Ellen Bravo: Why So Many Feminists Are Deciding to Vote for Barack Obama

I'm so sick of feminists. I am female, but I just HATE them. They don't want equals for the sexes, they are nothing but crazy ladies galoping around,wanting woman to control EVERYTHING, then, STILL complain!

. . .

I am voting for obama because I find him inspirational and smart. He seems to be open minded and I like the contrast from bush who seems arrogant. I wish al gore would endorse Obama. As for feminism I think if that is what interests folks then good for them and that not all feminists are control freaks, some see injustices, and that motivates them to take action.

There's something truly weird about this "jumping on the bandwagon" approach to Obama. How does it work?
Does a person think, "Heck! If this group says he okay, he must be! I'll vote for him, too!"?
Does the Media feed into it and make it an even bigger monster machine? Wait. I know this one.
I'll continue to listen to individuals about who they're thinking of voting for. Doing it as a form of mass hysteria is unhealthy. I still don't know enough about him.
He's a "Dr. Phil" to me. All style and no substance.

GO HILLARY!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVeAljehuC8

steadward;

I think what you're referring to are the radical feminists, which, like any group, get the most air time for being the most loud/ obnoxious.
I'm under the distinct impression that feminism is about equality of the sexes, which, obviously, should be everyone's default mindset...I wouldn't equate feminists with feminazis (who are blatantly sexist harpies, no better than their male counterparts).

Back on topic...yeah. Given the recently narrowed choices for a Democratic president, I'm all for Obama.
So yay!

...does'nt matter, I'm in the UK...wait, I also have bad leaders of parties...oh, uh.

THANK YOU. SOMEBODY knows what shame is cast on my boobies.

i voted ron paul.

the media called him crazy and the sheeple listened. damn shame.

i suggest everyone google the following things:
-The Amero
-The National ID card
-The 1959 Freedom Bill
-Net Neutrality

I sure hope our next president does not intend to promote any of these things.

Well I would most definitely disagree with you in terms of net neutrality. In order for the WWW to continue to be a source of free flowing information we need to fight the gigantic media corporations that are seeking to privatize the web and utilize a tiered system of access. We cannot trust the corporations to keep our press 'free'; this seems obvious to anyone who watches MSM coverage of anything. Keeping the net 'neutral' is something that I believe we have to fight for and something that Obama has stated he will protect if he is elected. Anyone interested in the issue of net neutrality should check out this site: www.savetheinternet.com.

there's something you're forgetting though, darlini76... big government is in bed with big business.

As a man I loathe Hillary Clinton not so much because she is power-hungry, but because she epitomises so many wealthy women who talk about 'human rights' and 'equality', but in reality have been able to put these aside in a heartbeat to get what they want.

Women like Hillary (and I include many business women that I have met too) took the shortest route possible to their only true interests power and wealth.
I know of, and have met, many Hillary types who I know have slept/ flirted their way up the corporate ladder; who will promote women above men in the workplace; who blame 'men in striped suits' when their incompentence gets them fired, and who sit in senior roles in companies who routinely treat their workforce (male and female) like dirt.

Yet if there is anything these wealthy women have in common is their undying hatred of men, and blind pursuit of wealth. They are the ones who jumped on the money-spinning child-abuse bandwagon of the 1990's; and safe upon this moral high ground, were able to spill out their vitriolic, misandyst diatribes.

Worse still, feminism (and I make a specific distinction between feminism and women) has not given any positive economic benefits at all. Despite the various female entrepreneurs, feminism simply replaces one abuser with another. Which leads me onto a key point here, and that is how many poor people and low income women choose to identify with Hillary and they really shouldn't at all. After all, women like Hillary are wealthy and live in the Hamptons. Women like Hillary have sat on the board of WalMart, a company made infamous for its treatment of workers (see the doco: Walmart - The High Price of Low Cost).

Men and women truly concerned with equality, should avoid her like a plague. Feminism is not, and has never been, a benefit to society; it is a cancer that eats away at it, and will be to our ultimate downfall.

Concerned more with strong families, cohesion and improved standards of living, the societies and economies of the east (China, India, Russia, the Mid East) will rise to overtake our own. It seems they will remain unconcerned with, and untouched by, the poison of feminism. And they will continue to look on in bemusement as Western society finally tears itself apart while we wonder how, like Rome, we rotted and died from within.

