President-Elect Obama: Please Fire Jon Favreau, Your Speechwriter. He Thinks the Idea of Sexually Assaulting/Date Raping Hillary Clinton is Funny.
Dec 9th, 2008 by admin
In my e-mail on Saturday I had an e-mail that included the link to the image above, sent to me by reader P.J. She also sent me a link to an Alternet article that read in part:
Question No. 58 in the transition team vetting document for the Obama White House asks that applicants: “Please provide the URL address of any websites that feature you in either a personal or professional capacity (e.g. Facebook, My Space, etc.)”
Question No. 63 asks that applicants “please provide any other information … that could … be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect.”
For a while there this afternoon, President-elect Barack Obama’s immensely talented chief speechwriter, 27-year-old Jon Favreau, might have been pondering how to address that question.
That’s when some interesting photos of a recent party he attended — including one where he’s dancing with a life-sized cardboard cut-out of secretary of state-designate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and another where he’s placed his hand on the cardboard former first lady’s chest while a friend is offering her lips a beer — popped up on Facebook for about two hours. The photos were quickly taken down — along with every other photo Favreau had of himself on the popular social networking site, save for one profile headshot.
The picture is classic frat house fodder — macho bravado with a backwards cap — aside perhaps, from the perfectly legible logo on the T-shirt of Favreau’s pal: “Obama staff.”
Favreau has refused to comment, and the Clinton and Obama camps are treating this like a joke. Favreau has reportedly offered an apology to the secretary of state to-be, and Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines has “cast the photos as evidence of increased bonhomie between the formerly rival camps.”…
You know, I couldn’t bring myself to post this for some reason until now. I don’t know. I find this kind of thing so despicable and so over the top, I don’t even want to think about it. But since all kinds of theoretically progressive and feminist and liberal and leftist people are pretty much IGNORING the incident, and since there is no evidence at all that this guy is going to get the boot, here I am, blogging about something that is really so SICK and DISGUSTING it is not worth my time. But this is speechwriter for the President-elect, you know? It’s not just your run of the mill frat boy doing the run of the mill — read: misogynist, sexist — things.
So how about firing the guy? What the hell? Has the entire nation lost its collective mind?
And just to warn you, should you go to that link, evidently Hillary Clinton isn’t bothered by this.
That’s really helpful. But that is the way it works. You have to play the game their (sexist) way or you won’t be playing at all. (And from where I sit, there’s nothing wrong with that last, there are more than a couple of ways to skin a banana.)
More here, here, here, and thanks, PJ for sending this to me, despicable as it is!
Heart
I posted this in the abuse thread on Sunday:
07 Dec 2008 at 12:18 pm26
Sis
No matter how much we achieve in our lives, they will remind us how they see us: you are a woman. A sex object. Mine if I say. I can degrade you, threaten you with rape. You’re not the Secretary of State, you’re the Duke stripper, the girl we get drunk and shower in c*m. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/12/04/one_more_question.html
I had begun to wonder why you weren’t taking this on.
This has raging for several days, many many threads, on The Confluence, The New Agenda, Reclusive Leftist, and today, the California Now (the NOW which supported Palin, if I’m not mistaken). Many other blogs writing on it, most coming out of PUMA.
I’m sure the PUMA blogs are taking it on, but what’s everyone else’s excuse? This is sick.
Apparently Obama thinks if Clinton does not think this is a big deal, neither should he. I do not know how I missed this story, but it certainly reinforces my impression of the people surrounding Obama. The kind of change I would like to see is the last thing I expect to see from this bunch. It is nice to finally have a concrete reason for why those allegedly wonderful speeches left me so cold. Another master of charm reveals his true nature. If Obama does not fire Favreau, Clinton should quit, but it will be a cold day in hell before Obama puts a feminist principle over his political fortunes. Perhaps Clinton awaits a more auspicious moment to confront Obama, but I am disappointed at her brushing this off. Presumably she wants to be seen as a good team player. You might be right, Heart, that she has it play it this way if she wants to play at all, but I think at this point, she could put her foot down and get this clown fired, if she wanted to take that calculated risk. Evidently she does not.
