nation" rarely gives all its members equal consideration.
5. More rights for "everyone" means more rights for women.
Like "the nation," when we hear that something will be good for "everyone," it generally means it's going to be good for straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy men—and hopefully lots of other people, too! The problem with this paradigm is that it's usually espoused by the people with the most existing freedom and opportunity, who are looking to procure more for themselves, or restore something they've lost, as with this election, in which progressives hope to restore Constitutional liberties eroded by the Bush administration.
Who wouldn't be on board with that, right?
Well, feminists are on board with that idea, but what's happening is that the pressure to support, at all costs, the candidate most likely to realize that goal has the capacity to force feminists to compromise what they think is right as feminists to support what they think is right as Americans. If restoring lost liberties means tacitly supporting sexist rhetoric and pandering to rightwingers who don't respect women's right of bodily autonomy, that's not a net gain for women—even though it is a net gain for men.
That's why holding a firm line against misogyny is so important: Progress depends on people being progressive, which necessarily precludes the mockery, belittlement, and/or exclusion of historically marginalized groups. Otherwise, we end up with a new political situation that may benefit the already-privileged without compromise, but is just the Same Old Shit for everyone else. And once maximum privilege has been restored, there is little incentive to yield any to lift up the rest of the boats, despite years of promises to the contrary.
There are too many progressives who view social change like conservatives view economics: Make everything as splendid as possible for those at the top and the benefits will "trickle down" to everyone below.
Well, it's bullshit when we're talking about tax cuts, and it's bullshit when we're talking about equality and opportunity.
Feminists know that—and if we're beginning to feel resistant to being played like suckers every election, if we're increasingly unwilling to play the equivalent role of the disaffected evangelicals who keep voting Republican as though the leadership will give a rat's ass about them someday, can you really blame us?
We make fun of those people.
Shaker CE said in comments yesterday, "Knowing that the alternative is worse actually makes it harder for me; it just reinforces that sense I often get from some Dems, including Sen. Obama in this cycle, that they think they can do whatever the fuck they like to me, because I don't have any other option. The worst part? They're right."
They are right, unless we go somewhere else. This isn't a treatise to convince anyone to do so—but it's an explanation for why a feminist might, why it's a legitimate choice, and why, if that means the Left isn't a picture of harmony, it's not our fault.
The reason the Left is discordant isn't because of our standards; it's because there are so many bigots with no benchmark for success but winning—even at our expense.
