DISQUS

heartsandflowers Well I don't think making a comment obligates me to engage in an entire discourse when the person raising objections already says they've studied the subject thoroughly (feminism), focuses on part of my comment "feminist industrial complex", compares it to something that has a different set of parameters (the military) and ignores the bulk of my position: which is that a lot of white women use "feminism" when it's convenient but are not necessarily interested in equality. But since you INSIST: Hence the infamous Steinem article from Jan 08 about how sexism trumps racism when she supported HIllary and used the media to display her anger and huge sense of entitlement that it was a (white) woman's turn...just because.

Let's go down the list: Joan Walsh, Geraldine Ferraro and a host of other white women all said the same thing and this was during the time the Clintons started race baiting. Ferraro took it even further and blamed Black people (focusing on Black male reporters claiming NO ONE talked about sexism and were giving their tacit approval of it). It backfired for many reasons, one of which is that there are women who are Black and we were not even brought into the conversation but we were attacked and insulted. Another reason is that is simply wasn't true: plenty of Black people talked about and denounced sexism but that got in the way of their whining about how unfair it was to compete on a level playing field.

They wanted deference, they wanted to fall back on their white privilege. So when I use "industrial complex" it is intentional because when you tie something around a cloak of privilege you are benefitting from it and profiting from it. Look at how many Blacks are in the Senate or Governors (zero). Look who got themselves attached to Affirmative Action after all the blood had been shed. Do some research that isn't based on a privileged white-centric class-specific perspective.

If one's mind has already made up why would I wish to argue about a subject?

Look at who is presenting this latest ridiculous story about how FLOTUS Obama must be "giving something up" or is somehow diminished. It doesn't take the historical context of those descended from slaves value the traditional family structure. Our ancestors weren't allowed to have one. Not when you were legally defined as 3/5s of a person and listed on property records next to the cows. Not after Emancipation when the backlash resulted in mass lynchings of men, women and children. Not when the main source of employment for a Black woman last century was to be a domestic, raising somebody else's kids, working 16 hour days for as much as $2/hr 6 days/week. Often sexual abuse was going on there as well as further continuance of the rape of enslaved women (Don't believe me: go do some research and check the census records). Of course we weren't considered "real" women. Both parents HAD to work, not because the women felt the need to be liberated or the men
were lazy but because it was a matter of survival.

It was white women who wanted "liberation". Black women wanted to the boot off the neck first. Meanwhile they still enjoyed all the privileges that befit their status under white male supremacy. First wave to present when push comes to shove the leader of the day choose their advancement at the expense of anything else. Michelle Obama chose to have a family, chose to support her husband and choosing to make her own path. She is not Hillary. Her ambition and desire for power do not drive her. She is not competing against her husband. She did not choose a weak willed man who will embarrass her with public disclosure of his numerous indiscretions. They are not elite. They are just ordinary people in an extraordinary situation.

Your response is rather provocative and takes away from a serious matter. I don't think using a sexual analogy is appropriate if you are actually interested in having a real conversation.

Liza Diamond thanks G.D. I think I raised some good points, too, and it makes me happy to think someone's got my back.

And you've got a great blog.

rikyrah No, I don't think that they have been clear and honest about gay marriage and it's ramifications. I don't believe they have honestly engaged the Black community, and dealt with the culturally specific opposition to gay marriage from within the Black community. Do I ever believe that there will be a time when gay marriage is supported by 70% of the Black community? no. Do I believe a 50/50 split is possible? Yes. And, if they get just a 50/50 split, I believe that a number of these heinous amendments would be defeated.

G.D. And do you think proponents of gay marriage have not been honest or clear about their reasons for supporting it?

rikyrah actually, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I would never vote to amend any constitution to limit the rights of others.

rikyrah pretty much. I do think I'm not the only one with those questions and possible misconceptions, and I think it's up to those who propose Gay Marriage to answer such questions clearly and honestly.

NMP Admiral? How about cowardly? They've been bitched slapped by the McCain Campaign, so they are afraid to state the obvious.

Anderkoo I actually agree. I'm not sure how much harder the MSM can push before it hits backlash. It was crucial that Katie Couric -- not some old white man -- be exposing this BS. And just let it sit there and smell bad. If we pick it up and throw it at her, we're just getting poop on our hands.

Americans can smell the stink on their own. Let McCain change the diaper, don't do it for him.

Atalanta But isn't that the problem? That most people in the country do *not* get The New Yorker's arch tone. If you take off the words "The New Yorker" from the picture you are left with something so far from satire as to be racist and disgusting. In other words, the 'satire' in this picture depends entirely upon understanding the nature of the publisher. I'm originally from Colorado - the majority of people out there do not read The New Yorker - they aren't going to know its editorial bent, and without that context, you have no satire whatsoever.
Wasn't there an instance not so long ago where 'Harry Potter is an evil influence' people picked up on an article in The Onion, and, not understanding the nature of The Onion, circulated the story as fact? I just went and checked and Wikipedia has a whole list of Onion articles being re-reported as fact. That is the danger of this highly offensive cover. The picture is *not* satire in and of itself. It is an offensive, racist, xenophobic depiction of Senator and Mrs. Obama.

The Bag of Health and Politics It visually depicts the smears, which means that cable news can cover it and they can get into a wider audience. The New Yorker, like the rest of the left, is assuming a victory, so they can try to boost their anemic circulation by creating controversy.

Michelle You don't think this cartoon is highlighting the ridiculous of the cryptomuslim/anti-American assertions

I myself don't -- See my comment below about satire.

It just does not do this work you name. It doesn't "highlight the ridiculous" of anything. It doesn't have anything to it that does that work.

Doing that would require way more insight that this has. It would require actual work and analysis, not just straight out using others' trash in an image.

If you're here just to argue, though, I don't want to go any further in discussion with you than this reply. Maybe you're not but if that's your thing I don't have energy for it, just so you know.

CraigHickman In Barack's case, it's not pandering at all.

It's who he is.