The president of the California chapter of NOW did support Gov. Palin, but I am dubious she had much company. BTW, Heart, the first of those three links at the end does not go anywhere.
This is why I feel dead inside whenever I think about this election and the hords of lefty men and women who are crazy about him. How can women who call themselves feminist ignore sexsim? Hillary Clinton had an online conference call during the primaries, in which she apologized for the sexism. As if it were her fault! I imagine she has to play their game and so she does what many women do - ignore it.
I have found that if I just ignore it, I start being less able to recognize it and eventually can’t see it anymore. Which means that I become a part of it.
I agree with all of the above expressed sentiments. I trust Hillary to know garbage and to lie about it, so that she can pick her battles. Afterall, we all do so in the hopes of achieving real change.
Misogyny seems like a vast river. We trudge along its shores describing it, critiquing it, waiting to choose where to ford, a place where we can fight the current and make some sort of progress. We sometimes do cross it, get nearly washed away in the attempt, crawl out on the other shore, only to walk along its waters looking for that opportune, most necessary moment or place to re-cross it. And so it goes on and on. I don’t know if that describes progress or just process, but I believe if we keep engaging, describing and doing battle, misogyny will die of its own insupportable logic and meanness.
Well, sorry for that over-extended analogy. But it was good to check in and see what folks here were talking about. I always take strength from others’ insights here.
Chilling, and not at all surprising about this incredible sexist trash coming out of the Obama campaign. That’s how the guys working on his campaign deal with powerful women. And yes, that damn man should be fired fired fired! No wonder I never liked Obama’s speeches– I’ve always known that he is surrounded by sexists and clueless about women’s issues. Creepy. Thanks for alerting us to this.
I don’t believe in one thing Obama says about change when it comes to women. Remember, a man who marries a woman, then the woman quits a high level career to have children, and then the woman gives up her last name is not an agent of change at all. It is a patriarchal man who can only pretend. Whether it is the left or the right, the damage and disrespect to women is absolutely without change ever.
It was sadly enlightening reading the comments in that thread, many ranging from “lighten up, it’s only a joke, there are more serious problems in the world…” to “boys will be boys”. All male apologist stuff.
Hopefully HRC would make her opinions known in private.
It is one thing that the dude did this, but he obviously saw nothing wrong with by posting it on the internet. Sexist frat boy.
tinfoilhattie’s comment (December 6, 2008 12:25 PM ):
People who keep saying, “It’s just a cardboard cutout! Relax! Get a life!”
Would some drunken idiot “grope” any old piece of cardboard? No. This piece of cardboard was chosen because it represents a woman — a strong, brilliant, powerful woman who ran for President and is a sitting Senator and the next Secretary of State of the U.S. This piece of cardboard was deliberately chosen so these smug, arrogant boors could show their utter disdain, not to mention misogyny, toward not only Hillary Clinton but toward all women.
Those of you who say: “Hillary probably loves this because it’s the most she’s gotten in years,” etc., are confusing a representation of SEXUAL ASSAULT with a woman who desires to participate in a sexual encounter. The two are not the same.
Those of you who think that speaking up against misogyny and sexism is just “PC” ignore the fact that all day, every single day, every woman in the world is subject to this kind of behavior — and worse — from men. Sarah Palin was treated just as egregiously, if not worse at times. Not to mention women who are killed simply for existing, here and abroad. Get your heads out of the sand and pay attention to what happens to women. Every day. All day. To women you know and love. Even to yourself.
Heart, I tried to post this before, but it didn’t take for some reason. Maybe caught in the queue?
evidently Hillary Clinton isn’t bothered by this.
I think you’re misreading Clinton’s response. Rather than rely on the reporter’s characterization of what Clinton said, which is this:
Philippe Reines has “cast the photos as evidence of increased bonhomie between the formerly rival camps.”…
Read what Reines actually said in his email:
“Senator Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon’s obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application,” he told the Post via e-mail.
I think it’s a non-too-subtle smackdown of Favreau: don’t forget that Clinton has power you do not have and you will surely find yourself in a position where she can exercise that power over you someday.
