Women First
January 11, 2009
by MadamaB
|Editor’s note: Beginning this month, The New Agenda Blog will be featuring regular columns from a diverse group of terrific contributors. MadamaB is an opera singer residing in New York City and “a die-hard Clinton Democrat.” She blogs at The Confluence and at Ooh, nuance!
“There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
– Madeleine Albright
By now, we have all seen the infamous Ms. Magazine cover of Barack Obama in Clark Kent drag, opening his jacket to reveal a T-shirt where the Superman “S” should be. The T-shirt proclaims, “This is what a feminist looks like.” It was a shocking, and yet predictable, homage to a richly undeserving male by a so-called bastion of women’s liberation; the ultimate poke in the eye after the endorsements of NARAL and NOW for the all-male Obama-Biden ticket enraged us in the general election.
There are so many reasons to be horrified by this cover art, but the one that really strikes me is that the meaning of the word “feminist” is going the way of the word “liberal.” Just as some of those on the leftish side of politics took up the mantle of “progressive” in order to avoid the increasingly negative connotations of the “liberal” label, some female activists are wondering if the word “feminist” should continue to be used to describe us.
I believe, however, that allowing one’s enemies to control one’s language is a huge mistake. Instead of dropping the word “feminist,” we should restate its meaning in the strongest and clearest of terms:
Women first.
For example, this year, two women made history in a spectacular way. Senator Hillary Clinton was the first female candidate to win a primary election, then went on to win more primary votes than any candidate had ever received, male or female. Governor Sarah Palin became the first female Vice-Presidential nominee in 24 years. Yet who did the “feminist” organizations of our time endorse for President and Vice President? On whom did the “feminist” pundits lavish their praise? And whom did Ms. Magazine choose for its cover?
A man. A demonstrably misogynist man, who surrounds himself with people like Larry Summers and Rick Warren, and has only half the women in his Cabinet as the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton.
After witnessing more virulent and naked woman-hatred than I ever thought possible this year, I have realized that “Women First” is what the patriarchy fears. It fears that we will finally throw off our culturally-ingrained desire to erase and abase ourselves for men; that we will use our power of refusal for more than just sex; and that we will take away the advantage that every male child enjoys over every female child simply for being born with an extra scrap of flesh hanging off of his pelvis.
The knowledge of the possible loss of power and privilege is the origin of all the terror that the punditry and both Parties expressed when Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin loomed large on the horizon. No wonder Tucker Carlson said that he wanted to cross his legs every time he saw Hillary – in a very real sense, she would have castrated him and his fellow members of the patriarchy, by rendering his penis less significant in society.
I ask you, if you were a member of the privileged class, would you ever, ever give up one iota of that power without a fight?
We feminists must begin thinking of our quest for full female emancipation as a war again – but not a war between the sexes; a war between those who recognize that women should be first, and those who don’t.
In a war, there are winners and losers, and for several thousand years, women have been losers. This is the year that we must start believing that we deserve to win, to be the ones in power, and to give up our sense of fair play and wishes for peace and equality. The patriarchy doesn’t need equality — it needs to be conquered. Only then will it concede defeat and grant us the power we need and deserve.
But MadamaB, people will say, women have come so far already. After all, some women have got it made in America, haven’t they? Women like columnists Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins, who make their living by ridiculing other women and playing up to men; women like “feminists” Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan and Donna Brazile, all on the managing board of Ms. Magazine, who eviscerated Governor Palin and pretended that Barack Obama was a feminist in order to gain business and popularity; women like Nancy Pelosi, who sided with Barack Obama early in the primaries, instead of remaining neutral or supporting Clinton; and women like Caroline Kennedy, who helped gild Barack Obama with the luster of her father just in time for Super Tuesday, and while on Obama’s Vice Presidential selection team, managed to overlook the woman who had won only 17 pledged delegates less than her rival and who had won the popular vote.
These are the women who enable the patriarchy, and profit thereby. These are the women who deserve Albright’s special place in hell.
It is to weep, and then, to act.
I would like The New Agenda to gather with other like-minded groups to form a large voting bloc, made of women and men who understand that it is time for women to be first. I would like this voting bloc to demand of both Parties that at least 30% of the candidates put forth in 2010, and every election cycle going forward, be women. I would like this bloc to withhold its votes, time, and money from both parties until this is done. I would also like this voting bloc to demand that the ERA be re-passed and ratified by 2012, and to withhold its votes, time, and money from both parties until this is done. Other ways we can make our voices heard are boycotts of press outlets and companies that promote misogyny; demanding that history books include and honor the contributions of women; coordinate work stoppages in companies that practice sexism against their employees; and so on. There are so many possibilities, if we will only band together and act as one.
