What good does it do us to have female officials (sec of state, judges,

senators, governors, future presidents, etc.) if these women are either power-hungry white male wanna-bes or genuine traitorous right wingers who belittle and belie the opportunities that were given them by feminists. Do we still advance as feminists if they gain office?

aside from a little concern over what exactly that phrase actually means, the answer is that if it breaks a barrier, AND ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE EQUAL, I have a preference for getting a woman (or minority) in the job.

If the other factors aren't equal, well of course I want the best person for the job, regardless of gender, race, etc.

implemented no matter how it impacts those who are the wrong sex, ethnicity, religion, color, sexual preference etc. This force knows only power and will use any and all resources to get what she/he wants. That could be Condi Rice and every person in the bush administration.

But was questioning the word choice, I guess.

I prefer more neutral terms that don't perpetuate stereotypes; I think power hungry and ruthless describes that personality well enough on it's own.

After all, I'm married to a white male. He's nothing like what you described.

male, the gmom of two adorable white males, and the mil of a wonderful white male, I am a lover of several white males. This however, does not prevent me from pointing out the destructive culture of the white male power that we live under. People like Condi (who are obviously not white or male)fit into this mold. They are very happy to not make waves and to align themselves into this very powerful world. This brings me back to the original question, which is, what do feminists gain through these type of people. The answer is naught, nothing, nada!!! They send us feminist even further back into the past, although on the surface it would not seem so.

without which I'd never been admitted into law school almost thirty-five years ago.

There are so many great women doing great work in demanding and difficult jobs all over this country, I think it's important to remember that the point is to do the job to the best of anyone's ability and not to advance someone's particular agenda.

Calling women names, as the original poster did, displays a certain impatience that things aren't being done the way the poster wants them to be done. That's when she has to get moving and get herself into a place where she can make a difference. Action, not words, are what count. Get yourself into that job, and then see how difficult or complicated it might be to do the things you personally want to get done. It's easy to stand outside and cast aspersions when you're not in there, hustling all the time to get it done.

I'm very proud of the women I know who are daily laboring in jobs that were closed to them a generation ago, and who dared to risk the ire of men. It's unfortunate that now they're subject to the same sort of attacks by their sisters.

I think a person can do their job, yet stand true to who they are, where they came from and what their convictions are. Being a woman who is pro-women's rights and works towards advancing those rights, isn't having an agenda, in my book. It's doing what is right.

As an American Indian myself, I respect a person like Ben Nighthorse Campbell the former Colorado Senator, however, he did a lot of damage to the Indian people. Especially, when he switched to a Republican so he could further his career. On one hand, that I'm proud a person of my race can become a U.S. Senator and I respect him, yet, I loathe his politics and the damage he done. I know my people can do better.

Women should be proud of each other in that same manner. But, be wary of giving someone a pass or cutting them slack because you share the same gender. It is easy to stand aside and cast aspersions, but it's also easy to stand by and not keep people honest. But, I see what you are getting at, I'm not disagreeing just adding another layer to the debate.

Geez, I rarely feel out of my league. You women are smart. Wow. I might go back to the Lounge. :)

Our system is set up such that women who behave in the "power hungry white-male" kind of way have a much better chance of succeeding. Particularly if they are willing to step on other women on their way up. And I think we all know there are PLENTY of sold-out women out there who are every bit as sexist as men.

There are countries where there are feminist women in positions of power but they tend to be the more proportional style of Parliamentary government than ours. In our 2 party, winner takes all system, a liberal has a hard enough time getting elected much less someone who is identified as a feminist.

And as for these Condi Rice and Janice Rogers Brown types, the only thing they advance is the neo-conservative cause. They are trotted out to assuage the so-called moderate Republicans who are troubled by the party's racism and sexism.

To attribute her success as being "power hungry white-male" like or "selling out" is not exactly fair in most cases.

Politics aside, Condi Rice is an independent, intelligent woman who didn't play to the stereotypes and marry, doesn't play the conservative in the way she dresses, etc. She used the system and the law and connections to get where she is today. I agree the party may be using the fact she is AA and female(as a political trump)but she is qualified as a person.

I think a lot is missed when you look at things in terms of gender or politics only and dismiss everything else.

I guess I am curious what you and and a few others consider a successful feminist woman to be. If every female CEO, politician, judge is seen as a sellout for some reason or another...where do we go from here?

Are women who publically repudiate feminism and deny its role in their own success. An example are numerous conservative women writers who do this, mostly for self-serving reasons IMO. They frequently portray themselves as "exceptions" to the stereotypes of women that they endorse, in order to court favor with men. But by no means is it just conservative or traditional women. Hell, I've seen females on DU do it.

