"The Obama campaign is, in some ways, subtly marketing its candidate as a postfeminist man, a generation beyond the gender conflicts of the boomers."
From the following NYT article:
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02...2women.html
The article is mainly about "the struggle" Iowa women Democratic caucus voters are reputedly having over whether or not they should cast a vote for Clinton or Obama. I thought some folks here might be interested in the theory that we are "a generation beyond the gender conflicts of the boomers." Personally, I find that kind of disingenuous and condescending...although, that is a quote from the writer of the Times article, and not an official position of the Obama campaign strategy...as far as I know, that is.
In any case, I would assume that most people interested in supporting feminist and/or egalitarian candidates are likely leaning towards >any< Democratic party candidate rather than >any< Republican candidate. I could be wrong there too...but I don't quite see how "taking the bible literally" is all about egalitarianism, let alone feminism! Of course, though, there will be media outlets that will try to build dissension among those who support equal pay for equal work by playing candidates off against one another...not that that is what that article is about either...
From the following NYT article:
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02...2women.html
The article is mainly about "the struggle" Iowa women Democratic caucus voters are reputedly having over whether or not they should cast a vote for Clinton or Obama. I thought some folks here might be interested in the theory that we are "a generation beyond the gender conflicts of the boomers." Personally, I find that kind of disingenuous and condescending...although, that is a quote from the writer of the Times article, and not an official position of the Obama campaign strategy...as far as I know, that is.
In any case, I would assume that most people interested in supporting feminist and/or egalitarian candidates are likely leaning towards >any< Democratic party candidate rather than >any< Republican candidate. I could be wrong there too...but I don't quite see how "taking the bible literally" is all about egalitarianism, let alone feminism! Of course, though, there will be media outlets that will try to build dissension among those who support equal pay for equal work by playing candidates off against one another...not that that is what that article is about either...
posted by:
|
-
Re: Obama--"post feminist"? Well, according to the NYTimes...
Thu, January 10, 2008 - 3:31 PMthenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_n...y.html
Arvonne Fraser vs Hillary Clinton: A History
And as for the New York Times, here's Maureen O'Dowd going after Hillary, posting a story on New Hampshire under a New Hampshire byline...while Ms. O'Dowd is in...Jerusalem!?
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09...08dowd.html
"There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing."
Yeah, Maureen--we just don't need no women Presidents...cuz they might manipulate us by crying?! Fortuantely, >you're< trying to tell us >we're< too smart for that?! WTF? See, it appears that the Times ombudsman is now trying to explain how it is Maureen can write an opinion article which indicates that she was in New Hampshire the night of the primary...when, um, well, she wasn't.
