I agree, only I would say they attempt to do these things, I don’t believe they’ve been successful in their attempts. Each time Obama has played the game his way and played it well.

They talked about his bowling, he then went and shot hoops and said he was going to take the bowling alley out of the whitehouse and install a basketball court – now that’s in your face.

There is no doubt Rhonda that they have tried to emasculate him, however, his strength is shown in his ability to maintain his composure, speak with a clear head, showcase his beautiful family and finally, secure the nomination and God willing, the presidency.

When in fact Bob Herbert, one of the journalists she name, was maybe the only journalist who wrote a story about sexism in this campaign.

I mean that they are using the sexism guise, and I do mean guise, to express their irrational anger (which can not be honestly spoken) against him for not staying in his place and Ferraro even takes it a step further when she implicates “black” journalists are too responsible for this sexism.

IMO all of this absurd accusation of sexism is merely a way of lashing out – Gerry tried the racism thing way back and that didn’t work.

Sexism is the one claim feminists can attribute to their oppression which is in no way real, but really, what else do they have? It’s over!

Interestingly, that idea of “ownership” is also held by white men who are often threaten by a sucessful and smart black man therefore needing to discredit him. That often occurs in demasculating in way shape of form. They too have questioned his masculinity in overt terms.

The bowling thing is one of many, many examples. White men in the mainstream media had such a great time doing that.

One guy on MSNBC the other day said that Obama had no testosterone.

Sylvia Walsh’s “Boo!” comment reminded me of Mick Huckabee’s “Obama dropped to the floor”comment.

They effectively get two things done:

1. They are able to remove the threat that he possesses to them while being able to superfically feel that they dominate or control him.

2. Then, they are able to make him seem like a weak and incapable leader who wont be able to protect the American people.

Interesting.

Sylia Walsh belongs to a long line of them. For her to be so snarky and brazen about it mad me scream. I am still yet to comment.

They talk of sexism and condscension yet they do it all the time to Obama.

Finding his fidelity to Michelle to be troubling is what made me go off from the beginning. Talking about break-ups, betrayal and psychology?? Really

I never knew that cheating on your wife was a reassurance of someone’s manhood. Since when did someone have to “turn on” women like herself sexually in order to get their support.

Michelle-

“…..a white female assertion of assumed ownership of Black men.”

I agree, I agree.

Her article was a load of crap.

Completely demeaning and condescending to say the least.

Isn’t this really what this entire tantrum that Hillbitch & company are having is about.

I hadn’t thought about it that way but it resonates.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your take on it though (I could be! I think I may be missing something about the heterosexual dynamic of it or something).

But if not it reminds me of another dynamic of the white-race-loyalty-feminism I’ve been thinking about … I wrote this a few days ago trying to think out loud:
——————————-

Focus on Senator Obama’s supposed “sexism” is actually a form of coded racism. Using the woman/gender thing as cover for what they are really saying, which that Senator Obama is aggressive and scary because he is BLACK. But that’s not what they say, they code it under “man” and “sexist.”

So they can express, in a socially acceptable way, all their hatred and fury of a BLACK (man) seeking leadership under cover of saying it’s just his gender and it’s sexism — and Clinton and they are the victims. The myth of the Black male rapist of pure unsullied white womanhood exists for a reason.

I think this form of white-race-loyalty-feminism is flat-out terrified of and furious about the possibility of a Black man, or actually a Black person of either gender, in power. To the core.

From this angle I think it may go beyond what B-serious said about uppity N*** cutting in line. It may be that in this perspective, Black people have no real place in that line to begin with because the line is for consolidating power among white people.

White-race-loyalty-feminism is about including white women in this line and in places of power in this society — first as white people, and specifically as white people who want the full benefits and advantages of being white.

————–

So Ms. Martin, I’m thinking — again I may not be understanding what you said — but seems to me like some form of ownership of Black men (and Black women for that matter, though again I suspect maybe there is some hetero dynamic that I am not getting here) is part of the cluster of white power that white-race-loyalty-feminism wants to be sure to have and retain a piece of.

Hmm, and I’m reminded of the whole thing where Ms. Hillary said Senator Obama should be her VP when he was ahead of her anyway. Because for her the proper place of that Black man is to be owned inside HER administration, that’s what that move said to me.

I remember at that time I was struggling really really hard with something going on from the Obama campaign, I think it was that the senator lost his center for a little while (I remember him talking self-critically about it later in an interview, saying he was performing more than connecting).

Anyway, I remember that because I was feeling kind of down and depressed about the campaign and then BAM he came out with that marvelous corrective commentary about how he was running for President and not VP and the energy of it was just so strong and clear. I was practically calling back at him and cheering as I read the transcript, it was that powerful to my eyes.

And I was sort of thinking then and clearly thinking now: that power was his refusal to let her own him, that power was him standing as a real human being and as a leader — and not an object for white ownership. It was beautiful to me.

Again — I could be misunderstanding what you wrote, though, and I am sorry if so, that I just took what you wrote and ran with it so long in another direction.

“…..a white female assertion of assumed ownership of Black men.”

Isn’t this really what this entire tantrum that Hillbitch & company are having is about.

Rene wrote: I don’t understand why these white women (Walsh, Maureen Dowd) believe its okay to question Obama’s masculinity. Who the f**k is she to define what’s sexy, what is masculine, especially in regards to a black man.

The white-hetero-women-defining-Black-masculinity (and relatedly assessing Senator Obama for sexiness) is to my eyes a white female assertion of assumed ownership of Black men.

Really disgusting.

and @ rikyrah and Ms. Martin, I’m glad to read your comments about what I wrote in the other thread. Ms. Martin, I remember Gloria Steinem getting schooled by Melissa Harris-Lacewell …

Shut them down now!

If anyone can prove what you said isn’t true, I will change my name to Hillary Clinton.

In fact, Melissa Harris-Lacewell schooled Gloria Steinam on NPR on this very topic months ago.

I say it’s time for black women to come together as a loud voice of one for Obama.

Did you read the article by Sylvia Walsh “The Shrinkage Factor” that Anon suggested she has to be crazy.

Excerpts:

“Barack Obama may be the only male politician of any significance in the past, say, one thousand years who is faithful to his wife. Does anyone doubt Obama’s fidelity? Now that it’s near certain he will be the Democratic nominee, I’ve been trying to sort out why I don’t think this is a good thing. It’s not that I’m pro-infidelity, mind you. As a psychologist who has seen many couples torn to pieces over it, I know how corrosive betrayal is to a relationship. Yet, Obama’s certain fidelity is somehow troubling me.”

“Obama is a nice guy. And, as most any woman will tell you, “nice” guys finish last. And they finish last because, well, they just aren’t very sexy. Power, for better or worse, is a turn on.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sylvia-welsh/the-shrinkage-factor_b_103068.html

Are you kidding me? I am going to comment later. I avoided posting now because I may get banned from Huffington.

This is sexist, disturbing and even racist to a degree.

Obama does not match of up what she thinks black men are.

They are not faithful husbands.

They are not faithful fathers.

Hypermasculinity…hypersexuality.

Agressive.

Chest beating.

A sexual object rather than intellectual.

No moral values.

She wants him to fit this paradigm.

And god forbid he is married, happy and faithful to his black wife and children!!

She wants him to be the “angry black man” that America likes to see and run from!!

He knows exactly how he must present himself to avoid that characterization by any definition.

If he doesnt fit this then its “troubling”. She is confused!

Obama has his masculinity questioned every day while Hillary cries sexism.

Wow.

you are on the money. They’ve already dogged, then insulted Black women who wouldn’t go along with their ‘Sisterhood’ bullshit about Hillpatine. I’ve known for awhile that their feminism means nothing to my life. Nothing to my family. They don’t have my family at heart. It’s the sense of ENTITLEMENT. It was ‘her turn’. This isn’t hopskotch; it’s the Presidency of the United States of America.

” Her turn?”

I don’t think so.

IMO it’s not about “a large chunk of women” who will defect from the party, it’s about ….

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/05/paterson-sees-desperation-by-c.html

I am going to have to read it. You have to be joking. These people dont cease to amaze me.

Ted Kennedy was going to give the Sunday’s commencement address at Wesleyan University.

Anonymous,

I’m on my way to Huffingtonpost. It’s not the first time Obama’s ‘ Manhood’ has been questioned. It’s been a pattern. I know you can see it.