Comments on: Ms.stake http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:09:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Emma http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-187661 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:24:09 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-187661 Actually, if I were a Republican I’d be stoking the hero worship for now to ensure that the fall, when it comes, is as huge as it possibly can be.

I read in Politico that Obama wants his economic plan to pass with 80 votes in the Senate — where Dems hold a 59 seat majority (maybe 60 w/Franken?). Turning to the Republicans to shore up his postpartisanship politicking is, IMO, very dangerous. When the economic plan fails, as it must if it’s small enough to garner 80 votes, the Republicans will use it to grease the skids under Obama for 2010 and 2012 and will be play off the impossible expectations that are being encouraged right now. Maybe Obama will make impenetrable Teflon out of all this, Reagan did. But Reagan had the benefit of an economic recovery that Obama will almost certainly not have, and that will almost certainly be as a result of his own right-center politicking.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-187198 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:08:11 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-187198 Hysperia–maybe a 19th C historian or Lincoln scholar will weigh in on this, but what little I know about the 1850s and 1860s, Lincoln was of course tremendously unpopular by comparison to most of our recent Presidents and Obama (except for Bush). He won only a plurality of votes in 1860, no sweeping mandate, and (of course) a whole chunk of the U.S. seceded immediately upon his election. Lincoln’s assassination, and the success of his prosecution of the war, retrospectively burnished Lincoln’s reputation.

I think the Obama worship right now–as over-the-top as it is, is probably 70% due to the fact that Americans, like most of the rest of the world, are excited to get rid of Bush. I share your concerns–the New York Times had on its website earlier a headline asking people about “your hopes for Obama.” His election is historic–but if I were a Republican right now, I would be gagging because of the obvious bias. I don’t recall anything like this on the eve of the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II inaugurations–but I was still very young when Reagan was first inaugurated.

]]>
By: hysperia http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-187147 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:00:12 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-187147 I’m looking for a place to express my amazement – shock, even – about the mania that’s going on over Obama’s inauguration and I picked here – I hope you don’t mind. Millions of people flooding into Washington? Obama underwear on the market? Geez, I live in Canada and my publicly funded radio station, the CBC, is running an “Obama playlist” feature where Canadians can choose songs that suit the occasion. I’m inclined to choose something like “Onward Obama Soldiers”.

This does give me great pause and in some ways, the Ms cover fits right in there, although it could be seen as ironic – though few people will see it that way I presume. It all gives me pause not just because people are going to be disappointed but because I fear that Obama is being so idealized that people will continue to rationalize everything he does – if Obama does it, it must be good.

Many people have tried to say, hey look, he’s just one man and not a particularly progressive leader at that, so keep your eye on that man as you would anyone else. I’m so glad that America is finally getting a black President and no one will be happier than me to see the door hit George Bush’s butt. But why on earth must Obama be deified in order to celebrate that fact? It’s downright scary. Do you think this reflects an American tendency to glorify its leaders when possible, especially when they’ve had a crappy one? Is there historical precedent for this president? He seems to be doing everything he can to play into the istorical Lincoln? Were people this “happy” to see Lincoln’s inauguration, or did his popularity arise only after he’d actually done something?

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-186888 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:38:12 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-186888 Yes, Satsuma: abortion rights (or the reverse) are just political footballs for men on both the Left and the Right. The Right uses abortion to gin up money and enthusiasm in elections, but has no intention of actually doing anything to completely outlaw abortion because that would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Just as anti-abortion people were disappointed that somehow their pet issue was never a priority for Bush or the congress that his party controlled from 2002 to 2006, so pro-choicers will be disappointed by Obama and the Dem congress’s future inaction on this subject. (Or so I predict–but I acknowledge that I am Historiann, not Futuriann!)

ROE ROE ROE was the only argument many Obama supporters had to offer feminists as early as the end of the primaries. Most of us recognize that as a rhetorical bludgeon (or even as a threat) rather than a promise of specific policy fixes.

]]>
By: Satsuma http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-186884 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:30:40 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-186884 Obama will say amazing things behind closed doors. I never once heard him say “I am a feminist” at a large public rally. But privately, I know Bush and company NEVER would have even said that!
Ms. sold out to the Democratic party long ago. After all the feminists viciously attacked Gov. Palin, well I wondered–is the National Organization for Women really only for the National Organization for Liberal Women? I think as women, we can go far beyond meer party labels.
Most liberal men “say” they are feminists, but they don’t DO anything about. Men love to mouth platitudes about abortion rights, because they won’t have to change anything to have this opinion. Doesn’t fool me, and I agree, we shouldn’t be putting men on the cover of Ms. ever. But hey, they are pandering for power…I get it.

]]>
By: Emma http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-186051 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:24:44 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-186051 Ms. says their subscriptions have increased. Which, I think, was the point. There is a real need to be relevant to younger feminists/women. If you’re not, you die. We see it all over the place: feminist bookstores, women’s festivals, newsjournals like off our backs — all dying b/c young women/feminists won’t support them for one reason or another.

Ms. Magazine is doing what every news organization in the US has done: turned coverage of Obama into a moneymaking enterprise. It goes so well with his corporate brand campaign that it’s usually invisible. Ms. Magazine is just in a unique position vis-a-vis older feminists. IMO.

That’s not to say I agree with the cover. I don’t. And I sent my strongly worded letter of criticism to Ms. Magazine. But I’m not going to cancel my subscription, in fact when the time comes, I’ll renew it because there is no other mainstream publication that does what Ms. Magazine does for women and feminism.

I guess, in sum, for me this cover is emblematic of how the unique good feminist institutions do is pretty soundly ignored, but when feminist institutions make the same boneheaded mistakes everybody else makes they’re held to a higher standard, a standard which requires their demise. That’s not right, IMO.

]]>
By: bruce nahin http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-185982 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:15:20 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-185982 It appears to me that Ms Magazine is involved in the media hysteria over Obama. It is almost like an idol worship. The man hasn’t even been installed, hasn’t done anything( nor has his track record in the past indicate that he will)to foster a belief that he is a feminist. The media has fallen in love with this guy( yes lets give him a chance)but the media has placed a very high level of expectation over him- he is not the Messiah, he is not” Change” he is a man and let us look at him with open eyes, opposing when necessary and praising when appropriate- But not worship and stand in awe like some celebrity worship and wishful thinking being projected upon him

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-185838 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:16:49 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-185838 Exactly–not only is the (super)hero-worship overblown (and a little embarrassing, people–what are you, eight years old?), it’s the kind of thing that will set people up for major disappointment when Obama throws them under the bus. They’ll react angrily and personally, and old Dems like me will be forced to pick up the pieces for the party.

We’re all happy Bush is being handed his hat and shown the door. But let’s not forget: the POTUS is a pol and is always a pol. He’s not a hero. He’s not a Messiah. He works for us, but he’ll only work for us IF WE REMIND HIM OF THAT instead of publishing gobsmacked mash notes.

]]>
By: prof bw http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-185330 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:08:57 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-185330 I am concerned with both the Superman pose and the computer generated image. If he won’t stand in the t-shirt himself then he does not belong in one on the cover of any magazine. It feels to me like far too many people have mythologized the man and missed the real one in front of them . . .

]]>
By: hysperia http://www.historiann.com/2009/01/14/msstake/comment-page-1/#comment-185018 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:49:24 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=2976#comment-185018 I agree and I even posted it! Thanks.

]]>