Oooh, nuance!

Great news!

I am honored to say that Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) has contacted me and asked me to interview her about her new book, "Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated."

The book is a clear, information-packed, yet entertaining and uplifting look at how women are doing in our society. It also offers concrete action items what we can do as activists on both the micro and macro level in order to better the lives of women in America.

Ms. Maloney has penned an eye-opening must-read for men AND women, as the book is not a polemic, but a fact-based dissection of all the ways in which women still lag behind men in every measurable way: pay, vacation time, job opportunities, vulnerability to sexual harrassment and other abuses of power. All this, and I'm still reading the second chapter!

I have found throughout the primary season that most people don't seem to understand and accept the premise that there is still an enormous amount of institutionalized sexism in America. Reading this book will disabuse people of that notion in short order.

If feminism and gender equality interest you - and they'd damn well better! ;-) - then I'm sure you'll enjoy my upcoming interview with the fascinating, well-informed and tireless Congresswoman Maloney.

Now I hope you'll excuse me - I've got to get back to my reading.

It seems that some of Senator Obama's more lefty supporters are starting to realize that he is not the liberal/progressive they thought he was. Personally, I am mystified as to how any remotely reasonable person could have thought he was a liberal. One anti-war speech in 2002 - which no one can find video or audio of - does not a liberal make. And his record in the Illinois Senate was hardly one of accomplishment, despite his recent claims.

Obama's rhetoric, as I've pointed out time and again, has always been rightward bound. From his pandering to anti-gay evangelicals with Donnie McClurkin, to his praising of all Presidents Republican (which Democratic President has he ever praised on a consistent basis?), to his kumbaya Unity schtick, to his statements that he would consider specific Republics for his Cabinet post (and possibly for VP - I think that's the next shoe to drop), to his unforgivable lying about Bill Clinton's presidency (no, rural people did not suffer equally under Reagan and Clinton, thanks for playing) and embrace of right-wing frames regarding Bill and Hillary's judgment and character...well, I could go on and on. Oh! I just did!

But those are all in the past, right? We all know that once Obama got the nomination, he would do a shout-out to his bestest buddies, the lefties who love and worship him as the next coming of John F. Kennedy, right?

Not so much. Obama's been steadily and happily giving the finger to all things liberal for the last few weeks. Iraq withdrawal? Just a best-case scenario, as I pointed out. FISA filibuster? Not so much. Women and abortion? Turns out a late-term abortion should not be the woman's decision - it should be done only if some physical problem occurs. And let's not forget that Obama wants to expand on Bush's faith-based initiatives, and is consistently reaching out to the rightiest of right-wingers, evangelical Christians, with projects such as the Joshua Generation.

Finally, this morning I read about this [h/t to "ribbon" on TalkLeft]:

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

Add this to Obama's abortion flip-flop, and is it any wonder that women don't want Obama as Commander-in-Chief? The penilely-challenged do not seem to be as equal as other animals in Obama's World.

Now, some people are calling this rash of pandering a move to the center. Okay, almost EVERYONE is calling this a move to the center. Newsflash, people. The center is not there. What "center" thinks telecommunications companies should have immunity for spying on Americans? What "center" thinks that the troops don't need to come home from Iraq? What "center" thinks Roe v. Wade was a mistake and that abortion should be regulated even further? What "center" thinks that Bush's faith-based initiatives were an awesome success and should be expanded?

No, Obama is moving to the far right. He's signaled this move all along, and now he's following up on his rhetoric.

In how large a font should I type "I told you so?"

Now, the Convention is not a coronation, and Hillary has not released her delegates. There is still time to nominate the only real Democrat in this race. My purpose with all these posts is not to bash Obama, although I don't mind that part either, but to highlight the fact that his candidacy would be an utter disaster for three reasons:

1) He is the presumptive nominee only through corruption by, and collusion with, the National Party.
2) He refuses to stand up for Democratic principles, caving to the rightwingers constantly.
3) He will lose to McCain.

There is still time to save the Party from itself. There is still time to put a real fighter, a strong leader and a die-hard liberal Democrat up against John McCain. There is still time to elect a Democratic President who actually has the know-how and the will to fix the massive problems we are facing.

And that is the true goal of PUMA.

"Sweetie."

Ah, how that word encapsulates the incredible amounts of misogyny and sexism that has been directed at Senator Clinton, sometimes by her opponents, but most often by the media, both corporate and "progressive!"

Don't believe me about this? Well, here are some sources for you.

Soon after Senator Obama inappropriately used the word "Sweetie" to dismissively refuse to answer a female reporter's question, Senator Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the Washington Post and asked about the roles of sexism and racism in the historic campaigns of both Democrats.

Here is the paragraph that stood out to me:

Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women. The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world. If you look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women, at it's base. The idea that we would have a presidential campaign in which so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice. I have spent my entire life trying to stand up for civil rights and women's rights and human rights and I abhor wherever it is discrimination is present.

This, folks, is the awareness of a person who is ready to become president of the United States. She sees the bigger picture. She understands that all forms of social injustice are unacceptable, but that whenever the government fails to do its job, women are disproportionately the ones that suffer (yes, gasp! racism affects women too!). Where racism is not a factor, somehow, women manage to be oppressed as well. Look at China; racially homogenous, for the most part, yet determined to treat women as inferiors with very few civil rights.

