Hilary, sexism and all that

I think that Anna Quindlen has it right. I'm also wondering about the personal characteristics of those women supporting Clinton. One thing, that I think you can't erase is personal history.

The women that I know who I see supporting Hilary are professional or academic women my age or older who have been self-sufficient their entire adult lives. They usually have been either the first or one of a handful of women in their particular career. And they just can't believe that they are hearing the same old "chicks can't do that" line over and over.

Certainly, that's been my own experience. I was one of three women on the cross-country team with a very sexist coach. I had to use the weight room over the grumblings of the football players. In college, there were only a handful of women in the math classes and graduate economic classes that I took. I was the highest-ranking woman at the consulting company I worked at who had children and was married. And, while it wasn't easy, I think it was necessary and once you had a woman in the position the situation changed *very quickly*.

I also notice a real difference between women of my age (mid-forties) and the women who were the real pathbreakers following Title IX (~8 years older) or even older. I admired and respected their doggedness on my behalf and really felt like I would be letting them down if I didn't step up to the place at the table that someone else had set for me. In my case, my feminist foremother was my actual mom, one of the only two women in her college in India, a nationally-ranked athlete, a Peace Corps teacher and a woman could not get a job due to discrimination.

The so-called "third wavers" in the US, however, I think, feel no such loyalty for the sacrifices of past generations. I don't if that's because they've experienced this misogyny on such a day-in-day-out basis or because, rather than seeing these women as mentors or role models, these were the women who might have been the cranky boss, the petty tyrant, the face of the establishment.

Today, I look in dismay at the things some younger adult "feminist" women are willing to give up (self-sufficiency, last name, time) or the things they will let people say in order to differentiate themselves from the female feminist geezers. I think "hey, that's not okay". But, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, so it goes.

Personally, I think that in most women's lives, their husband will disappoint them at some point, their looks will fade, they will get either ignored or castigated as a "ball-buster", etc. at work. And I think you have two choices: keep fighting to achieve your goals or let other people define you and your agenda.

One bright note are my children. Both of them are feminists and don't feel that there is anything they can't do or a role that the sole domain of single gender.

The Lonely Life of a Hillary Clinton Supporter

Yesterday, I as out shopping. A white woman in her 50s with maroon spiky/dirty hair glared at me as I walked from the Baby Gap to the parking lot. She yelled "FUCK Hilary. Fuck her". And then said to me "Yeah, keep walking, keep walking". Un-real. All because I had a little "Hillary Clinton" button next to the peace sign on my coat. I wanted to say "Hey, the 80s just called and want their hairdo back".

But that's the lot for we Hillary supporters. I didn't start out one -- I was was very pro John Edwards. I felt his "two Americas" resonated with what I felt was a big problem in this country. And I thought he could win. But he dropped out before my primary, so I chose Hilary. And I was leaning that way from a while because I was getting pretty disgusted by the rampant sexism, lookism, ageism that I felt Clinton was subject to, unlike the other candidates.

More and more, I agreed with my 73 year old mom, one of only two girls at her college in a city in India. She told me she was supporting Hilary (and I should too) because these men have tried to bring her down for two decades and she's never let them. I felt my mom was speaking for herself and that she admired Hilary's grit.

My high-school age daughter was also a Hillary supporter because as she said "The boys at school talk about how they'd never vote for a chick. It makes me so mad!". Believe me, it makes me mad, too.

And then I read Gloria Steinem's piece about how Barack Obama would be judged differently were he a different gender. And it's true. People would look askance at a woman with young children and a husband who worked as a lawyer running for president. Because that's not what society thinks woman should do. Women should be attractive, thin, support their men, raise their children and then disappear....

I'm not disappearing and I don't think Hillary is either. I voted for Hillary because she seems to care about healthcare and poor children. Not many politicians today do. Is she perfect? No. But none of us are -- we just don't have all our mistakes failures broadcast on cable TV and litigated by Ken Starr.

Scales fell from my eyes

I grew up with the Vietnam war and watched the Watergate hearings with my mom. I remember thinking "I want to be a journalist" when Nixon resigned -- the press had the power to expose a corrupt administration and expose it for what it was. This was why we had freedom of the press -- to help the average man and woman.

When I wrote for the school newspapers as a teen, I'd usually write non-investigative stuff: profiles of people, movie reviews, reports of public meetings, the school humor column. I liked it but didn't really work hard -- I like the awards and the attention as much as the writing.

After seeing the movie version of "All the President's Men", I realized that my reasons to go into journalism were flawed. I didn't just want to expose injustice, I wanted to be famous for it. Which were two very different things.

I didn't begrudge Woodward or Bernstein, my childhood heroes, their fame. But, I did notice that Woodward's books became increasingly bizarre and less journalistic and more novelistic. Especially the one where he writes down what the dying Casey is thinking. Weird, yeah but I guess a guy's got to make a living. And he's not covering up, right?

Wrong. Dead wrong. He kept Mark Felt a secret only because he wanted to get a juicy book deal out of it. I thought that was a bad move and showed he cared more about making a buck than decency to an old guy who helped him out when he needed a break.

Okay, so he wasn't perfect. Who is. And when he became a public commentator and dismissive of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, I thought that these were the ramblings of a middle aged man who held up his glories while diminishing those of younger men. Oh, well, he's a vain, ageing inside-the-Beltway sort. He's not evil.

Now it turns out he knew all about the smear campaign by the administration of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson but chose not to write about it, tell the writers involved, or tell his boss. He felt no loyalty to the truth. He was forced to tell it and still insists on silence.

So let me say this, you morally bankrupt journalists. Your audience is the public. The non-connected non-elites. The people you cover are not your friend. Stop f*cking over the non-connected people. No fabulous party is worth dying knowing you've made the lives of most people in the world WORSE due to your uncritical, unthinking work.

ps. Bob Garfield has a great takedown of Judith Miller, pal of Lewis "I LOVE Bears" Libby.