As the great Sojourner Truth said, “If women want any rights more than they’s got, why don’t they just take them, and not be talking about it.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Women first.
[...] Comments Women First : The New Agenda on I Am Ridiculous.fsteele on No, This is Not A Parodychezmadame on No, This is Not [...]
Powerful.
Madama’s powerful article underscores (and double and triple underscores) the need to stay tightly focused on the issue that brings us together.
And we need to learn to identify the peripheral issues and special interests that would divert us from purpose.
Nominate the issue for NOW’s Media Hall of Shame.
http://www.now.org/issues/medi.....stion.html
[...] posted at The New Agenda; cross-posted at Oooh, Nuance! Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Tuesday: The [...]
I’m outraged about the betrayal by MS mag, it’s just so offensive on so many levels. But in the back of my mind I’m aware that they’re going to regret it. A few months from now it’s going to be the source of a great deal of embarrassment. MS will suffer for this.
And Obama, from what I know of him, he’s probably already embarrassed. No doubt he probably thinks being called a feminist means he’s girly, as in he’s so insecure he didn’t want a “girly” dog in the white house. Wouldn’t surprise me if he denounced the magazine cover himself, which would be kind of amusing.
Michelle Obama flat out refused to call herself a feminist. If Obama’s wife was uncomfortable with the term, you know he probably really is.
Great Post
Great article Madamab. REading The Chalice and the Blade, it would be nice to believe that we could defeat the patriarchy and live as equals, no one sex in power over the other. But I don’t believe that is possible now. If women don’t take control, men will always hold it.
One thing I have done that I URGE everyone to do is to CANCEL YOUR CABLE. Television is such a toxic source of misogyny, and money talks. If we demand better commercials and better programming by taking our money away…
And it enhances your quality of life by living without it (the cable). More time to read, to watch movies you wanted to see, and to be free of the constant sexism blaring through your living room.
Breathtakingly fantastic post, Madamab! You have such a knack for nailing it without forgiveness or venom.
Couldn’t agree more with Lisa. I’ve been trying to convince my family to give up TV for over six months now. I may have to make an executive decision and do it without consensus. Would that make me a matriarch? Prolly. Long live matriarchy.
MadamB,
Forget the 30%, we want parity!
Thanks for your wonderful and inspiring piece.
The fight has just begun!
I had held steadfast to “liberal” and I guess I shall to “feminist” from now on. Somehow, i have a knack to rescue ‘words” just when they get out of favor. Somehow, I get to live to see the tide turning – albeit not quite right. Now a days too many think “liberal” means “on Obama side” as in “AP, the media are now self appointed – liberal”.
I don’t know if feminist will even actually mean “women first” – but I will see a swing from the shameful goings on in 2008 – I am sure of it. And I’ll do all I can for it.
Working on a brightly colored page to insert into any and all Ms. Magazines I see for anyone who wants to use, add, edit, (correct if you see errors, please), etc.
——————————————————————————-
BARACK OBAMA….
…did not speak out when his Director of Speechwriting (Jon Favreau) mimed groping a life-size image of our incoming Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton.
….selected for the new head of the DNC (Tim Kaine) a politician whose views on choice are mixed.
…selected a pastor (Rick Warren) for the invocation on Inauguration Day who thinks domestic violence is not a reason for divorce.
…named a man as part of his economic team (Larry Summers) who thinks women are genetically inferior to men in areas of math and science.
…named only 5 women to his cabinet, less than Bill Clinton and about on par with George Bush.
…has created an economic rescue plan that focuses on infrastructure that will result in jobs for men, but few for women.
…paid his female campaign staffers 78 cents on the dollar as compared to his male staffers, just 1 cent above the nation average.
…had a group of campaign advisors comprised primarily of men.
…said not a word when one of his prominent supporters (Ludicris) wrote a song after the Democratic Convention calling Hillary Clinton an irrelevant bitch. (Can anyone imagine a high profile Clinton supporter writing a song referring to Obama as an irrelevant nigger and having not a word said about it? It would have been wrong, as was Ludicris’s song, but double standards abound.)
Wake up Women! Wake up America! Barack Obama is no feminist!
Anna: Obama did not pay his female staffers less than his male staffers. He had a few more men in higher paying positions on his Senate staff, which meant that if you totaled all the money paid to male employes and divided it by the number of male employees, and did the same for women, the average salary for men was slightly higher (although I think it was 83, not 78) for men than for women. But every person, male or female, was paid the appropriate salary for their position.
