SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Today's Must-read

THE PLANK MARCH 13, 2008

Today's Must-read

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

There have been numerous polemics written by older, pro-Clinton feminist women essentially arguing than any opposition to Hillary Clinton's political interests is per se sexist. I've been waiting for somebody to take apart the illogic, and now Michelle Goldberg has. It's definitely worth a read.

--Jonathan Chait

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 20 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

20 comments

Interesting that TNR hasn't posted anything (outside Wilentz's articles) stating why Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s statement to Rep. John Lewis -- which prompted Lewis to consider changing his superdelegate choice -- was as illogical.  ("You don't want to be the person who stops a man from becoming this country's first black President.")

- scottlooper

March 13, 2008 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Interesting that TNR hasn't posted anything (outside Wilentz's articles) stating why Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s statement to Rep. John Lewis -- which prompted Lewis to consider changing his superdelegate choice -- was as illogical."

So your complaint is that they haven't criticized the statement, aside from the articles they've posted criticizing the statement?  Trenchant.

- FWright

March 13, 2008 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where were Steinem at al when Elizabeth Dole ran for president in 2000? And if it comes down to Obama and Ted Strickland versus, say, McCain and Cathy McMorris-Rogers, will the chorus of Hillarista feminists back the ticket with the woman on it?

The worst of it is that these women-must-vote-Hillary arguments attribute to women the same degree of inability to consider self-interest, the same fundamental irrationality, that has always been the core justification of patriarchal subjugation of women. I mean, the first presidential election in which all women could vote was 1920; women went for Warren Harding by something like 60 percent. To this day, otherwise serious people will tell you that was because women thought Harding was handsome. (I don't know about handsome, but he was a womanizer to put even Bill Clinton to shame.) It doesn't even occur to most people that women might have gone for Harding because Harding led the fight in the Senate for women's suffrage.

The explanation is never that women are considering the issues and making calculated decisions based on what they believe to be a rational assessment of self-interest. It has to be because they're hormonal automata driven by sexual attraction or mass hysteria or social meekness or, yes, gender solidarity.

- rhubarbs

March 13, 2008 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good article. The best part was the link to the Molly Ivins piece . How did I miss that before?!

"I will not support Hillary Clinton for president"

www.freepress.org/.../1304

- chrismealy

March 13, 2008 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, FWright, I should have been more clear:  It's too bad TNR's blogs haven't posted anything ("to post" means "to blog").  TNR's blogs have been conspicuously absent in evenhanded reporting.

That said, I liked -- and agreed with -- this post.  I just want to see them from both sides.

- scottlooper

March 13, 2008 at 7:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I echo chrismealy - thank you for the link to the excellent 2006 piece by Molly Ivins.  

- darieff

March 13, 2008 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kind of funny. It's always a brain-melter to see the Steinems, et al, accusing women of being flighty and irrational.

I know I have a penis, but if a group of self-proclaimed "masculinists" tried to speak for my gender or second guess my "false consciousness" as a male, I'd kick them in the nuts.

- guyminuslife

March 13, 2008 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Good article. The best part was the link to the Molly Ivins piece . How did I miss that before?!

"I will not support Hillary Clinton for president"

www.freepress.org/.../1304"

Yeah:  How about a link to the Molly Ivins column in 2000 where she said she was voting for Nader because

"there wasn't a hair breadths difference between Gore and Bush".

What a  deep thinker she was

- stanmvp48

March 13, 2008 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Scottlooper---you realize most of TNR's editorial staff is in the tank for Obama, right? I suspect it's partly a religious thing----they want absolution for the magazine's original support of the war and other liberal apostasies gone wrong. It's a clean slate.

This:

obamamessiah.blogspot.com

is still hilarious.

- guyminuslife

March 13, 2008 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

guy, that is OK, but it is kind of played out since Stewart used to play Jesus Christ Superstar whenever they used to talk about him. It has been a curious evolution to watch people go into the tank for Obama, remember a year ago he was considered a longshot at best. Hell I flirted with Richardson until he opened his mouth.

To be fair, there are nitwits and ninnies in both camps. True believers are the ones who keep campaigns going, I just don't see how anyone can be a true believer about any politician but that is me. I gave up true believing years ago when Seton Hall got beat by Michigan by one point in OT in 1988. Never again have I ever invested hope in something I couldn't control myself.

- blackton

March 13, 2008 at 10:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, not really, plus who is that Repug running that blog anyway?  

And I really don't get the whole business of complaining about the TNR blogs being unfair.  If you're really that convinced they're unfair, why are you still here?  That's not meant as an insult.  I'm sincerely asking why one would keep coming around a place where you think all the contributors are biased and unfair.  Certainly you can go find a blog or site that's in the tank for Clinton and indulge yourself without all the constant sniping and hectoring?  Or do people just enjoy being puritanical scolds?  

Eh, whatever, the Big 12 tournament offers more intellectual stimulation at this point...

- cspencef

March 13, 2008 at 10:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spence!  A Fellow Big 12-er?  We must have solidarity in the midst of Zengerle's atrocious ACC bias.  Unfortunately those of us living in the Northeast don't get to watch much of the tourney so far.  I caught OSU and Texas Tech this afternoon, and I think the late game was on TV too, but there's nothing tomorrow (ie when the good teams start playing).  Who's your team?

- Crock1701

March 13, 2008 at 11:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh and Blackie, that was 1989.  Danny and the Miracles came from nowhere to win it all in '88.

- Crock1701

March 13, 2008 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton, I somehow missed those episodes. I guess I'm out of the loop. Not that I would know the tunes anyway; I instinctively avoid anything having to do with either Andrew Lloyd Webber or Christianity.

- guyminuslife

March 13, 2008 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton, and just how many things can you actually control yourself?

- anonevent

March 13, 2008 at 11:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article Jonathan, thanks, I'm making sure everyone reads it

- AaronBBrown

March 13, 2008 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

cspencef: I'm not complaining. I voted for Obama. I caucused for Obama. I called up friends and family members to cajole them into voting and caucusing for Obama. I volunteered to be a delegate for Obama at the state senate convention. I'm in the tank for Obama. The site's funny because...well, I like to laugh at myself.

- guyminuslife

March 14, 2008 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

anonevent, my classes, my breakfast, what I will watch on TV tonight. That is about it. I have no disappointments because I make no appointments. Crock, thanks. that was from memory alone don't know why I thought 88, sees like yesterday though. I can still name most of the players.

- blackton

March 14, 2008 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rock Chalk, boys.  Even Repugs love KU.

- butchie b

March 14, 2008 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I loved that article. And I hated that idiot woman on The Daily Show last night, complaining that she'll never see a woman president in her lifetime, and that women who voted for Obama are traitors, etc. It was supposed to be funny, but that part was not. It's not feminist to make illogical, narcissistic arguments, but the opposite. I'm now a sexist/racist, in that I hate white women. Not all white women, of course; Michelle Goldberg has proven her worth. I'm also one of the good ones. But as a group, absolutely. Guilty until proven innocent. Thanks, gals!

- psantillana

March 15, 2008 at 5:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close