Rule #1: Don’t tell feminists how to be feminists

Or, for that matter, don’t tell women how to be women. Just don’t.

Telling women how to behave, what to think, what to believe, who to BE has been a right that Patriarchy co-opted for itself (forcefully and violently) for millennia now. We’re farkin’ tired of it. And at this point in our history we have just enough freedom and equality to say: STFU, and stop doing that. It’s not your business, and we’re not here to satisfy YOU or live up to your expectations in any case.

So, when someone says that Hillary’s campaign has “set feminism back,” that’s inherently sexist all by itself. And let’s not even get into the arrogance and sense of entitlement these men (usually men, tho not always) are tapping into to imagine themselves authorities on what is and is not, what should and should not be contemporary feminism. (Wouldn’t be any kind of feminism that just happened to be no real threat to THEM, now, would it? Nahhhhh. Men wouldn’t do that.)

So, no, Hillary has not set feminism back, no matter how shocking or disappointing her behavior as a human being and candidate has been, despite some men’s fervent wish and faux feminist Camille Paglia’s fevered imagination, and she’s not shy about trotting out stereotypical gender insults to make her point, either:

In her raw ambition and stubborn, grinding energy, Hillary will certainly cast a long shadow on young women aspiring to high office. She is both inspiring role model and cringe-making bad example — an overtly feminist careerist who never found a way to succeed without her husband’s connections, advice, and intervention.

As bad as Hillary is, she can’t single-handedly destroy feminism. But to further elucidate that point, here’s a quote I’ll probably trot out in these pages again and again, from African American columnist Carl Rowan:

A minority group has “arrived” only when it has the right to produce some fools and scoundrels without the entire group paying for it.

And no, jaysunb, despite your assertion, Hillary isn’t doing any harm, and Paglia’s article does NOT express an attitude directly opposed to Andrew Stephens’ article in the New Statesman. In fact, his article is on a completely different subject. Camille criticizes Hillary, often using gendered insults to do it (the very definition of sexism), and suggests that feminism suffers at her hands while Stephens decries the sexism used against Hillary:

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio’s political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as “a fucking whore” by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate’s “thick ankles”? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

…”How do we beat the bitch?” a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year’s Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked “How do we beat the nigger?” and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. “Iron my shirt,” is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. “Shine my shoes,” rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Letting this kind of misogyny go unchallenged — and it is mostly unchallenged in the mainstream media — is what sets feminism back, not women standing up for ourselves.

And then there are those whose misogyny (or internalized oppression in the case of women) is so strong it just can’t be contained as they give “advice” to feminists on how to be good feminists — good enough feminists that all those skeptical men as well as all our political opponents will (finally) approve of feminism:

ButterflyBlood Sat May-24-08 09:40 PM
I wish the Hillaryists realized how much they are harming the true feminist movement. Constant screaming of “IF YOU DON’T SUPPORT HILLARY YOU ARE SEXIST!” and the claims that attacks on her are by definition misogynistic, etc. etc. and the high amount of recent drama on this forum over that just discredits it.

Ummm, not really. First, if any of this is true — IF!!, it’s true for just a few people and those primarily on DU. I personally have seen few if any assertions that non-support of Hillary means one is automatically sexist, except by misogynist men exaggerating and mischaracterizing what they’ve read.

Second, many of the attacks have been misogynist, deeply so. Not everyone has properly seen or understood all of the misogyny, but many of our more practiced ears — those ears attached to the heads of us aging boomer women, us 2nd Wave veterans — tend to pick it up straightaway. And we’re not amused.

Here’s the rule: if you have a criticism of Hillary, no problem IF it’s not something about her sex, sexuality, appearance, roles as a woman (mother, wife, etc.) and IF you don’t couch it in language or conflate it with subjects that address her sex, gender, sexuality, appearance, roles as a woman (mother, wife, etc.). IOW, leave her sex/gender out of your criticism completely. See? Ciuldn’t be simpler.

For example, if you don’t like the way she’s sold out to corporate interests (as I don’t), then say that — DON’T call her a “corporate whore.” Or “corporate sell-out” would work.

See? It’s not not that difficult to understand, except that one does have to want to “get it,” an element sorely lacking with too many, I’m afraid.

Feminists have developed a largely undeserved reputation of that all are extreme authoritarian Dworkin/MacKinnon-esque killjoys. Since the 70s the feminist movement has thankfully largely moved away from that, but this appears to be rearing its ugly head again with the Hillaryists (I hardly think “feminist” applies to these folks.)

And with that, our writer makes him or herself an authority on contemporary feminism. Personally, I’ve seen no evidence of “moving away” from Dworkin/MacKinnon, who are routinely trotted out as the worst kind of women and even worse kind of feminists — women and feminists to be scorned and avoided and FEARED and held up as negative role models — simply because they hate porn and dared to try to do something about it. But those who support Hillary are in grave danger, you see, of bringing all this opprobrium down directly on their own heads, and will deserve that, if they continue on as they have.

Frankly, Hillary’s candidacy and the reaction in this manner has been the best thing ever to happen to Limbaugh and his types and everyone who wishes to discredit feminism.

More utter ridiculousness. Limbaugh et. al. will never want for things to criticize about Democrats. Never. Trying to avoid his and other detractors’ criticism is a fool’s errand: you hand over all your power in exchange for more demands and even less power, less autonomy. That’s what they want: to control us, and noting we do will ever gain favor with them. Acquiescence only results in more demands for our behaviors to change more in order to gain their approval. It’s the way of all bullies and sociopaths.

Further, when Limbaugh lacks for real issues, he has no scruples about just making stuff up. And besides — look how much help Limbaugh has from our side in this “discrediting feminism” business! Sheesh.

In short, the advice to women and feminists on how to be proper feminists is dangerous, not just laughable. Pretty much always. Fortunately, most women are smart enough to see through such expert, sage “advice.”