Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Backwards and in High Heels - Stupor Tuesday

© 1982 NEA, Inc.

This Frank and Ernest cartoon is reportedly the origin of the now-famous statement often wrongly attributed to Ginger herself, that she did everything Fred Astaire did, only backwards and in high heels. Former Governor of Texas, Ann Richards, is also often wrongly credited for this quote, because she used it in her keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 1988.

Even from far-away Maastricht, the Netherlands, I am and stay active in USA politics. I vote, I continue to pay taxes in Minnesota, and I avidly follow one of the most critical presidential campaigns of our times. Yesterday I was forwarded a very long message from an author whose work and mind I greatly admire and respect, Riane Eisler, woman, scholar, and independent thinker, whose recent book, The Real Wealth of Nations, addresses the injustices I believe are running and ruining the current Democrat presidential nominee campaign in America. Eisler's forwarded email was very long – but so is a presidential term in office. In it were quoted award-winning authors and poets Maya Angelou and Robin Morgan who present strong arguments that highlight the toxic levels of sexism prevalent in this presidential campaign.

Here is an excerpt from Robin Morgan's article:

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?


I add that all people should be outraged, not only Americans, certainly not only women!

I support Hillary Rodham Clinton’s nomination as the Democratic Presidential candidate because I think she can do the best job, full stop. And yes, I do indeed bristle at the sexist prattle that has marred her campaign from its start. While I am ashamed that her strategy has also succumbed to ‘bottom of the barrel’ tactics, the response fits the playing field since not only Mr. Obama’s camp, but also the Republicans AND sexist pundits say unimaginable things about Hillary (extend this to any powerful, smart woman). (In the acrimonious American political arena it seems impossible to stay alive without countering, though I do not condone such tactics.)

Today, Super Tuesday, (which I consider Stupor Tuesday) I felt the need to state my support for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Just yesterday I stood in front of the headquarters of Germany's first woman Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in Berlin. That trip is a whole other story. Suffice it to say, that Chancellor Merkel stands as reminder that gender plays NO part in qualifications. The criteria for leadership should be proven experience, applicable talent, willingness to subject yourself to the inhumane but inevitable scrutiny that comes with the job. The allegations of a Clinton dynasty are simply stupid. A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations. Can anyone validate the Rodham's (or Clinton’s) dynastic roots of the? Here are her roots:

Hillary[1] Diane Rodham was born at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Illinois,[2] and was raised in a United Methodist family,[3] first in Chicago, and then, from the age of three, in suburban Park Ridge, Illinois, which is also located in Cook County.[4] Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a son of Welsh and English immigrants[5] and operated a small but successful business in the textile industry.[6] Her mother, Dorothy Emma Howell, of English, Scottish, French Canadian, Welsh, and possibly Native American descent,[7] was a homemaker.[4] She has two younger brothers, Hugh and Tony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

Women continue to be held to a higher standard than men. Let me end with a favorite quote that illustrates with humor yet truth our ongoing task:

"Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels."

For me, in this year 2008, it is time to cast your vote for the authentic qualities in your candidate. If you have fallen prey to your unconscious prejudices and stereotypes, take a few moments to reflect about what is at stake for the United States of America. Have conversations or email debates with your friends and colleagues of differing opinions. Hone your thinking. Then, when you cast your ballots, vote your conscience. You, your children and the rest of the world are deeply impacted by this act.

Be wise, be well, and take democracy seriously.

Susan

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

But you have to admit that a Bush Clinton Bush Clinton hegemony over the US Presidency for a 23 year period, maybe longer, is a bit "weird". When two families dominate the most powerful position in the world, to what extent can this be said to be true democracy?

Rob

Maison said...

...Interesting That Rob only addresses the issue of a dynasty...what about the sexist remarks, the gender bias and dare I say - HATE ??? What about those, Rob?
Why did you choose to ignore the majority of the message and focus instead on the issue of a democracy??