Having said that, it’s Obama’s call whether to fire or discipline this guy. It’s not up to Clinton. I like Clinton’s actual response, but at the same time I recognize the limits of her power to address this directly. That’s up to Obama. Since he’s declined to do so, we can only conclude it’s A-Ok with him. That’s what needs to be talked about, not Clinton’s response.
I’m sure the PUMA blogs are taking it on, but what’s everyone else’s excuse? This is sick.
Corrente is taking it on.
Thanks, Emma, now that I’ve read carefully what you commented there, I think your reading is right (and I sure like it better than the impression I had at first, but honestly, I had a hard time even reading the Alternet article, this huge resistance, this inner, “No, no, NO, PLEASE NO, I CAN’T STAND IT.”)
I agree with you, too, that it’s Obama’s response that is of interest right now, more than Clinton’s. As several in this thread have suggested, she’s in a tough spot. And, it’s only going to get tougher if it turns out Obama really isn’t going to have her back even when it’s guy who think date rape/sexual assault are a real thigh slapper.
It’s interesting that several here couldn’t get into Obama’s speeches, good as they were. Honestly, I had that same problem even though it didn’t really register clearly with even me that I was having that problem! I kept thinking something like, this is really a good speech, why am I just not able to get into it, what’s the deal here, but this was almost subliminal. I think again, I really didn’t even want to go there.
UGH.
Well, since Favreau’s speechwriting icons are Peggy Noonan, speechwriter for Reagan, and Michael Gerson, Bush II’s speechwriter, that also might explain why you couldn’t get into the speeches.
Link to Corrente.
Something quoted in the Corrente post Emma linked to:
That’s it. As had been posted elsewhere, this would be a case of sexual harrassement by making a poisoned environment for women staffers, and if the CEO of any org where this happened didn’t take action, he would be open to legal suit as well. I wonder too if women’s orgs could start a suit on behalf of the women who now work in a poisoned environment.
It is absolutely shameful that Obama has not made any response. And it’s not as though this is an isolated incident. This incident happened because Obama ‘brushed off’ (literally) and trivialized, condoned and even took part in sexist comments and imagery throughout the past year. In fact, Favreau might legally plead Obama had given no sign up to this point that such was not ok, and therefore Favreau could reasonably defend himself by saying he was acting in accordance with Obama’s wishes.
Where can we write to Obama directly to protest this outrage.
We the people need to force him to DO something about all sexist anything within his camp. It is up to Obama to get rid of the guy, and deal with this. It is not up to Hillary Clinton to do the hiring, and she has not been confirmed yet. Also, this jack-ass is a male peon and it would demean her position to even have to deal with this.
Let’s all write a letter of protest and let Obama know that we feminists are watching his every move, and we intend to hold him to it!! If I get the address here, I’m going to write to him immediately!!
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON GROPERGATE!
1. Sign the Pumasphere Petition and Send it to Friends and Family:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Fire-Jon-Favreau/
2. Send an email to the obama transition team, demanding that Favreau resign!
vjarrett@barackobama.com
3. Call Transition Headquarters:
202-540-3000 press option # 2 for a live person
From The Confluence.
And if you call the number, you do get a live person.
http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/open_for_questions/
Thanks everyone. I’m on it!
Check out the comments thread over at Historiann’s place. (By the way, Historiann has a great blog which I have intended forever to add to the blogroll.) Note the comments of (some) of the men! Really, the mind boggles over the way they bend heaven and earth to make Favreau’s act anything but exactly what it was! Although the comments are in general courteous, they remind me of why I hardly ever approve the comments of men here!
It is not teh rocket science. All anyone has to do is imagine the ramifications should something like this happen on their job. What if two men you had to see fairly regularly and who were coworkers with you groped your cardboard boob while sticking their tongue in your cardboard ear while pouring a beer down your cardboard mouth, then took a photo, and posted it to their Facebook or Myspace page for all to see?! Would you not immediately be on the phone to HR or at least in your immediate boss’s office to report the hostile, sexist, threatening act? Of COURSE you would. But this is something WOMEN understand in a way that men rarely do because there is no real equivalent so far as men go. Women don’t date rape men. They don’t grab men’s body parts. They don’t pretend to do all of the above, photograph the stuff and post it to their Myspace pages. The ramifications for men, if women did do this, would be different. And this stuff apparently doesn’t even OCCUR to these guys.