We used to care about women's rights then we realized -- Hey, we're guys!!

This is actually the transcript from the end of "Meet The Press" this Sunday, August 20th. Not, surprisingly, the participants included three white men, including David "I Heart Hilary Duff" Gregory. And here's what they had to say (bold added by me for emphasis):

MR. GREGORY: Fast forward to this morning. Gentlemen, we put this on the screen from The New York Times. "[American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay] Khalilzad had backed language [in the constitution] that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes. That gave rise to concerns that women's rights, as they are annunciated in Iraq's existing laws, could be curtailed. ... [The[ arrangement, coupled with the expansive language for Islam, prompted accusations from [a Kurdish leader] that the Americans were helping in the formation of an Islamic state."

Mr. Diamond, is that a change of position?

MR. DIAMOND: It would be, I think, a substantial change if it's true. We need to wait and see what exactly is true. All of these are just reports. Let me say, I don't think we have--and I think Reuel would agree with this--we don't have the power anymore to foreclose this, to veto this. We're not a veto player there anymore. But neither do I think the United States should be endorsing it. And I think our clear stand should be in favor of individual rights and freedoms, including religious freedom, as vigorously as possible. So I hope the ambassador on the ground is standing up for that principle.

MR. GREGORY: Mr. Gerecht, the consequences of this?

MR. GERECHT: Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

MR. GREGORY: All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Gentlemen, thank you. Reuel Marc Gerecht and Larry Diamond, we're going to leave it there. Thanks to you both.

And we will be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: That is all for today. Tim Russert will be back right here next week, because if it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.

Okay, so after I picked up my jaw from the floor after the bone-headed comment that "we'd be pretty happen with a democracy that resembled America in the 1900's", I wondered what exactly "we'd" be happy with? The virulent racism, anti-Catholicism and anti-Jewish sentiment of the KKK? The lynchings? Segregation? The soon-to-be enacted anti-Asian laws? Child Labor? God, such a virtual smorgasboard of bad not to mention subjugation of women.

And, I don't know if this is too obvious but the right to not have your father or brother murder you, the right to marry, escape an abusive relationship, protect your children or attend school is not a freaking "social right". And mullahs shouldn't have a say in these matters at all.

And the other two bozos were worse because they did not call him on it at all. One merely expressed "the hope" that America would do anything. David Gregory, just smiled. Such a nice smile for such ugly words. Maybe he was humming "So Yesterday" in his mind. It's so important to be friendly and be value free, right?

Because these three fellows do have the same values -- guys rule!! And, like John Roberts, would no doubt prefer an Islamic state like Saudi Arabia, the home the 9/11 bombers to Iraq, a country where women did have the right to vote, did not cover their hair, and went to school.

Or at least that's how I see it. Because in a society where merit was more important than gender, these guys would be unemployed.

How are Americans different than Nazis?

In a heartwretching New York Times essay, Arlie Hochschild writes about the detention of eight year olds. In Guantanamo and in Abu Ghraib. Policies which are sick and illegal. She writes:

Under international law, the line between childhood and maturity is 18. In communications with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the Pentagon has lowered the cutoff to 16. For this reason among others, we don't know exactly how many Iraqi children are in American custody. But before the transfer of sovereignty from the Coalition Provisional Authority to an Iraqi interim government a year ago, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported registering 107 detainees under 18 during visits to six prisons controlled by coalition troops. Some detainees were as young as 8.

Since that time, Human Rights Watch reports that the number has risen. The figures from Afghanistan are still more alarming: the journalist Seymour Hersh wrote last month in the British newspaper The Guardian that a memo addressed to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shortly after the 2001 invasion reported "800-900 Pakistani boys 13-15 years of age in custody."

Also, the children received the same torture, degradation and humiliation as the adult prisoners:

According to Amnesty International, 13-year-old Mohammed Ismail Agha was arrested in Afghanistan in late 2002 and detained without charge or trial for over a year, first at Bagram and then at Guantánamo Bay. He was held in solitary confinement and subjected to sleep deprivation. "Whenever I started to fall asleep, they would kick at my door and yell at me to wake up," he told an Amnesty researcher. "They made me stand partway, with my knees bent, for one or two hours."

A Canadian, Omar Khadr, was 15 in 2002 when he was captured in Afghanistan and interned at Guantánamo. For 2½ years, he was allowed no contact with a lawyer or with his family. Seventeen-year-old Akhtar Mohammed told Amnesty that he was kept in solitary confinement in a shipping container for eight days in Afghanistan in January 2002.

A Pentagon investigation last year by Maj. Gen. George Fay reported that in January 2004, a leashed but unmuzzled military guard dog was allowed into a cell holding two children. The intention was for the dog to " 'go nuts on the kids,' barking and scaring them." The children were screaming and the smaller one tried to hide behind the larger, the report said, as a soldier allowed the dog to get within about one foot of them. A girl named Juda Hafez Ahmad told Amnesty International that when she was held in Abu Ghraib she "saw one of the guards allow his dog to bite a 14-year-old boy on the leg."

And this, just made me cry:

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, told Maj. General Fay about visiting a weeping 11-year-old detainee in the prison's notorious Cellblock 1B, which housed prisoners designated high risk. "He told me he was almost 12," General Karpinski recalled, and that "he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother."

I must do more to stop this horror and help these groups. I can't turn my eyes away -- this is my country doing this.

W Mark Felt, Deep Throat

Check out this Vanity Fair article on the man who saved America from Nixon.

Although, I kind of miss Nixon. He gave us the EPA and food stamps. The people in power now just don't care.