Mindless Conformity Is Not An Option
Jun. 4th, 2008 08:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wlotusSenator Clinton did not concede the race last night, even though it appears Senator Obama has enough delegates to assume the party nomination. She thanked her supporters for all of their hard work through all of the primaries and said now that the primaries are done, she will give serious thought to what to do next. I am glad she didn't concede. She has made me proud to be a woman of intelligence and convictions, who does not bow to peer pressure when her convictions tell her to stand and fight.
Some people have suggested Senator Obama should take her on as a running mate. If he offers, I hope she declines. For too long, powerful, intelligent women have had to settle for a supporting role behind men without their same qualifications. I would hate to see her play that role with Obama. Let him stand alone on the weakness of his platform, one built on emotionalism rather than intelligent, concrete solutions. Why should her strength and intelligence and ideas be used to make him look good? She would do far better to either run as an independent or remain completely silent regarding his campaign. In fact, since running as an independent might be a career-limiting move--the old boy network would treat her worse than they did in the primary, by painting her in an even more negative light and doing more to sabotage her career--remaining silent would at least allow her career to continue.
Then again, why do women always have to choose between silence/appeasement and abuse? Why can't women, like men, stand up for themselves and still be able to further their careers?
Some say unity is the most important thing, so we should put our differences behind us and all support the Democratic party's choice. There is a problem with that idea of "unity": if we don't continue to speak up against what we know will harm us in the long term, when do we get to speak? Do we wait until things are so bad that fixing the situation is impossible? Why should we remain silent when we are convinced the country is headed in the wrong direction? If anything, NOW is the time when we MOST need to speak out and follow our convictions in a different direction from those who claim they want unity. We need to go our own way for the good of the nation, for the sake of freedom of speech which cannot be legislated away, according to our constitution. That freedom is the bigger picture, here, and shutting up in the name of "unity" will leave that bigger picture in the dark, rather than illuminating it for the sake of those who have eyes to see.
For some of us who were able to recognize Senator Clinton as the more qualified candidate and relate to her solutions for this country's ills, it doesn't matter whether McCain or Obama wins in November; both are just as bad. With one caveat: at least we know where McCain stands on the issues. We don't know where Obama stands, because all he has given are vague statements full of sound bytes contrived to play on emotions, rather than stimulate our brains. The thought of waiting until he is in office to find out just how undecided or, worse yet, opposed to certain issues he is frightens me. If I wasn't determined to write in Clinton in November, I would consider voting for McCain; at least with him I'd already know how bad things could get, rather than getting a nasty surprise under a man who is an unknown quantity.
And then there is the sexism in the way this all played out. The media and other talking heads were pressuring Senator Clinton to drop out months ago, long before Obama had enough delegates to claim victory. I do not believe they would have done that to a man. Instead, they would have applauded his strength in the face of adversity. (I won't even get into the sexism of how Clinton was torn apart for any and every aspect of her deportment.) And many of us know full well that if Clinton was a first-term senator who spent a good chunk of that term on the campaign trail instead of in the senate chambers, who was known for making speeches rich in emotion but poor in content, she would not have been able to get her campaign off the ground, let alone clinch the party nomination.
The fact is a lot of people would rather be subject to a man of any color than to a woman, and they are willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of stuff in order to make that happen.
So, you can keep your cries for unity*. Just like you are boldly standing up for what you believe in, I will do the same, and I refuse to be ashamed for doing so. I should only be ashamed, if I allow peer pressure to silence me when my convictions are telling me to stand up for what is right. Freedom of expression (what is left of it in this country) gives me the right to do so, and I will continue to use that right for however long it continues to be available to me. Expecting dissenters to shut up already and get behind what they oppose is spitting in their faces and in the face of freedom of expression. That is far more tragic than a split party could ever be. At least in a split party each side is able to make their voices heard. Bullying dissenters into silence makes the party and country begin to resemble a dictatorship, and I love my freedoms and my country far too much to silently let that happen.
*By the way, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, one of the definitions of unity is "a thing forming a complex whole". That doesn't sound like conformity, to me.
Some people have suggested Senator Obama should take her on as a running mate. If he offers, I hope she declines. For too long, powerful, intelligent women have had to settle for a supporting role behind men without their same qualifications. I would hate to see her play that role with Obama. Let him stand alone on the weakness of his platform, one built on emotionalism rather than intelligent, concrete solutions. Why should her strength and intelligence and ideas be used to make him look good? She would do far better to either run as an independent or remain completely silent regarding his campaign. In fact, since running as an independent might be a career-limiting move--the old boy network would treat her worse than they did in the primary, by painting her in an even more negative light and doing more to sabotage her career--remaining silent would at least allow her career to continue.
Then again, why do women always have to choose between silence/appeasement and abuse? Why can't women, like men, stand up for themselves and still be able to further their careers?
Some say unity is the most important thing, so we should put our differences behind us and all support the Democratic party's choice. There is a problem with that idea of "unity": if we don't continue to speak up against what we know will harm us in the long term, when do we get to speak? Do we wait until things are so bad that fixing the situation is impossible? Why should we remain silent when we are convinced the country is headed in the wrong direction? If anything, NOW is the time when we MOST need to speak out and follow our convictions in a different direction from those who claim they want unity. We need to go our own way for the good of the nation, for the sake of freedom of speech which cannot be legislated away, according to our constitution. That freedom is the bigger picture, here, and shutting up in the name of "unity" will leave that bigger picture in the dark, rather than illuminating it for the sake of those who have eyes to see.
For some of us who were able to recognize Senator Clinton as the more qualified candidate and relate to her solutions for this country's ills, it doesn't matter whether McCain or Obama wins in November; both are just as bad. With one caveat: at least we know where McCain stands on the issues. We don't know where Obama stands, because all he has given are vague statements full of sound bytes contrived to play on emotions, rather than stimulate our brains. The thought of waiting until he is in office to find out just how undecided or, worse yet, opposed to certain issues he is frightens me. If I wasn't determined to write in Clinton in November, I would consider voting for McCain; at least with him I'd already know how bad things could get, rather than getting a nasty surprise under a man who is an unknown quantity.
And then there is the sexism in the way this all played out. The media and other talking heads were pressuring Senator Clinton to drop out months ago, long before Obama had enough delegates to claim victory. I do not believe they would have done that to a man. Instead, they would have applauded his strength in the face of adversity. (I won't even get into the sexism of how Clinton was torn apart for any and every aspect of her deportment.) And many of us know full well that if Clinton was a first-term senator who spent a good chunk of that term on the campaign trail instead of in the senate chambers, who was known for making speeches rich in emotion but poor in content, she would not have been able to get her campaign off the ground, let alone clinch the party nomination.
The fact is a lot of people would rather be subject to a man of any color than to a woman, and they are willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of stuff in order to make that happen.
So, you can keep your cries for unity*. Just like you are boldly standing up for what you believe in, I will do the same, and I refuse to be ashamed for doing so. I should only be ashamed, if I allow peer pressure to silence me when my convictions are telling me to stand up for what is right. Freedom of expression (what is left of it in this country) gives me the right to do so, and I will continue to use that right for however long it continues to be available to me. Expecting dissenters to shut up already and get behind what they oppose is spitting in their faces and in the face of freedom of expression. That is far more tragic than a split party could ever be. At least in a split party each side is able to make their voices heard. Bullying dissenters into silence makes the party and country begin to resemble a dictatorship, and I love my freedoms and my country far too much to silently let that happen.
*By the way, according to the Oxford American Dictionary, one of the definitions of unity is "a thing forming a complex whole". That doesn't sound like conformity, to me.