I mean, you’ve got a guy there on Historiann’s thread suggesting maybe grabbing a woman’s boob might be consensual.
I swear men are off their fricking rockers at this time in history and it is scary as all heck.
***I swear men are off their fricking rockers at this time in history and it is scary as all heck.***
Men have been “off their fricking rockers” for about 5000 years now.
Branjor, I knew someone was going to say that!
The Obama movement is not so much about accountability or free speech, apparently.
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/i-am-shaking-with-outrage/
It seems that questions being posted to change.gov about Favreau’s inappropriate actions are being removed from the site because people find them inappropriate:
“For “sexual violence” and “Jon Favreau,” the search engine returned these results [Emphasis added]:
“Why hasn’t President-elect Obama fired Jon Favreau for his inappropriate sexual assault fantasy against Sen. Hillary Clinton, still available on Facebook? It reflects badly on Obama coming from his new head speechwriter and offends all women voters.” NanInBoston, CA - Questions View response Post a response This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.
“Given the obvious inappropriate groping actions of Jon Favreau regarding the Hillary life-size cut-out; will he still be a part of the Obama administration?” Durham4sale - Questions View response Post a response This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.
“Your speechwriter recently behaved in a manner denigrating and humiliating to all women, especially Hillary Clinton. Yet you have not fired him. How can we be sure you will run a transparent, honest, and respectful administration in light of this?” Gabriele, Ohio - Questions View response Post a response This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.
“Would you favor eliminating Jon Favreau as a staff member for his ridiculous, inappropriate and disrespectful behavior towards our new Secretary of State (http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/fea … on_favreau)?” Jenn, Beltsville, MD - Questions View response Post a response This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.
“Given the obvious inappropriate groping actions of Jon Favreau regarding the Hillary life-size cut-out; will he still be a part of the Obama administration?” Durham4sale - Questions View response Post a response This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.
“Why hasn’t President-elect Obama fired Jon Favreau for his inappropriate sexual assault fantasy against Sen. Hillary Clinton, still available on Facebook? It reflects badly on Obama coming from his new head speechwriter and offends all women voters.” NanInBoston, CA - Questions View response Post a response This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.”
Woot! for accountability, transparency, and the adults being in charge!! I guess we’ll just keep hoping for change on sexism.
Thanks Emma. I posted this to The New Agenda.
***Branjor, I knew someone was going to say that!***
**Chuckle.**
5000 years, and I really can’t take one more minute. They actually think it’s fine for every professional woman to have to go to work with these morons elevated to the White House. I know, we should ask the New Yorker to run the Picture on the cover since it’s satire, see.
Wow. If those submissions are believed inappropriate, no wonder the Obama campaign thought it was appropriate to answer my request for a response to my article A Case Against Obama Nation with a marketing pitch! Perhaps change.gov should have a disclaimer, critical comments from feminists are inappropriate! After all, are we not just a bunch of ungrateful troublemakers who do not appreciate how much better off we will be, having ousted those Neanderthal Republicans?
Something I wonder, is how much more difficult will this make Hillary Clinton’s job when leaders of foreign countries, with whom she must try to negotiate peace, see how little respect her own country, and its leader, have for her.
How much more difficult, and how much more dangerous.
Has Barrack Husein Obama thought of that as he ignores her degradation at the hands of his staff?
I think somebody thought better of removing the submissions. There are at least 25 protesting this incident, but I could not find any more removals. I imagine Obama is hoping the furor will die down and be forgotten. As sickening as this is, the arrogance of James Carville, saying Favreau did absolutely nothing wrong, may top it. I take that as confirmation that the old boy network is unconcerned about silly feminist protests.
Thanks for your support over at the Historiann thread, Heart. Much appreciated. The fact that it was a cutout of Hillary Clinton seemed to get quite lost, though I thought the rest of her post was terrific.