Criticism is a good thing, but you have to be factual.
This post is not terribly logical–every woman who doesn’t support any other woman, even if they don’t agree with the policies of that woman, is a bad person and not a feminist? You must support the uterus?–but that is not terribly surprising since the poster blogs at Confluence, where I have seen a number of posters talking about how Obama isn’t even a US citizen. I mean, by all means criticize him, that is what a democracy is about–but don’t fall for conspiracy theories or theorists.
Gillian,
You are new to our blog.
The New Agenda runs a kind and respectful blog and we do not tolerate personal insults. Disagreement on subject matter is fine and we have lively debates on a wide range of issues. But there is no tolerance for personal attacks.
And my two cents, after voting Democrat all my life in every election at the State, Local and Federal level – never again.
Now, given the opporunity, I vote for the woman running. If she needs working on, she’ll get a call from TNA to speak out women’s issue (see our Goals). But, I am proud to say that I will vote based on gender. With Senate being 17% women (possibly 16% soon), Congress 16% and Governships 16% – you betcha!
Gillian
1. I am a maven about facts and not merging opinion with emotions with credible info. The numbers were from Legistorm, a non-partisan org that reports on salaries of politicians, etc. There is usually a few months lag time, so last year they initially reported Obama’s female staffers paid on average 83 cents on the dollar compared to male staffers, then in the next research cycle (about 6 months later), it had dropped to 78 cents. I believe they account for job position, etc. The data is no longer up as it’s old news, but this is the site if you are not familiar with it:
http://www.legistorm.com/
” But every person, male or female, was paid the appropriate salary for their position.” Where do you get your data?
2. Per your comment: “…. the poster blogs at Confluence, where I have seen a number of posters talking about how Obama isn’t even a US citizen. I mean, by all means criticize him, that is what a democracy is about–but don’t fall for conspiracy theories or theorists,” all I can say is the obvious: This is not the Confluence or any other site you may be referring to. It is The New Agenda, so I don’t grasp the logic of complaining about something you read elsewhere, here.
Anna: I was not saying that you were being purposefully untruthful–I am so sorry if it seemed like I was–but I don’t think you had gotten all the facts–or perhaps your dislike of Obama was coloring your interpretation. I got my data from legistorm.com and factcheck.org. Based on everything I read there and at other fact-accumulating sites, staffers are paid what they are supposed to earn at that position, regardless of gender–it’s just that there are a few more men in in the highest-paid positions than women, so if you are taking the average salary, it is higher for men than for women. If there were a few more women than men, it would be a higher average female salary than male salary. And apart from the facts, it wouldn’t even make sense for any sane politician running for high office to pay women less than men–all it would take would be one woman to sue for equal pay (as I would expect a woman to do under those circumstances) to severely hurt, if not completely derail, your chances.
my: when you say that you do not tolerate personal insults, do you mean my saying that the poster was being illogical? I apologize–I should have expressed myself more diplomatically.
But I simply don’t see the logic of voting based on gender. I had many friends who proudly supported Hillary, but they would never in a million years have supported Palin. It has nothing to do with being part of an elite club for only pro-choice Democratic women. It has to do with what policies you want your elected officials to support. They–and I–would not support a woman whose policies were the opposite of Hillary’s simply because she was a woman. Palin believed, among many other things, that being gay was a lifestyle choice (neither Obama nor Hillary believes that), that the war in Iraq was a great idea (neither Hillary nor Obama believes that), and that abortion should be allowed only in cases of the mother’s life being threatened (neither Obama nor Hillary believes that). And that was only the tip of the iceberg. Do you genuinely believe that I am not a feminist because I did not vote for someone who believed all that, despite the fact that she was a woman?
You talk about women supporting women: that is a wonderful thing. But then you accuse women who supported Obama of doing so because they want popularity or power. You deny that their support could have been based on the fact that they believed that he would make the better president–just as you believed that Hillary would make the better president. Denying that women have logical reasons for their choices just because those choices are not yours–saying that they are just trying to please men–seems very unsupportive to me.
Whoops, sorry, that should be “Amy:”
My mistake.
Amy: sorry to keep bothering you, but one last thing. I hate that there aren’t more women in powerful positions in our society. But I can’t vote for a woman if I don’t think that she is the best candidate. I see that some of your other bloggers feel the same way, given their opposition to Caroline Kennedy. Do you consider them to no longer be feminists because of their refusal to support Caroline for the seat? If people vote by gender, should they vote by race as well, or religion? Should black people only vote for black people? Is any black person who didn’t vote for Obama a traitor to his race?
