That hasn't yet taken place but it conceivably could.
Barack supporters in Philadelphia take to wearing t-shirts that announce Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is a c**t and where are the feminist 'leaders'?
Oh, that's right, they've decided that despite Governor Palin self-describing as a feminist, they don't have to stamp her membership card or let into the tent.
Not only that, they can boo and hiss her. They can (and have) used sexist language to attack her and they think they can do so with no fall out.
"Let's stone her, old style!" was the cry in Philadelphia.
But no one's overly concerned about that. No one's overly concerned about the woman who was attacked by a Barack groupie.
You have encouraged it, you have aided it.
You've done so in service of a bi-racial dick. Who knew you were all so into head?
A number of you allowed Hillary to be attacked (and a number of you joined in on those attacks). Now it's Governor Palin that's being attacked.
Failed leadership better damn well grasp the message sent.
The message sent to young girls is that women will be attacked regardless. Right or left, they will be attacked, they will be torn apart.
The message sent to society as a whole is that it's perfectly okay to rip apart women.
Failed leadership better grasp that their desire to drop to their knees for Barack may have been their own personal choice but they've made sure it was about all women.
Women have looked in vain for the 'leader' who will call out the attacks on Palin.
The message sent is that: You're only a feminist if you're pro-choice and a Democrat.
That's not the message you've sent over the years or the message you've allowed. In fact, you've bent over backwards to claim any woman with even a tiny bit of popularity as a feminist. In many instances, this led to huge embarrassments.
A look at the 30th anniversary issue of Ms. magazine (with Steinem on the cover) will provide you with many details about feminism; however, the idea that pro-choice and Democrat are required stances is not among the details given. Hey, look, page 34, it's Ani DiFranco explaining it: "My idea of feminism is self-determination; every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do." If you didn't think DiFranco's take was valid, you shouldn't have printed it -- or, in this case, reprinted it. Along with re-running it in the 2002 30th anniversary issue, they also ran it originally in 1996.
A number of women, such as Robin Morgan, rightly saw the sexism aimed at Hillary. Why Robin or anyone else thinks they should be given a pass for using sexism (and lies) to destroy a woman is beyond us. If Robin truly mistakes her own actions regarding Palin as feminism, she's living in self-denial.
This could have and should have been a great year for women.
All it really did was demonstrate how prevalent sexism was in our society and how we have cowards in leadership.
Oh, sure, for Hillary, a few of them will step up to the line and call out the attacks. But for Palin?
Michelle Obama is not a feminist. Michelle Obama attacked Hillary for his Bill's long ago affair. Michelle Obama explained that she might agree with a few feminist ideas but she wasn't a feminist.
By contrast, Sarah Palin is a feminist and proudly announces it.
Somehow feminist 'leaders' are so f**king screwed up, they honestly believe they owe it to the woman who sneers at feminism (Michelle) to stand up for her.
Which is how we get (Democratic) Women's Media Center and all the other useless outlets and 'leaders' fretting over an illustrated cover of Michelle -- which had no sexist drawing -- but it's fine and dandy that a woman governor is targeted with t-shirts calling her a "c**t".
(Democratic) Women's Media Center self-servingly announced "Sexism May Sell But We Aren't Buying It" -- yet, they've gone on to do just that.
It's time leadership started looking at their own very real failures and started taking some accountability.
Their failure to speak out loudly and early at the start of the year allowed the attacks on Hillary to thrive. Their failure to speak out against the attacks on Palin continues to put all women at risk.
As a young woman at a group we spoke to in Santa Monica Friday put it, "I'm sick to hell of do as I say, not as I whore feminism."
We're sick of it too. We're also sick of 'leaders' who refused to grab this moment to congratulate Palin, to speak of the run in terms of being proud and to note that feminism comes in many, many varieties.
Funny because doing the above would have put feminism front and center and, silly us, we thought that was the point of feminism.