Here’s another post about the Favreau thing at Anglachel’s Journal. She writes most often on general political and economic stuff, but when she turns her hand to violence against women, wow, she’s great - well, she’s great on the other stuff too - you know what I mean, I hope:
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/12/dignity-of-office.html
The furor might die down but people will not forget how it was considered OK to degrade and humiliate the new Secretary of State. For a further slapdown, the SOS salary is also being reduced especially for Hillary. She will be paid less money than Condoleeza Rice was for doing the job.
***5000 years, and I really can’t take one more minute.***
I’m with you, Elizabeth. Actually, I couldn’t even take the very first minute of it. I have Zero Tolerance for it.
Hysperia, thanks for that link to Anglachel’s post which I actually did read and thought was great. This in particular is good, I think:
Had this photo come out during the campaign, it could have been kept an individual matter, dimissed (however disingenuously) as the unfortunate side effect of a highly competitive contest. But now Hillary has been named Secretary of State and the revelation of the contempt under these circumstances carries a different meaning. This image is no longer about her. This is not a situation of her making. It is an act of denegration towards her. She cannot respond to it politically because, while it is a personal insult, it is not her political predicament.
One thing I haven’t seen anybody mention and it really BOTHERS me looking at that horrible photo: the way the guy on the right looks like he is grabbing Clinton by the hair, pulling her head back. Ugh. Very triggering, this whole thing.
I think people who say they can’t see this is miming sexual assault are lying. This is date rape, the term which has a particular context of frat parties, campus parties, hockey players parties, football players parties, and now we can add, Obama supporter’s parties. Get her drunk, then sexually assault her. It’s EXACTLY what they are miming. They’re saying to Hillary Clinton, to their incoming Secretary of State, take that, bitch.
He’s muttering encouragement and compliments in her ear, holding her head back with one hand while the other hand pours beer into her mouth, which will open when her head is pulled back. She’ll be soaked in booze, which will add to the defense of she asked for it, she got drunk, you know? Her choice.
How many times have they done this before? They sure seem to know the play.
Why is there even a cardboard cutout of Clinton around for these men? Makes me wonder what antics and photos were taken over the past few months that didn’t make it to the internet.
What a steaming pile of terrifying shit THIS is.
I have no words. Except for fuck every last one man on earth who in any way, shape, or form, finds this sickening behavior ok.
CJ (Claire).
I actually don’t agree with a lot of the stuff that’s been said by feminists about this.
But that (my own opinion) isn’t what’s important. What’s important (to me) is, Favreau a)obviously doesn’t know or care how what he did comes across to a lot of women and is b)an idiot. And for those reasons, I support his firing 100%.
Okay, funnie, I know you’re not trying to just say that much and that’s all. :-p What don’t you agree with that’s been said by feminists? Everybody else, please try to stay calm and consider other viewpoints. Jeyoani has also been uncharacteristically quiet about this. I’m going to moderate my rear off so as to head off any possible anything, the goal is seeing other good women’s perspectives, or at least that’s what I want the goal to be, just letting everyone know.
I realize there’s really no way for that NOT to come across as comparatively supportive of Favreau. It really isn’t, I promise.
I guess I’m just hoping to make a little bit of room at the table for people who aren’t signing up for everything said about this but aren’t at all dismissive of the way women very understandably react to it, and think that’s important in its own right.
I cross-posted with your reaction…sorry. I’m not trying to start trouble or be cryptic, really. truly. let me think for a minute & respond really carefully…but in the meantime, let me reiterate that I’m with you in spirit if not in detail. If that makes sense.
So… what aren’t you signing up for?
:p
Okay.
I have to say, though, I can’t think of any details that, if they were different, could change the significance of this !#$^@$*$@&@$%&@$Q&@&@$&@$&*@#$*@$&*@& THING this guy did!!!!!
Okay, now I will maintain my poise.
I don’t think Favreau’s actions are about sexual assault or date rape or sexual harrassment or that they reveal his true nature. NOT because he’s incapable of being a total shit about those things (I have no idea), but because that’s not the way the photo struck me. At all. Really.
