Democratic Primary or Domestic Violence?

This is the saddest post I could (n)ever imagine doing about a primary election campaign, of all things.

First, read Anglachel's recent post.

Then, look at this [replacing "children" with "voters"] and decide for yourself. The key here is not to minimize or trivialize men's violence against women. The point is that it is another symptom of the larger systemic problem--the white supremacist capitalist heteronormative patriarchy.

For a smart man...

I'm not sure which one of these is the most troubling...

Why is Barack Obama keeping women hidden?

So today I stumbled upon zuzu's interesting critique of Senator Obama's record on women and reproductive justice. At the end of this must-read, zuzu says:

Then there’s the way he doesn’t talk about them — his campaign website doesn’t have these issues listed anywhere I can find (Faith? Yes. Women? No).

Following zuzu's lead, I popped over to the Obama campaign website, and I came across something interesting.

On the Issues page, there are 20 specific topic areas plus 1 catch-all called Additional Issues which combines Art, Child Advocacy, Katrina, Science, Sportsmen, and Transportation. Now, why those issues are deemed marginal or less important... that's a separate conversation we could have. Although I'm hard pressed to figure what what voter wouldn't care about at least one of these [a creationist pedestrian pedophile from the northern U.S.?]?

So, 

Observation #1: "Women" do not appear anywhere on the Issues section of the Obama campaign web site.

Observation #2: Senator Obama's Blueprint for Change, the downloadable .pdf file, DOES have  a "Women" section in it.

In this section in the blueprint, the Senator lays out his agenda on issues such as pay equity, reproductive choice, health care, and domestic violence--all critical issues, in my opinion.

Observation #3: There is only one topic that appears as its own section in the Blueprint but does NOT appear on the Issues web site.

You guessed it.

Women.

So here's the obvious question: why would the Senator's platform on women appear in the printed document BUT NOT be readily accessible on the website?

Well I can't speak for zuzu (obviously) but I think we both would agree that part of the rationale for omitting a "woman's issue" [problematic term] such as reproductive justice from the web site might be to (1) avoid having to be drawn into the "abortion debate," and (2) avoid having to be held accountable for his (actual?) position, and (3) try to court more of the misogynist vote? [I wish I were being sarcastic about (3).]

Quite a strategic move, actually: you can't say he doesn't have a position on something 'controversial' like abortion, you just have to dig a little to find it (I'd be curious to know how many supporters of the Senator have, in fact, downloaded and read his entire Blueprint. If you never looked at the printed Blueprint, you would, as zuzu found, have no real clear sense of where the Senator stands on crucial issues such as reproductive justice.

It would be absurd to think this is somehow just a haphazard oversight, wouldn't it? Perhaps a justification exists out there. I'm just not so certain.

What I am certain of, however, is that Senator Clinton doesn't keep women hidden--on her web site, or in her actual work.

I am Hillary Clinton.

Pocochina's post literally made my day/week/month/season/election year. So the least I can do to show my gratitude is to pay it forward and join this real movement. I've created my very first blog ever in order to state that I, too, am Hillary Clinton:

I am Hillary Clinton.

I am dumbfounded that "Why does Hillary Clinton wear such bad clothes?" actually appears in a newspaper.

I am outraged that googling "hillary cleavage" will produce articles written by people pretending to be journalists published in outlets pretending to be newspapers. Googling "barack cleavage" gives articles... about Senator Clinton. And no, getting equally offensive results from "barack bulge" is NOT the kind of equality I'm striving for [don't waste your time doing it... you'll read about how much money his campaign has raised].

I find it hypocritical for Senator Obama to put his own campaigning ahead of important Democratic constituents. (Yes, Senator Clinton took time to be there.)

I find it hypocritical and  disingenuous for Senator Obama to refuse to pose for a picture with the (straight--and I shouldn't have to point that out) mayor of San Francisco and outspoken LGBT advocate, but then try to actively court LGBT voters when it is safer, convenient, and self-serving. He has the audacity to first pair up with a homophobic minister and then think that by simply making an extra campaign logo with a rainbow on it (separate is never equal) will make things all better. 

I find it hypocritical and disingenuous and abusive for Senator Obama to advocate bullying U.S. House Representative and super-delegate Sheila Jackson-Lee to change her endorsement. 

But wait, there's more on that one.

The posting on the campaign website was changed. Now when you see it it says:

"We are encouraging Houstonians for Obama to call the office of Sheila Jackson Lee to request that vote according to the request of her constituents.... Please call Congress Woman Sheila Jackson Lee... and request that she change her vote to Obama."