Instead, a number of women offered catty attacks, just the sort of stereotypical bullshit that so many detractors always expect from feminism. Thanks for proving them right, 'leadership.'
The reality is that there is no leadership at the top of the movement, there is no direction either. It's beyond time for certain women to step the hell down. They've contributed all they can and are doing nothing now except damaging the movement.
That would include Robin Morgan who somehow got it in her head that it was okay to attack Palin with lies. Apparently, Robin doesn't actually disagree with Sarah Palin's record. If she did, she could make the case against Palin on the governor's record. Instead, Robin needed to create and invent things that just did not happen.
Or take last week's debate. Reading (Democratic) Women's Media Center's 'coverage,' you might have thought Barack was channeling Sarah Weddington. Of course, he wasn't. But someone decided sucking up to the phallus was more important than informing women. From Thursday's "Iraq snapshot:"
Yesterday the Republican and the Democratic presidential candidate were invited to a debate that barred all other presidential candidates. Barack Obama, Democratic candidate, and John McCain took part in a debate hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer -- here for transcript (and video), here for Katherine Q. Seelye's live blogging at the New York Times. Among the issues Schieffer probed was abortion. For those who've forgotten, Barack always knew he could use sexism throughout the primary because he had the club of "What will happen to Roe!" He knew -- or thought he did -- that women would have to flock to him -- like a battered wife to an abuser? -- because they had no where else to go. Mike caught the moment, "Mainly we got to see Barack was even more right-wing than we knew as he talked about 'partial-birth abortions' and said he wanted to end late-term abortions (except for health!). Except for health? He's already made clear what he thinks about that. So he's going to chip away at abortion rights the same way the Supreme Court has. Barack's apparently pro-life on the installment plan. He'll do away with Roe bit by bit if elected. There's no Democrat in the presidential race, sadly." Madamab (The Confluence) also points to Barack's embarrassing answer, "Didja catch that, ladies? First the veiled threat about Roe v. Wade, which events in the past eight years have proven to be fearmongering of the most despicable type. Then, Obama assumes that before making a decision about our own bodies and our own babies, we naturally "consult with" an entire committee of people. Does he actually know anyone who's had to deal with this choice? (At least he has finally realized that some women are not Christian! Mr. Sensitivity has substituted the words 'religious advisers' for the more exclusive word 'pastors.') It never occurs to Senator Obama that women can make these decisions without "consulting with" anyone. It never occurs to Senator Obama that some women would not dream of going to any religious figures to ask whether or not to get an abortion, because some women are atheists or agnostic, or know that their 'religious advisors' would not support them in their decision. (DUUUUHHHH.) And it never occurs to Senator Obama that some women are pregnant BY members of their families, and that going to their families would be the LAST thing they would do in that case. Anyone who is at all familiar with the attempts by the religious right to try to force women to get the consent of their parents before getting an abortion, would be aware of that fact. (Double DUUUUUHHHHHH.)" Heidi Li (Heidi Li's Potpourri) wonders why Barack refuses to make support for Roe v. Wade a litmus test when appointing Supreme Court justices if he's elected: "What does matter is that Senator Obama, whose party is committed to upholding Roe, refused to commit to treating that as a make or break issue when it would come to his judicial appointments. And another thing: why does Senator Obama think that women need to consult with doctors, families, and religious advisers when deciding what to do with their own bodies? I have no objection to anybody consulting with anybody about any decision, but Senator Obama's committee of consultants approach suggests that once again he misses the point when it comes to women's empowerment." Lambert (Corrente) explains, "Either the woman is in the 'best position,' or a sort of committee, composed of the woman (indeed, we've come a long way), her family, and various religious and medical experts is in the 'best position.' Why would Obama believe that a committee is in the 'best position' instead of the woman herself?"
In a world that valued women, in a movement that valued women, the above would be discussed freely. Instead, to find that reality, you have to rely on a highly limited number of resources -- you'll note that Ms., Feminist Majority Foundation, Women's Media Center and NOW aren't among those you can count on.