And, in terms of feminism, I am surprised by the level of hostility being showcased here. Are there no sane and logical people reading this thread? There are obvious problems with feminism--especially the second wave of the 1960s-70s due to a lack of attention to race and class. The feminist movements of the second wave were very narrowly targeted to white, middle to upper class, educated women and did neglect the gay rights movement and issues affecting women of color and women in developing countries. Feminism has its issues.

However, making comparisons between feminism and cancer or poison is, at the very least, faulty logic. At the worst it is just feeding into the misogyny that is so evident and still alive in this country. Just watch the ways in which Senator Clinton is covered in the press. The male candidates do not get hours devoted to whether or not their emotions are a strength or a hindrance, people don't ask them questions about their hairstyles or how they find time to make themselves pretty in the morning, or whether or not their fashion choices are making them seem too 'cold' or 'too feminine' before the voters. The misogyny here is overwhelming. The attitude toward Senator Clinton is one of disrespect on one end and pure hatred on the other. She is the only candidate constantly referred to by her first name while male candidates are referred to by their last names--a show of respect. What this shows is that some form of feminism is more necessary than ever.

Feminism, like any political movement, is imperfect. There are 'femi-nazi's' out there who take the concept of equality so far it becomes ridiculous. However, applying your dislike of Senator Clinton to the concept of feminism is reductive and silly. Hillary Clinton does not = feminism and vice versa. The impetus behind feminism is simply that women are human beings as well who should enjoy the same rights and privileges of men. There is nothing poisonous or cancerous about that concept and if this country rots from within it will not be for as simplistic a reason as feminism.

If you honestly believe that feminism is more of a threat to humanity than pre-emptive war, fundamentalist religions of all stripes and the greed-induced death of our planet, then I would venture to say your single minded and ignorant focus is distracting you from the real issues.

I may or may not vote for Clinton. I intended to vote for Edwards or Kucinich but now that both are out of the race, I will need to make a new choice between Obama and Clinton--a choice I will make not based on gender or race but on research and my own hopes that the right the choice can save the country I used to be proud to be a citizen of. My decision does not need to be made until May in my state so I am taking that time to read up on voting records and to study the issues and each candidates work in each of the areas that matter to me. I will not base my decision on who is or is not a 'feminist'. I will base my decision on who I think will make the best leader. Spewing ignorant and un-researched vitriol about a political movement that has benefited many Americans--female or not, is not going to do us any good come election time. And trading hate-filled anti-feminist rhetoric online is also not going to help.

Rombiemachine I am not sure what that has to do with the main issue of net neutrality in a specific sense. There is no doubt that big business is in bed with gov't--as evidenced by the amount of control lobbyists have over legislation. Net neutrality is a specific issue and one in which we, as citizens concerned with media, need to fight and protect. I, for one, am not ok with a company like Comcast controlling access to websites by limiting bandwidth to those who cannot pay as much and giving more bandwidth to their own business partners--who most likely share their political agenda. Media is the most powerful force in contemporary society and I personally feel we need to keep access neutral if we don't want to let the internet become just another cable channel.

Darlini, there is nothing 'hate-filled' about it at all, and your reaction is, forgive me for saying, a kneejerk one. You are right in that unfortunately, there are many people these days who are on the one hand criticising women for the wrong suit or haircut, and on the other, and just as badly, criticising any who criticise women for whatever reason. And I'm sorry to say that those women who are at the top are as equally venal and corrupt as men (giving the lie to the idea that women make better leaders because of a nurturing instinct that is regularly touted by most business and political leaders who call themselves feminists). Equality is someting everyone should strive for, and if feminism was concerned about that in the 1960's and 70's, then it was rapidly hijacked early on and led by the very women who mouthed its arguments but sought only power, wealth and vengeance against men. The fact that women have benefited in terms of a greater degree of opportunity was, and remains, a side-benefit to those people. There are many who would say, and rightly so, that the pendulum has swung too far and that the descrimination of men is routineley ignored or belittled. As Obama said, and eloquently too, a house divided cannot stand. And it is the peope who led and corrupted feminism, the intellectual and wealthy leaders of feminism, who are, and remain, a cancer in this society, and who must be ruthlessly excised from it. Equality is something every right-minded person should strive for, and I admire your conviction in choosing the next leader objectively. Sadly, it is my experiece and those of many other men in the world of work or fatherhood that while lipservice is paid to objectivity, the reality is that it is precisely those unobjective, misandrist women like Hillary who sabotage equality to feed their own secret hatred of men. That alone, in my view, disqualifies her for being a President. We need a leader for everyone, all creeds, colours and both genders. Not just the one.