I would love to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States, and I would love to see the United States follow the lead of so many other countries -- to finally catch up -- in electing a woman who is as qualified for the position as anyone. Yet it would be the combination of gender and political acumen that reflects my own politics that ultimately drives my decision about who will get my vote, and some of Senator Clinton's stances are not aligned with my own values.
I've also been very inspired by the charismatic rhetoric of Senator Barack Obama, and I've watched in wonder as the cult of Obama gained momentum. What Senator Obama lacks in political experience, which is a lot, he more than makes up for in his refined ability to communicate in a visionary way that sweeps up mainstreamers as well as progressives who yearn for a sharp break from the often-incoherent, almost always downright mean, short-sighted, old-guard and Neocon-serving Bush administration.
But over the past year, I've watched in increasing discomfort as the misogyny that had been bubbling beneath the surface started to show itself more clearly and disturbingly. While we're all used to the ignorant and vehement spew coming from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his parrot-like 'Ditto Heads', the significantly more disturbing misogyny has come from the white, often (but not always) male 'progressive' Obama champions, revealing a projection of unhealed, subterranean 'issues' with Feminine power.
A recent and very public example was the recent scandal involving former Obama adviser, Samantha Powers, in which she called Senator Clinton "a monster". To her credit, she immediately realized the absurdity and inappropriateness of the remark and apologized, though ended up resigning, too. There are other examples, as well.
A thirty-something Salon.com journalist wrote about this phenomenon in the young, affluent, privileged demographic, in her article, "Hey, Obama Boys: Back Off Already!" (link below).
In her article, reporter Rebecca Traister writes about the younger generation of women in their twenties and early thirties, coming from affluent, privileged circumstances and considering themselves conveniently 'post-feminist', who are getting their first conscious taste of the misogyny that women in their forties and onward are, thanks to time and experience, unfortunately more familiar with.
Traister writes about the 'cult of Obama' drawing in the twenty and thirty-something young men from the same demographic, and the growing unease of their partners, girlfriends, and female classmates regarding the sexism inherent in the 'Hillary Bashing' tirades that seem to come with the Obama worshipping. Traister and the women she interviews note that it's not just the unquestioning, glazy eyed nature of the young men who support Obama, but the vehemence and sometimes violent language with which they loathe Senator Clinton, who would be just about their mother's age.
Yet it isn't just the twenty-and-thirty-something white, progressive young men who exhibit this disturbing public display of projected 'Mommy rage' and male entitlement as they gleefully unload on Hillary, and veil their misogyny between slices of progressive, pro-Obama language. More than a few self-described progressive men in their forties and fifties have also exhibited the same aversion to being led by a strong, smart, unapologetically political women, as revealed in strong anti-Hillary stances and potent rhetoric.
Traister's article and the primary campaign reveals the backlash to what's called the 'second-wave feminism' led by women like Gloria Steinem has created generations of younger women, and sometimes men, who are apologetic about their feminism, or refuse to use the word at all ... refusing to stand for their beliefs for fear of being shouted down. Thankfully, there were several generations of women -- as there were people in other civil and human rights movements -- who had the courage and strength of conviction to stand for those values even in the face of violence that accompanied the public ridicule and intense pressure to conform.
The backlash -- and the resulting inclination to shrink, apologize, and conform -- is what has made it possible for misogyny to hide itself, veil itself, and flourish none-the-less.
The Democratic primary campaign, and the negative outbursts and reactions to Senator Hillary Clinton, shine the light on the elephant in the middle of the room, or, more aptly, the seemingly benevolent emperor who stands with no clothes to hide his true colors. It's not just about being for another candidate, it's about the vehemence, language choices, and energy with which people attack Senator Clinton.
It's an interesting phenomenon to watch, as a woman born at the cusp of the 'Baby Boom' and 'Generation X' timeframe, and thus the 'sandwich' generation between the 'second-wave' feminism of Gloria Steinem and the dawning awakening of the generation of young women who, in the smugness and ignorance of youth and privilege, thought themselves beyond and above 'unnecessary' feminism.