Senator Clinton also states that the goal of fundamentalism, such as we find in every country and every religion, is predominantly the control of women. I could not agree with that statement more, and I've felt that way for a very long time. What is the real reason behind blaming "original sin" on Eve? Why must women remain virgins until marriage, but men have no such responsibility? Why are clitorectomies performed? Why are women sometimes unable to become priests? Why is birth control not acceptable by the Catholic Church? Why do women have to cover all but their eyes in fundamentalist Islam, and why are they restricted from any but the most basic freedoms of life? (Note: A great book on this subject is "The Chalice and the Blade," by Riane Eisler. Seriously, if you haven't read it, it's an amazing work about the struggle between the male and female principles throughout human history.)

The media, with its usual blithe lack of self-awareness, has attempted to discredit Senator Clinton's words. But it's too late for that. The mask has fallen off. We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any more.

Good luck getting our votes in November, Barack Obama. You - and the Democratic Party - have stood silently by while the most qualified and viable woman candidate ever has been treated with violent, despicable misogyny. You all can iron your own damn shirts.

Sweetie, my ass.

Racism is a fact in America. It's been around for centuries, and it's not going away any time soon. While it is wonderful and amazing that a man of African descent may become the next President, and that would be a huge step in the right direction, I think we are all aware that we still have a long way to go before we achieve anything approaching equality for people of color in our society.

But what about the hatred that dare not speak its name? What about misogyny?

Via Atrios, here is a brief but excellent commentary about a horrific op-ed from the Washington Post by a woman named Charlotte Allen. The original title of the piece was "Why are Women So Dumb?" Forgive me if I don't find that very amusing, and forgive me if it makes me want to send Hillary Clinton my entire savings account.

See, if Hillary were not a woman, I'd still choose her over Barack Obama. But seeing the brutal misogyny that has been coming out in the press since she began her run only makes me support her even more strongly. The atrocities have been well-documented at Media Matters, so I won't even bother to list them. But my favorite had to be when Chris Matthews went on a rant about how Hillary only became the Senator from New York because her husband cheated on her.

I know I'm only 40 and make a good living, and thus should be drooling over Barack, apparently. But despite the "generation gap," I just identify so strongly with Hillary and what she faces every day. I have been treated with condescension and dismissal countless times in my professional and personal life simply because I've got a double X chromosome. As Senator Obama said,

"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

FYI, Barack, Hillary is 60. She doesn't menstruate any more, but thanks for playing.

Am I really dumber or more emotional because I'm a woman? Is Hillary? Why in the world do we still have to ask and answer these questions?

It's because misogyny is still widely accepted and promoted in our media, and in large part, because it's a much more hidden hatred than racism. Women were never slaves in this country - at least, not in a societally institutionalized sense.

In fact, misogyny and sexism are so hidden and accepted that a lot of younger women don't even see them. Even though Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency may not be successful, she can certainly be proud of the fact that she has uncovered this ugly boil on America's backside and given it a good spanking.

Thank you for that and for so much more, Hillary. Perhaps the next time a woman runs for President, she will not have to suffer quite as much of the hatred that dare not speak its name.

at least I am not, nor will I ever be, this woman.

Let's read some of the priceless prose of Ms. Robin Givhan, shall we?

I believe she was trying to begin her article in media res, but to me, she is simply maundering - in a fashion even Andy Rooney would find excessive.

The mind, so easily distracted by things mauve and lemon yellow, strays from more pressing concerns to ponder the sartorial: How many pantsuits does Hillary Clinton have in her closet? And does she ever wear them in the same combination more than once?

I would comment on this, but I just saw some bright shiny colors....lalalalalalala....

Whew, I'm back! Here's some more of Ms. Givhan's unique insight into Senator Clinton's sartorial strategy:

The pantsuit is Clinton's uniform. Hers is a mix-and-match world, a grown-up land of Garanimals: black pants with gray jacket, tan jacket with black pants, tan jacket with tan pants. There are a host of reasons to explain Clinton's attachment to pantsuits. They are comfortable. They can be flattering, although not when the jacket hem aligns with the widest part of the hips (hypothetically speaking, of course). Does she even have hips?

Now that is some fantastic stuff. First, the writer infantilizes the Senator by saying she wears Garanimals. And in drab colors, yet - she's so unwomanly, she can't even match tan and tan! (Never mind that Ms. Givhan was just fulminating about the Senator's overly bright colors three sentences before.) The piece de resistance is the last two sentences, though. Her pantsuits are cut unflatteringly over Hillary's hips, which apparently she doesn't have! Dizzyingly brilliant!

Could it get better/worse? Why yes. Yes it could.

And because Clinton seems to prefer crossing her legs at the ankle -- in the way girls were taught when girls were still sent to finishing school -- there is less likelihood of any embarrassing straight-to-YouTube video.

Let's not even talk about the fact that these three paragraphs don't seem to be linked, although they follow each other directly in the "article." Help me out with what she is trying to say. Is there something wrong with making sure that your crotch is not plastered all over YouTube? I mean, not that Hillary has one anyone would want to look at, since she's hardly even a woman, and besides which, she's fricking old as the hills, mmmmmkay? Ewwwwwww, how can Bill sleep with a Garanimal-wearing, pants-loving, colorblind, hipless, ancient crone like Hillary?

I really don't know how a person like this looks at herself in the mirror. Maybe she's got one that tells her she's the fairest in the land, like in "Snow White." But to me, she's a misogynistic, sad, jealous woman who would give anything to be in Hillary's sensible shoes.