But only a few days ago, the message had a different tone to it:

"We are encouraging Houstonians for Obama to call the office of Sheila Jackson Lee to request that vote according to the demand of her constituents.... Please call Congress Woman Sheila Jackson Lee... and demand that she change her vote to Obama."

I suppose we should thank him for making that change. Not. One of the many problems with the patriarchy is it supports, condones, and values naming women's choices for them. And If Senator Obama really wants super-delegates to "vote with their constituents," then Senators Kennedy & Kerry need to follow the will of Massachusetts and support Senator Clinton.

I am outraged that U.S. House Representative and Obama National Campaign Co-Chairman Jesse Jackson, Jr. can equate the democratic primary with O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson... and no one points it out. 

I find it absurd and suspicious to try to equate one man's quest for a promotion with a 'movement'. 

I find it troubling that when Geraldine Ferraro and Barack Obama each say that Barack Obama benefits from his race, all hell breaks lose for her, but not him (and he even has the audacity to do it on his own Senate web page).

When you try to tell me that Senator Obama's recent speech in Philadelphia on race was "campaign-defining," what you're really telling me is that his campaign is defined as damage control. When Senator Obama, or any politician, wants to talk about race while campaigning, I am suspicious. How about politicians talking about race just for the sake of talking about race? I want to hear politicians talk about race in the course of just doing their job, not when they're still trying to court me for my vote. 

I am a feminist. I am an educator. I am an activist. I am an uncle (a really cool one). I am the partner of an another amazing feminist/educator/activist/cool uncle. These identities are not mutually exclusive, and I can't separate them.

I know that if two of my students copied off of each other (let alone on more than one occasion) and submitted the same essay, that would be a violation of academic integrity. It doesn't matter if they knew about it, or were okay with it, or gave their approval. It is still cheating. We should hold our students and our elected officials to the same standards of ethical behavior.

I know that sexism is harmful for women and for men. The institution of patriarchy confines all of us. Refer to the examples of George W. Bush, or Sean John Puff Daddy P Diddy Diddy Combs, or Donald Trump, or Tim Hardaway, or Toby Keith (the list goes on) on how to perform and reproduce dominant raced, classed, masculinities.

I have an agenda. You could even say that I'm calculating. But as a male feminist I enjoy the luxury (let's call it, oh, I don't know, male privilege) of never being written off as being too emotional, or bitchy, or whiny.

I don't know what it's like to be a woman. I cannot directly relate. I cannot speak for women. I cannot and must not name their emotions, ideas, or experiences for them. That doesn't mean I cannot listen to them, talk with them, believe them, support them, respect them, and care about them (even the ones I've never met).

I don't have to do anything on a daily basis to prevent from sexually harassed, assaulted, or raped. 

I don't care when you think life begins. "Pro-life" is a useless term (when was the last anti-life rally?). I do care whether you want to force women and girls to give birth against their will. Yes or no. Pick one. Right now. I wish everyone else remembered that pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. My platform on reproductive justice is this: if you're against abortion, then don't have one. And let's take the money used to reimburse viagra prescriptions and spend it on actual health care for people who can't afford it. 

I want the first question that comes to your mind to be "why is he beating her in the first place?" and not "why doesn't she just leave him?" 

I know that rape will stop when men stop raping.

I know that the consequences of some guy catcalling a woman are different than when a woman catcalls a guy. Again, I'm not advocating for an "equality" where women and men get to victimize each other equally.

When I say that men rape/beat/mutilate/harass women, I don't mean that all men do. All men are not part of the problem of gender violence, but all men are part of the solution.

I magically get special credit or extra credit or bonus points for talking about radical things such as double standards, women's rights, sexism, misogyny, or any other overlapping and intersecting forms of oppression.

All too often, when I talk about these things, you hear it better because it's packaged in the false authority of a male voice [*cough* Mission Accomplished! *cough*]. But nothing I say here is particularly innovative or original, and I certainly can't do it any better than the women and feminists who came before me.

I am not going to settle for a candidate because you (singular) forward a scripted campaign e-mail telling me to, or because you (plural) bully me into doing it.

I am not going to compromise my standards.

I am not going to vote for a candidate simply because of their gender, ethnicity, rhetorical persuasion, or anointment by Oprah.

I am going to vote for a candidate who truly advocates for social justice, who particularly confronts misogyny--a candidate who can spell it, define it, pronounce it, and use it in public. 

I am 

passionately, 

unconditionally, 

and 

unapologetically 

Hillary Clinton.