In this 'in between' generation, we have enough maturity and personal experience of it to know that sexism and misogyny have been alive and well, and the closer proximity to the Steinem feminists to stand for a culture and a world in which fairness and the dignity of all beings is a hallmark (and misogyny is absent). We know we'd be lying if we declared sexism and misogyny dead.
Yet we also remember the comfortable smugness of our younger days, when we smartly distanced ourselves from the 'angry Women's Lib' generation but didn't have a clue that they had a few good reasons to be ticked off, and we were actually just shrinking from the backlash we'd seen them receive.
And we knew, and know, while the first- and second-wave feminists did the hard work of changing law and policy to allow women the vote and entry into greater opportunities for work, it's time for third- and fourth-wave feminists -- or humanists, perhaps -- to stand up, stand out, and speak out about the elephant-emperor in the middle of the room, and for crucial values of fairness, equity, dignity, wellbeing, compassion, and respect.
What we also know, whether we've wanted to acknowledge and confront it or not (usually not), is that more than a handful of our beloved self-proclaimed 'progressive' male partners, friends, colleagues, and cohorts have their own simmering 'Mommy Rage' despite rhetoric about 'reclaiming their inner-Feminine' (though you have to applaud the intention and effort - it's a beginning). One conversation in which you're on the receiving end of a simmering glare for speaking of women and the Feminine makes it clear that something unhealed, and often still disowned, festers disturbingly below the surface.
At a Women's Leadership Revival gathering last year in San Francisco, orchestrated by Meg Wheatley's organization, a woman shared with me her frustration at the veiled, unacknowledged sexism of the progressive men she worked with. Because they thought of themselves as progressive and beyond the more chest-thumping misogyny of the Cult of Rush Limbaugh, they were blind to the ways they, themselves, acted in misogynistic ways, often subtly, and were not open to any discussion of it. Other women have shared similar stories about coworkers, colleagues, and partners. She voiced frustration at the block to progress and real dialogue and collaboration that pattern created.
One of my colleagues, who is a counselor, uses the language of symbolism and metaphor to describe the phenomenon of these wonderful, loving, progressive men who project out their disowned, unhealed Feminine: "Men are very uncomfortable holding the orb of their own Moon, and so tend to spike it over the net like a volleyball to their (female) partners (or colleagues). So the women are there, juggling these two Moons -- their own, and the one their partner has projected onto them -- as their beloveds are relieved from the responsibility of owning their Feminine and fessing up to their own unhealed-Feminine projections."
There is good reason for that pattern of projected Feminine. The cultural critic bell hooks writes convincingly and compassionately about the roots of masculine separation from their Lunar natures (see the article below), and thus their own wholeness.
The fact remains that unhealed projections are exactly what we've seen and heard in an unfortunate abundance in the media coverage and private conversations during this primary season. Given the disastrous legacy of President Bush's reign, we might all be more cautious of what happens, and the suffering that ensues, when unhealed family drama makes its way to a public stage.
Perhaps Senator Hillary Clinton is doing far more of a cultural service than she even recognizes, by bringing this issue and the unacknowledged male rage, entitlement, and fear of the Feminine and strong women, their unresolved anger at their own mothers (and their own disowned Feminine), and the impossible double- (or triple, or quadruple) standards that are, as a result, projected onto women, into the light. It does far more damage hiding in the darkness and projecting itself outward in unhealthy and unholy ways. What we can see, we can acknowledge and work to heal.
Read Rebecca Traister's enlightening, and disturbing, Salon.com article here.
For a related article -- Women, Men, Patriarchy and Sacred Relationship -- follow this link.
Beltane, or May Day, celebrates the beginning of Summer on ancient calendars, and marks the halfway point between the Spring Equinox and the Summer Solstice. Spring has sprung, and Summer is on its way.
Recent Comments