I don't consider Condi to be personally a sellout, since I've never seen anything that she's written to denigrate feminism or anti-racism measures. Same with Janice Rogers Brown. They appear to be women who are committed to their ideologies, which so happen to fit the neo-con agenda. Which happens to be anti-woman.

One successful feminist I can think of off the top of my head is Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop. She identifies herself as a feminist and has criticized sexist images of women in advertising. She also seems to have really made an effort to incorporate respect for the environment and fair labor practices into her business model.

in my opinion, are going to be the "wives" when The Handmaid's Tale makes it's way to American reality. Think about it....

I don't really get this post, so would it be cool if you explained it a little?

Really - I only read it because it's mentioned here so often. I'm not trying to dismiss you. You should read it given your interest in women's issues and our feelings/fears. (Read "It Can't Happen Here" while you're at it - the two combined will put the fear of Fascism in you. ;))

Anyway, it's a book about the "future" where the "handmaids" are young women who are "kept" in order to bear children for the political and powerful men. These men have wives and there is a ritual that involves the man trying to impregnate the handmaid while the "wife" holds her hands in some bizarre concept of participation. The idea is to remove the passion from the act of copulation - to make sex about bearing children ONLY and remove all the "nasty dirtiness" of it.

Ultimately, not to ruin anything for you, we find that the men still have their "whorehouses" to get their sexual desires met, the handmaids are treated as nothing more than vessels for carrying the babies, the "wives" are painfully unfulfilled and the women who were too old to have children but weren't married to powerful men, have been sent to an "island" and little is known about their welfare (and some are "kept" as housemaids).

Hence, my reference to "the wives". Re: cc's reference to "the aunts", the women who "raise" the handmaids to be good little childbearing vessels are the nastiest incarnation of any nun you've ever heard horror stories about.

I'm pretty much a reading machine. :)

That is one spooky tale.

OLL completely on this. My position of power is very small. I am a precinct chair but I work with and for women to achieve their goals of winning power within the system without doing destructive damage to women and their rights to get ahead. I also raised 2 feminist daughters (1 in business and 1 at home raising 2 feminist sons) and these people will never gain or use their position of power to downplay and override women.

Your position is small, but if you get 100 women in small positions like that then you have some influence, you get a thousand you became a player, 100,000 and you have got a revolution.

The last great advances in gender and minority rights was in the '60's due to the civil, women's, American Indian, and other rights orientated movements. You women can get one of your own rolling again.

The key for you is to begin to work with and support women who simply aren't going to do destructive damage, but who will fight for progress. Easier said than done, but I bet you can do it.

But trying to get ANYONE to run as a Democrat in small town Texas is a tough enough job so we just try to get those who are not RW freaks and they usually run from us anyway.

Sounds like you have a tough job. Keep cracking at it, because as I said, you are in exactly the right position. Do your thing.

But, have you considered running for office yourself? I think that would be a good logical next step for you.

and former -back when I was insane - bullrider, I can appreciate that very much.

But....

The new Governor of Montana is a rancher so if he can do it.....

(I never give up :) )


You know the President is a Texas rancher.(although he couldn't lead a stick horse to water so he probably don't count)

:)

I'd try it too. (But I am WAAY too outspoken to make much headway around here.)

:)

You raise an interesting question about our system.

I just wanted to add, you may want to be wary about including Justice Brown as Neo-Con. This is wholly unrelated to feminism, but Neo-Con is typically a term that is attributed to a fringe of foreign policy hard-liners. Condi Rice, for example, is more of a foreign policy realist, but she is comfortable among the hard-liners. The term doesn't apply to Janice Rogers Brown, because Neo-Cons don't necessarily have a stance on judicial issues, nor do they have much of a stance on domestic issues, other than the need to narcotize the populace with nationalistic and religious rhetoric. I should also mention that I have been published on Neo-Cons and the Project For New American Century (Arizona Daily Wildcat, 5/5/03 and Red Ink Magazine, Fall 2003) The best way to describe Justice Brown is either Right-Wing or Far-Right. Only total nerds like me know stuff like that though. :)

I agree with your descriptions of Brown and Rice.

Damn, sounds like a side dish, eh?

Their gender has nothing to do with any of it, and neither does their race.

Their political views are just plain "out there," and scary.

I suppose that's as equal as anyone could hope for, eh? That women can be as nuts as men where politics are concerned.

1) compared to what? I'd certainly prefer the people you described to a Bill Frist, a Zell Miller, etc.

2) Who was it (Gloria Steinem, maybe?) who said that we'll know that equality of the sexes is finally here when a women can be average (meaning she has both important strengths and serious weaknesses, isn't outstanding and may be barely competent) and still get the job, as is the case for men.

The female lawyers, judges, magistrates, physicians, dentists, nurses, secretaries, hair stylists, concierges, artists, editors, publishers, agents, and writers I know are every bit as good and as bad as any men who hold those jobs.

In the end, I believe the feminist cause is most advanced by women who get out there and get the jobs, and then get the jobs done. Feminism is not anything separate and discrete from life, but an essential part of it, minute-to-minute, day-to-day, just as we breathe, just as we move forward and do the best we can.

Isolating and trying to make it the revolutionary and startling concept it was more than thirty years ago is, in my opinion, counterproductive, since, as mentioned above, it isolates the matter, and, in doing that, weakens it in the actual practice.

I'm not sure if anyone's ever asked me if I'm a feminist, but, if I were asked that question, I'd certainly have to know what the questioner meant by "feminist," since I'm not quite sure the word has a distinct and viable meaning in the years since its appearance.

What the questioner would know is that I've lived my life in this world - most often defined as a "man's world" - as a hard-working and successful woman who took the challenges and did the best she could, succeeding sometimes, failing sometimes, but never giving up.

That's my idea of a feminist.

more than 20 years that, as a general rule (with some exceptions) women with merely "average" credentials are rarely hired and promoted, but that many men who are average often find and hold good jobs for long periods of time. The point of the quasi-quote is not that women are superior or inferior to men, but that, commonly, women must still outperform men in order to be given the same workplace treatment.

There is also recent empirical evidence from controlled studies that suggests that discrimination still occurs.

Your experience may be different. Or, we may be in agreement.

The relevance of these observations to the OP is that there is an implication in the post that if a woman isn't great on all the dimensions we'd like for her to do well on, then we might as well not have her in the position at all. My point is that I'd certainly prefer the outstanding woman, but I'm not going to judge a woman more or less harshly than a man who would hold the same position.

Yes, it's still true, but not nearly like it was when I started out thirty years ago, that a woman will be judged differently from a man.

But, the truth is, human nature being what it is, I've never objected to being hired for a job because someone liked my style, which has nothing to do with my looks, which didn't hurt, either, or my CV. I've hired men on the basis of how they interacted with me, when, in fact, they didn't necessarily have the sterling credentials that might have opened my door for them. I've also chosen not to hire women who were more than qualified because they were ill-mannered and didn't deserve to work for me.

That's chemistry, and that very often is the deciding factor. I think young women grasp that much more readily than did my generation, and I think we raised our girls very, very well.

It's changed so much in the three decades that I've been privileged to take part in this grand evolution, and I think the younger generation is going to do us - and themselves - proud. I watch a good young friend of mine, who is doing very well in his job, beaming with pride as he tells me about how his wife is doing even better in hers - and they're in the same field.

The revolution continues. Don't forget - we've just started. Change takes time, and that old Chinese adage - A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step - has never been more resonant.

That's feminism in a nutshell.

In a way, it does open doors and that is a good thing. But, these people do have disastrous effects. For example, Justice Thomas is the greatest beneficiary ever of Affirmitive Action, he really isn't qualified for the court, but he is vehemently anti-AA. So, the opening doors part of it is exactly what women and minorities need, however too many -like Thomas- are all too willing to shut the door once they have gone through it.

We have a major flaw in our system. CCbombs was on the right track. What happens is that in our system the debate is being framed by a certain group of people. Take Democrats for example. Since the Reagan era our country has been moving far-right in terms of politics, yet most people in their regular lives are more to the left of center. People have started to vote against their own good. This is because, politically the debate is being framed in a manner where politicians have to change in order to get elected, or so goes the theory. I believe they don't need to change they just need to stand up for their convictions, rather than compromising them. In this last election, the big theory was that Bush won because of "moral values." Since then, the Dems freaked out.

Well, if the debate on moral values is being framed by Republicans, we better jump on too, right?

Since then, we've had Hillary Clinton, speaking about this issue in Republican talking points. We've had an anti-choice Democrat, Harry Reid, become Senate Minority leader. There has even been floated out a theory -by some DUers too - that it might be a good idea to go to the Right on women's issues, gay rights, and church-state issues in an attempt to win back the WH and Congress. The idea is, we sacrifice our morals when it comes to rhetoric, but once we get back in power we can undo the damage. Wrong! Once you take that plunge there is no coming back, not at all. If we allow Roe v. Wade to get overturned just so we can eventually win some elections what does that make Dems? How do you women feel about having your rights sold out for the "good" of the party? It's shameful that anybody would even think that, but it is out there.

