Careful, Obama. Humorless Feminists Are Watching

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Now that we’re all catching our breath after l’affaire Wright, it’s not surprising that those at the center are still freaked out. Obama is too.

As Obama told CNN’s Anderson Cooper this week: “In some ways, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates.”

Uh oh. There are at least three ways to take this, all of which make my spidey sense tingly.

1) This is just another refreshing burst of honesty and humanity from the plaster saint all candidates are required to be, Transcendo-boy most of all. Thank God he didn’t tear up, though that would have only endeared him to us more.

2) Or it could be a rueful admission that he, too, had become a tad over-confident, mentally re-adjusting the height of the Oval Office Aeron rather than wooing Superdelegates diligently enough. Hence the manly slap on his own wrist and cautionary tale against vainglory.

3) Last, it’s possible that the day after riveting the nation with a truly beautiful, transcendent speech about race he’s now playing the race card, albeit weakly, and following it up with a male privilege chaser.

Had he stopped at, “…the odds of me getting elected have always been low,” it wouldn’t have caught the eye. But, lemme see, what is it that sets him apart from the “conventional candidates?” And, by the way, since when is Hillary a conventional candidate? Were he only facing white men, OK. But with a woman in the race—how dare he?

Here’s the flip side of the black feminist complaint that black women are either forced to choose between the two identities politically—or more typically, just have their preferences assumed to coincide with those of black men (See: Clarence Thomas) on pain of ex-communication. With this bit of rhetoric, Hillary’s being forced to be white over female even while she faces non-stop sexism. Why? Because that works best for the black male candidate. Hence, my belief that we’re farther along on race than we are on gender; however much racism black men face, they have in common with the worst racial troglodyte the preservation of male privilege.

I’ve spent the last few days doing non-stop media about Obama, forced to finally give him his props for handling everything from Ferraro to Wright brilliantly, honestly, humanely, and with a minimum of political calculation. I’d been playing hard to get, loathe to swoon over this political Moon Doggie who simply couldn’t be all that, and torn by my unquenchable font of feminist fury. But I finally had to give in to my admiration for him; his insistence that Ferraro may not be very articulate but is not a racist, and his treatment of the Wright flap as the legitimate issue that it is, rather than hiding behind either religious privilege or black intransigence, are both simply irresistible.

So, his “conventional candidates” remark surprised me all the more, by sounding like fake grief, a tear-stained hanky in a fisted glove. Like a reminder that he is, all of a sudden, black and therefore downtrodden, when yesterday he was merely Every Man, albeit with a crazy uncle on the loose. (And who doesn’t have one of those?)

Obama’s comment is a far cry from anything approximating the kind of race-baiting America is used to, but it’s pretty typical of the low-level sexism, and male privilege, many of us thought Obama was above. Just ’cause it’s subtle don’t mean it ain’t there. Were I Clinton, I’d damn sure be making this point.

I’m tired of being watchful of public figures I’d like to take the easy way out and admire. The Clintons woke up this sleeping dog with their ham-fisted race baiting up to and including South Carolina; I’m not sure they can soothe me, and all the other formerly loyalist (my bad, “conventional”) Dems back to sleep. Now Obama’s got me all watchful for more male privilege coming from the quarter I thought least likely to harbor it. The Clintons have taught me well to get suspicious early and stay that way, but it’s exhausting.

Of the myriad things I loved about Obama’s speech (and gave him much public love for at the expense of my much needed beauty rest) was its insistence that the travails of each historically oppressed or disadvantaged group be respected and alleviated as much as possible—not used to your own advantage.

Practice what you preach, Senator. We humorless feminists are watching.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate