Another new series: Hill is shrill!

I'm seeing a lot of dumdum shit from progressive White guys in the last couple of days since Hillary Clinton secured the Democratic nomination. It occurred to me that this election might create an opportunity for feminists/womanists/women from the future to educate misogynist progressives (ha).  I'm going to (try to remember to) keep a running list here of the "teachable moments" I encounter.  Sometimes I get so astounded by something shitty said to me that I forget to throw a little knowledge  back at the shit-sayer.

(Note: A lot of times, I'm going to say "we," "us," "girls," and "women" knowing full well that I cannot and do not speak for all women, particularly not women of color, women with disabilities, queer women, transwomen, poor women, immigrant women, incarcerated women, etc.)

(1) Don't tell us that Hillary's nomination is an important thing for women and girls (and trans folk, but I'm not seeing trans folk come up in the rhetoric at all.  [Shocker.])  First, don't tell us anything about what's good for us. Further, it's a great thing for men and boys, too. Figure out why.

(2) Related to (1), but definitely it's own thing:  Especially because Hillary is a White woman, you should learn something about the history of feminism because saying something is important for women and girls is just a super White thing to say.

(3) Code words!  There are so many code words!  For today, I'll do shrill. A personal example: When Rachel and I first started teaching, she was advised by a dude teacher that she should raise her voice when necessary to assert her authority in a class where she had some rowdiness.  Yeah right.  When a dude raises his voice, it's most of the time commanding.  When a White woman raises her voice, it's most of the time received as either ridiculous or annoying or both, but definitely not authoritative.  Y'all get to raise your voice, and we don't.  Don't call us shrill.

(4) Don't ask us to teach you this stuff.  Do your own work because you're exhausting me.  And insulting, but the insulting is kinda whatever.  It's just tiring to talk you through things from step one. Read something.

two new things

Brittney Cooper is my favorite news commentator.

She spoke at the Y a few weeks ago, and they taped it, so I watched it.

Two (of the) things I learned from her:

(1) The sexual-abuse-to-prison pipeline.  I knew that many, many people who are incarcerated -- especially women --- are survivors of sexual abuse, but I'd never heard that term before, and I think it's a brilliant way of naming that reality.  Naming is so important.

(2) The critique of intersectionality coming from scholars arguing for assemblage as a more helpful construct.  I don't exactly understand the distinction, but now I want to.

Also, at 59:30, she gets asked about the 2016 election, and the way she responds is so YEAH YEAH EXACTLY YEAH.

chill the fuck out

Did anyone catch Anderson Cooper 360° last night? They were covering the breaking news that Obama and Clinton were meeting about they weren't sure what (but they guessed the VP convo) they weren't sure where (but they had live footage from Clinton's home in New York).

And then after about an hour of speculation by at least four commentators as to what he might be saying/she might be saying, an on-record source from the Obama campaign reported that the two had met at some point yesterday, but not at her house.

The commentators were all like, "Uhh.. well I guess we can stop showing you her house, and um, our bad, but uhh.. we did have sources, we swear..."

I mean, false alarm, it's cool, but isn't there anything else to report on while they're waiting to actually know what they're talking about on that story instead of creating these complicated storylines around what might-maybe-could-possibly-be-according-to-unconfirmed-sources. It's not news yet. It will be in an hour or so. In the meantime, chill the fuck out, and tell us about something else.

When will we stop referring to Hillary as Bill's wife?

From CNN.com's "Kennedy aide: Romney's views on religion very different from JFK's"

Q. Kennedy's speech in 1960 is widely viewed as being successful. Do you think Romney's speech is likely to be viewed as a success?

Sorensen: I assume so. I don't think Mr. Romney should be denied the presidency because of his religion. Just as I don't think Senator [Barack] Obama should be denied because of his race. Or that Mrs. [Hillary] Clinton should be denied the presidency because of her gender. This country is in deep, serious trouble, and thoughtful citizens surely are going to make up their minds based on the major issues confronting the country and the major qualities of the candidates and not on such superficial tests as religion, race, or gender.

Senator Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Funny, I was under the impression that they're both Senators.

I am so sick of this archaic bullshit. Man and wife, not man and woman. Mr. and Mrs. or Miss, not Mr. and Ms. (Or Ms. and Ms., or Mr. and Mr., for that matter.)

Senator Clinton is a highly-qualified, articulate, intelligent presidential candidate; she's not in the news because she's married to Bill.

(And by the way, since when are religion, race, and gender "superficial" issues? I must have missed that memo when I was too busy looking for a husband by whom I can define myself.)