Sunday, May 18, 2008

Prize for most redundant, obvious, title of an article: Hillary is White by Zillah Eisenstein

Which also includes the gem "And here lies the rub. Hillary Clinton presents herself to the electorate as a woman. She argues that she wants to break the glass ceiling of/for gender. But the truth is that she is not simply a woman but both a woman and also white."

More gems: "She presents herself as a woman but her real power here is as white. Misogyny — the fear, hatred, punishment, and discrimination towards women — ensures that Hillary’s privilege is her whiteness."

"As such, Hillary, as a (white) woman pits herself against Barack (as black) with a race so to speak. So Hillary (as a woman) is falsely, wrongly, pitted against Barack (as black)."

"She re-awakens and rewrites the history of 19th century U.S. feminism that pitted black men getting the vote before white women had that right.
More recently, women’s rights rhetoric was used to justify the bombing of the Taliban and brown people in Afghanistan and Iraq. "

If she wasn't so rambling and hysterical (oh! I used the word, so I must be sexist!), sounding like a crazed and not too intelligent radical theorist who's also an acid casualty, she might have some interesting points. That is if she bothered to flesh them out.

Hillary runs as an unspoken white woman. She lives in a misogynist society so she can't be benefiting from being a woman, yet as a woman she's reigniting a feminist tradition that our misogynist society once had.

Which one is it? And why am I bothering to write this? There are no clear answers in sight for these questions.

No comments: