I almost swallowed my teeth.
Susan Faludi has an editorial in the NYTimes essentially saying that Obama is a wimp, and that she is happy about it.
Faludi’s theory is that we are beyond the macho paridigm (she uses a statue “the rescue” of a man protecting his wife and newborn from a Native American attack as an example of that paradigm). No, no macho needed. What we really need is a “new man” as President.
Actually, what Faludi wrote is:
Senator Obama, for his part, will not be cast as the avenging hero in â€œThe Rescueâ€ any time soon â€” and not because of the color of his skin or his lack of military experience. He doesnâ€™t seem to want the role….. If Mr. Obamaâ€™s candidacy seeks to move beyond race, it also moves beyond gender. A 20-minute campaign Web documentary showcased a President Obama who would exude â€œa real sensitivityâ€ and â€œempathyâ€ and provide a world safe for the American motherâ€™s son. Mr. Obama is surrounded in the video by pacifist â€” not security â€” moms.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Oh, we hate war, we’re for peace. Right.
But if there is one thing I learned as a physician in a civilian hospital during a civil war in Africa was that just because you support peace and refuse to take sides doesn’t mean you are safe. There are evil people out there who don’t play by the rules of polite society.Â And sometimes they will kill you just because you are for peace, and they figure you won’t fight back.
You know, like in Rwanda, or in Srebrenica…
Faludi’s defense of the post macho Obama doesn’t stop with Republicans. Hillary is just as bad:
Hillary Clintonâ€™s candidacy showed that a woman, too, can play the tough-guy protector. But Mr. Obama takes the iconoclasm a step further â€” by suggesting that martial swagger isnâ€™t what America needs anymore.
Pshaw. If we old fashioned pre 1970 feminists rejected the macho paradigm described by Faludi, it was not because we were pacifists, but because we were like the pioneer women who worked next to their husbands and were able to fight off the bad guys just as well as any man.
You know: like Boudicca? OrÂ Hazrat Aisha Siddiqah?
And one cannot imagine any of America’s enemies saying: let’s attack America because they have a weak woman as president. Because Hillary would defend her country with a ferocity of a lady tiger.
But Obama? What happens when someone decides they aren’t afraid of tea and sympathy?
Faludi is really saying is that feminism no longer means strong women like Hillary Clinton should be the leaders of America.
No, now, feminism means that women are supposed to shut and and be led by a man.
And not a man who would fight to protect them, but by one who rejects “martial swagger”; and who”exude(s) â€œa real sensitivityâ€ and â€œempathyâ€ and provide a world safe for the American motherâ€™s son.”
Gee, that really makes me feel safe.
———————————————
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. She writes on Human rights at Makaipablog.
1 user commented in " Faludi, Obama, and The End of Feminism "Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback
In nature, pacifists die. The only reason they don’t in our modern world is because they use the aggression and voilence of others to protect them. Example. Someone comes to my house and smashes my windows and threatens to burn my house down, rape and kill my wife and kids. So I pull out my super duper fully auto assault rifle and kill em all….voilent bastard that I am. Pasifist refuses to employ voilence so gets to watch his house burn and his wife and kids get arse raped and butchered. Hey, but wait a min…..there is a non voilent solution……he can call the cops…..cops come….they arrest the scumbag……no probs. But what if scumbag wont go quitely…..thats easy…..cops will draw guns and give him a chance to surrender or blow him away….mmmmm…..so he is either forced to surrender by threat of voilence……or …..actually suffers the voilence of being blown away……all the while the pasifist gets to sit in holier then thou fashion and claim pacifist moral superiority. All any pacifist does is rely on the voilence of others……or threat of voilence from others to avoid having to be voilent themselves. This is how anybody who is not aggressive or voilent lives. It’s the same as saying your opposed to killing animals while you bog into that nice juicy steak……your only apposed to you having to do your own dirty work…….pacisfists are nothing but cowards…….hiding behind moral arguments. If someone shoplifts…..how can they be arrested unless someone is prepared to use voilence against them…..if they can just say…stuff you……and walk away……with the goods….unless someone is actually willing and able to put their hands on that persona and prevent them from leaving…..they can just do as they choose…..it is only the threat of voilence and the willingness and ability to carry out that threat that makes society possible……without it…their would be no civilisation possible.