This is because Republicans have so framed the debate that even Democrats are wanting to sell out just to get back in the game.

Now this applies to gender too. The debate has been so framed by men, especially Republican men, that to get elected or appointed to positions of significance a woman often has to be of a like-minded view. They like Clarence Thomas because he agrees with them. They see a black guy who is against AA so they say:"See, black people, even this guy agrees with us and he's black," Well, Gail Norton and Elaine Chao have been like that too. When has Elaine Chao ever fought for woman's rights on the job? It's her job to do so. But, she doesn't address that there is a pay gap between men and women. So since she doesn't think it's a problem and agrees with men on this issue men will trot her out and say:" See, women, this woman doesn't think it's a problem that you don't get paid the same as men for doing the same job, so it must not be." So typically you will see women and minorities either sell out or compromise just so they can get in the game.

What you need, and I think OLL mentioned it earlier is for progressive women to begin attacking at a lower level. Use electoral politics in an activist manner. If you are a progressive feminist woman, run for school board or city council. If you don't want to run, find another like-minded woman, a friend or someone you know and respect, and get them to run. Back them up, campaign for them. Get your issues out. Get together and make PACs. Once women build a base on a grassroots level you can begin radiating it outwards. It doesn't matter if you are in a conservative stronghold either. Keep attacking and running. Just on name recognition alone people start to vote for you after awhile. Once women start framing the debate on their terms on a local level, the system will start to change. If a state senate has 20 women and 30 men well then you begin to have a debate on your hands. Men better listen otherwise you can start to handcuff legislation. Same as if women hold most of the schoolboard or city council spots. Of course, this isn't easy. It takes time.

Case in point...

The Republicans -actually Right-Wingers- did exactly that for 15 years after Barry Goldwater was blown out by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. They took over local offices and built it up, into Reagan's presidency and then eventually into the Gringrich Revolution and the current control of all 3 branches of government. So, it can be done.

The last aspect is since the debate is framed by men and the system is controlled by men, more men have to speak up for women's rights. Lobby men to your cause. Bombard your state reps, Congressional delegations, local papers, everything with grassroots activism. Write letters, set up meetings, go to forums. Get women together on voting issues. Make men realize that you are half of the voting block. Specifically, you can begin to make Democrats act like Democrats again. Democrats take you women for granted. (minorities too) They take you for granted because the Republican party is so bad on women's issues they know most women would rather vote for anybody other than a Republican. They don't have to fight for your vote. Well, make them. Start threatening to stay home on election day. Start groups up that will register women voters and get together with some issues and say:"if you don't support our cause on this, this, and this, us women are staying home and you can go hit the unemployment line." That's what I would do, if I were you all. Start playing to win. Politics is an all or nothing deal. You get men by the short hairs and you'll start seeing some action quickly.

I rambled on long enough. I could go on all day, but I'll stop before I bore you all. :) Thanks for reading this.

how repukes took over Texas. (Well there was that falling out the oilMEN had with the Democratic ideas of helping all Americans, not just rich ones. Plus they had the big bucks to get this done.)
"The Republicans -actually Right-Wingers- did exactly that for 15 years after Barry Goldwater was blown out by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. They took over local offices and built it up, into Reagan's presidency and then eventually into the Gingrich Revolution and the current control of all 3 branches of government. So, it can be done."

Well, we at the local level are attempting to get candidates for all positions. This is not easy to do but is things actually are changing a scant amount for the better.

Republicans were very good at using simple rhetoric to get elected. Talk tough and say things like "family values," "ownership society" and "tax relief." It all sounds good. Doesn't mean it necessarily is good, but these words register with voters. Rail against the government, hijack the words "liberal" and "feminist" and shamelessly exploit religion. While Democrats on the other hand speak in policy terms and with talking points that barely anybody understands. The Republicans even have fomented an anti-intellectual movement against Democrats. It's pure genius. We have trouble with all of that stuff, so it makes getting elected even harder.

Good to see it's getting better. If we can start making headway in Texas than we can make headway anywhere. Even in my home state of MT, Bush blew away Kerry by 20 points but they elected probably the most progressive Democratic governor in the country and Democtrats took over the legislature for the first time in forever. All on the same ballot. So, there is some hope out there.