Absolutely not Gillian. Some of our Founders will not vote based on gender. This is a personal decision for each and every one of us.
The New Agenda welcomes all. We just want a civil discourse. Of our Founder group, 1/3 voted Obama, 1/3 McCain, and the rest either voted Green Party, wrote in Hillary’s name or did not vote.
It’s about finding common ground and working together.
No I meant your personal insult of the author of the piece and the blog The Confluence – both of which are friends of this group.
Yes, by “poster” I meant the author of the piece. Again, I am sorry, I should have expressed myself more diplomatically. My apologies to MadamaB. I do think that The Confluence is too extremely biased against Obama just as some websites are too extremely biased for him (which, of course, is true of Hillary websites, Palin websites, etc.), but I should have said so more politely. I am sorry.
I see that not everyone at this blog votes based on gender, but may I ask if you have any thoughts in response to my questions about that practice?
I suppose I just found the thoughts expressed in this post that any woman who voted for Obama can’t possibly understand the suffering of women in our society or was just doing so in order to be liked by the boys. Both of those thoughts demean women.
Those thoughts demean women just as people who said that women were supporting Hillary solely because she was a woman–without any other logical reason–demeaned women.
well they are entitled to their opionion – as you to yours. Just no personal attacks.
There is nothing demeaning about voting based on gender.
Gillian
I’m too exhausted to go round on all of these points. Why don’t we agree to disagree.
I will say that in past years your comment “…it wouldn’t even make sense for any sane politician running for high office to pay women less than men–all it would take would be one woman to sue for equal pay (as I would expect a woman to do under those circumstances) to severely hurt, if not completely derail, your chances,” would have made perfect sense. But this year, such outrageous things happened that defied logic, I couldn’t say that your assertion would be true.
Also, I haven’t read anywhere on this site (and believe me, I’ve been critical of plenty of things on this site) that has stated or even suggested that a woman is not or cannot be considered a feminist if she doesn’t vote based solely on gender.
I know that they are entitled to their opinion, but what are your personal thoughts? If you care to share them?
“Also, I haven’t read anywhere on this site (and believe me, I’ve been critical of plenty of things on this site) that has stated or even suggested that a woman is not or cannot be considered a feminist if she doesn’t vote based solely on gender.”
“Women first” is a statement in this article. Along with the comments about how women who supported Obama could not possibly have had good reasons for doing so, it seems like some people here certainly think that you must support women if you are a woman.
Crazy things happened this year, true–that’s why I checked the facts instead of just relying on what seemed logical.
Gillian, on staff pay equity, I posted about this in an earlier thread and gave a cite. The point worth mentioning is that McCain hired more women and put them in better positions. This can be an important point against Obama, which your phrasing minimizes. Obama barely had 50/50; McCain had 7 out of 10 top positons filled by women, and more women at all levels and overall.
MadamaB,
I agree with you that the women you named (Pelosi, Brazile, CK, etc) deserve a special place in hell.*
But if we start demanding quotas (as nominees or electees) won’t the powers that be choose just such hell-deserving women to fill the quota? For one thing, at present those women are at the top of the pipeline.
Imo anything that sounds like gender-voting will encourage tokenism: women like CK, who backstab other women and will vote as their male patrons direct them.
I agree that there’s a place for gender-voting, but imo it’s a narrow place. Kevin on another thread has a good algorithm, similar to a ‘point system’ I described a day or two ago.
*Did Albright really say that? I’ve heard the attribution disputed.
Okay, I just found your link to Time Magazine with the Albright quote:
“I also think it is important for women to help one another. I have a saying: There is a special place in hell for women who don’t.”
Very good answers Albright gives. I especially liked this:
“You have dealt with very stressful situations. What do you turn to for comfort food? Mills Chapman, PHILADELPHIA
[Laughs.] Mashed potatoes. I try not to, because I hope people will notice I have lost a lot of weight since I was Secretary. [Instead] I try to seek comfort in apples.”
Gillian,
What planet are you on? A total 52% of women in this country and a small percentage in the US government making social and financial life decisions and representing us. Think about the BIG picture. Sexism is alive and well, and if you didn’t see that in the primaries and the general election you must open your eyes. The big picture is more represenation from women of all walks of life, yes, even conservatives! I trust Governor Palin more about women’s issues then barry. (We are past 1973) As far as I heard if you live in Alaska, you can receive domestic benefits like every other state in the union if you are gay. And you can still get abortions too. Lifestyle is not illegal in Alaska, stop watching SNL. Being a feminist means working towards ending female aparteid in America. What kind of world do you want your daughter/neice/sister to grow up in?? The same status quo you are supporting.. women aren’t good enough for American politics, they cry, they shop, they unattractive or too attractive, pig on a lipstick??
