Will charges against Assange split feminism?

I can only but 100 percent agree with Australian website Crikey, and against at least a certain subgroup of gender feminists such as Stephanie Zvan (and, in her case, apparent in thrall boyfriend Greg Laden) on this issue.

These moves are evidence of the situation your correspondent suggested in Crikey yesterday — that the Assange case is proving to be the final process by which the second-wave feminist coalition formed in the late 1960s splits substantially, with feminists with differing attitude to Western state power finding themselves on different sides of the debate.

Given that this certain subgroup of gender feminists appears intent on making the apparent but not necessarily actual charges against Assange, and absolute support of them, a litmus or purity test, yes, it could well split feminists — especially if one of the two original complainants is backing off.

So, has Ardin been brainwashed by some portion of the patriarchy? Has Counterpunch's Matrix hero gotten to her with the patrio-matrix? Did the patriarchy spirit her out of Sweden? If Anna Ardin is indeed not cooperating with Swedish authorities, and is not even in the country, isn't that because she fears a patriarchial Swedish government, not Julian Assange? (And I can get snarkier.)

And, while Laden claims that he does think the U.S. government is out to get Assange, he also, judging by his animus against Assange, might not necessarily think that's bad.

(By the way Ms. Zvan, the claim that this two-day-old when you linked it Guardian story proves he was charged in a legal sense does no such thing; the reporter uses "charge" and "allegations" interchangeably. You're obviously blinded by your fundamentalism.)

Hillary lost because of the speech she did not give

That’s Nick Kristof’s very interesting theory. Kristof, who can provoke good thought in me even when I disagree with him, says Hillary Clinton should have given a speech on sex similar to the one Barack Obama did in race.

In fact, he considers the matter so important, he calls on Obama to now give the speech Clinton didn’t. (An even better idea might be for Clinton to give that speech at the Democratic National Convention.)

Kristof has several talking points about the need for this speech, too:

Racism is deeper, but sexism may be wider in America today. In polls, more Americans say they would be willing to vote for a black candidate for president than for a female candidate, and sexist put-downs are heard more publicly than racial ones.

That’s probably true even once you allow for the Tom Bradley effect. Beyond that, the fact that there is no “Geraldine Ferraro effect” that has to get factored in for polling about women candidates underscores Kristof’s bottom line.

We aren’t always aware of our own biases. Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are sure that she was defeated by misogyny, while those who voted against her invariably are dismissive. … The catch is that abundant psychology research shows that we are often shaped by stereotypes that we are unaware of.

Or, we get committed enough to our biases to defend them and argue for them.

A conservative may end up the first woman president. The first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, wasn’t “very Catholic.” In the same way, the first black president probably won’t be “very black,” either in complexion or in any personal history with the civil-rights struggle.

Beyond that, a liberal black like Randall Kennedy might say “so” to the idea that a conservative black could be elected before Obama. I would hope women would say the same.

He’s got more thoughts on the issue at this very good column.

Will Obama be reading?

Hillary as standard-bearer for women fighting uphill against Obama

Amanda Fortini has an excellent article on Clinton and her role in leading a feminist resurgence in this month’s New Yorker.

First, Fortini does an excellent job of detailing how much sexism is still tolerated.

Take the “Iron my shirts” crack shouted at Clinton on the campaign trail. Fortini notes that USA Today talked about the “seemingly sexist” nature of the incident. If something similar of a racial nature had happened at an Obama rally, would it have been called “seemingly racist”? I doubt it.

And, speaking of that, we haven’t had any such incident at an Obama rally. Nobody has said “Fetch me some watermelon” at an Obama rally.

Whether racism or sexism is more pervasive, sexism is clearly still more publicly pervasive.

Later, Fortini wonders aloud whether or not Clinton should give a “gender address” similar to Obama’s “race address.”

Fortini notes that’s not Clinton’s style and it would probably backfire anyway.

I’ll add that it’s probably way too late, anyway. First, from a narrowly political view, it would have looked copycat following too closely on Obama’s. She needed to do it before that. Second, attitudes have hardened enough it just wouldn’t be that effective.

Finally, beyond the hollow victory of Clinton revitalizing feminism, you have the irony and more of her appearing to have gotten where she is on the coattails of her husband. Second, she is polarizing, and not just because she’s a woman, or because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife.

That said, it’s a double dose of hypocrisy in all the conservative attacks on her when no Republican woman has ever made a bid for the presidency.

Feminists are sexy

That’s the word from two Rutgers researchers:

Feminism was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women, they found, while men with feminist partners reported more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.

Doesn’t get much simpler than that, does it?

No wonder Southern evangelical Protestants have a divorce rate higher than the national average.