Believe me if HIllary or Palin were in the White House today, that would be real change, and a real hope for the future. It was our time this year, if you don’t want to lead or follow, then get out of the way Gillian.
Bravo MadamaB!
Regarding the voting block, count me in! I’m already there!
btw, this is way I left NOW, NARAL, and don’t read or buy MS. Magazine anymore… these 1973 women only want to help every other group, gay men, end aparteid in South Africa, kill children after childbirth…. and not help, hello, American women? Y’know starting at a very young age to boost self-esteem, end sexism in the media, movies, and music, and support other women. It’s a “gasp” movement. Why should I be ashamed of supporting conservative or liberal women? I don’t think African Americans are all in agreement with barry’s policies… if he supported the war or if he actually defended gay marriage, I believe they would be still excited about the prospect of having an African-American or biracial president. They know what a great achievement it is for their racial group, pride and hope for their children to actually represent them! And the opportunities are now wide open for all parties to elect more black leaders. I’m sure no one actually agrees with everything a president says or does 100% percent all the time. The whole point is getting women in the door, and becoming a political, financial and growing group of women that are powerful enough to demand representation, create pride, and make policies that can help other women. Without HIllary there would be no Palin, and without Palin there is no other women in the Dem. party with her star power to excite the base. I’m sure the GOP is grooming other AA men for the top GOP posts, leadership roles or 2012 nominees. Because now they believe their electable. That’s what movements do… I’m not ashamed for voting and supporting because they are a woman, I’m ashamed more women are afraid to.
fsteele
Thank Dog for you! Sometimes I’m too tired or can’t get my thoughts organized, and there you are saying just the right thing (except, of course, when you’re needling at me!!!).
fsteele: I get what you are saying, but if you look at the numbers of men and women employed in their Senate offices and the average salary paid to them, McCain actually employed more women–and paid them a higher average salary–than Hillary Clinton did. But I don’t think that made him a better candidate for women than she was. Hillary and Obama weren’t perfect, but at least I never heard them dismiss concerns about equal pay by saying, “Women just need more education and training.”
May I ask: for those of you who are saying that you vote based on gender, either mostly or completely–do you honestly think that McCain/Palin would have been good for the country? Even if you think that Obama won’t be good for the US and the world–did you really believe that McCain and Palin would be? If you truly supported Hillary Clinton for her policies as well as her gender?
Gillian,
I’m not sure where this quote comes from…
“Women just need more education and training”
But I would agree that they do. Women need both education and training for both white and blue collar jobs. Think about the small number of women currently working in many of the highest paying fields. Engineering for example is very heavily male. Women need education and training opportunities so they can be competitve in the currently male dominated fields. Blue collar women need training available so they can be electrician, plumbers, builders etc. These are some of the blue collar jobs that actually pay a decent wage. They are currently excluded from many of these fields because they work on an apprentice program and it is very difficult for women to get hired as apprentices when the fields are dominated by men. How could that be bad?
Gillian,
I think we’re talking past each other. Someone was listing faults of Obama, including that [ allegedly ] he paid his women less than his men, and comparing his staff pay to McCain’s. I said that the relevant fault was that Obama hired fewer women than McCain and gave them lower jobs.
Thia: Sorry, I should have given the context of the quote. McCain was asked why he opposed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. He responded that he didn’t think that the Act would lead to too many law suits, and that women didn’t need any laws guaranteeing fair pay in order to achieve fair pay–in his words, “women just need more education and training.”
I absolutely agree with what you said–but that is not what John McCain was saying. Again, sorry, my fault–should have given you the context.
fsteele: maybe we are talking past each other. I am sorry if it wasn’t clear, but I was trying to respond to what I thought you were saying–that Obama should automatically be counted as less a friend to women than McCain because he had fewer women on his staff (is that not what you were saying? Sorry if I misinterpreted) by pointing out that McCain had more women on his staff than Hillary did, but would anyone consider him to be more feminist or more of a friend to women than she is?
We probably are talking past each other, so sorry about that. But what you have to say is interesting!
[...] people commented that when I wrote my piece “Women First,” I was advocating that a matriarchy would be better than a patriarchy, and that was not [...]
[...] people commented that when I wrote my piece “Women First,” I was advocating that a matriarchy would be better than a patriarchy, and that was not [...]
[...] people commented that when I wrote my piece “Women First,” I was advocating that a matriarchy would be better than a patriarchy, and that was not [...]
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...