I totally understand how that’s the impression they leave. And that he apparently doesn’t, says something.
I think his actions were sexist.
I think they’re misogynist in a more general, commonly-accepted, what you say “run of the mill” kind of way. Which shouldn’t be accepted from someone on the POTUS-to-be’s staff, so, that’s enough for me.
Now, maybe the problem is with ME. I’ve seen the grab-a-boob-for-the-photo move about a kajillion times, conservatively. I’ve seen women do it to women way more than half of the time that I’ve seen it. It doesn’t come across the same way to ME as I’ve seen it described here and elsewhere. Seeing those descriptions? I ‘get’ them. But they weren’t my reaction and probably because of that I don’t really assume that they relate to motive as much as insensitivity re: women’s reactions.
And I do think that the thing that I’m so used to seeing IS sexist and misogynist and a host of other weird sick problems. I’m just saying, it’s freaking common, IME nobody’s meant any harm by it, it’s consensual, and that is the scary part to me, not this guy. My own facebook friends, some this guy’s age or more, have boob-grab pictures of live women posted. THAT is scarier to me than posing with the cardboard.
I don’t think any other women are required to cut Favreau any slack whatsoever. I think women are entitled, positively entitled, to say “look at that. it’s date rape and sexual assault.” I’m not arguing with that. I’m only saying — the fact that it takes some effort for me to see it that way is interesting, to me. And I won’t be saying it. But I’m on board with what this guy should be held responsible for doing.
And - let me add, just ftr. This is the only place I’ve said something other than “That’s unacceptable. He should be fired.”
I don’t care about Favreau or what was/wasn’t motivating him. I pretty much only care about that room at the table bit. Selfishly.
I have to say, though, I can’t think of any details that, if they were different, could change the significance of this !#$^@$*$@&@$%&@$Q&@&@$&@$&*@#$*@$&*@& THING this guy did!!!!!
It’s the Hillary Clinton “detail”. Had it been done to any other woman in the world*, I bet funnie could work up some outrage then.
*Oh, except maybe Sarah Palin. Anybody who objects to sexist treatment of either Palin or Clinton must be operating from some hidden right-wing agenda.
I’m going to let Heart answer this, because I don’t think I can do it justice, beyond saying you and women who do and condone this or excuse this have been Stockholmed and brainwashed. We need to have an intervention, for someone right on this blog. Geezus.
Intervention? I suppose so.
I’m really tired of for-us-or-against-us tests. If you don’t endorse every word, you’re condoning, excusing, even *doing* the despicable thing discussed. It’s OK to divide bloggers up by race and ask where they’re at, specifically. It’s OK to demand that people speak in a certain way, at a certain time, in a certain place, saying *exactly* the things that other women are saying and if they don’t…they need help, they’re brainwashed, they’re part of the problem and not the solution…
I hate it. I am saying, make more room at the table. I’m sick of it, I don’t like it, I don’t like the tests.
THAT is why I said something. Right. There.
I mean — I’m sorry, but implying that people who don’t see things in exactly the same way are lying, complicit, or both…that takes a lot of hubris. And it might be really well-placed hubris where men are concerned, demanding they meet a standard come hell or high water.
But I just don’t see the utility where women are concerned. I understand that women are disappointed in women all the damn time. I understand that women DO defend misogyny (and we all understand why, right). I get it.
What I don’t understand is: what is achieved by saying, to women and about women, “there is only one way of seeing this and it’s mine, unless you’re a liar or co-conspirator, and your silence will be taken as both.” Why do it? I don’t get it.
It’s particularly disorienting when I (for one, the only one likely to post here) am saying: “yes, I totally understand how that looks like something different to you than it does to me.”
I mean, I think the boob-grab thing, and oh is it ever a Thing, is totally sickening and revolting and sexist. I just don’t think it’s about date rape. Which tends to happen in private. I think it’s about women as public property. I think it’s about women as the life of the party. I think it’s about being fun as being pornified. I think it’s about a lot of things. And IME — like, I have had this conversation with real live women who were not upset about it (seemingly, who can tell underneath, right) — women have considered this fun. But again, IME, it’s been between people who know and like each other a lot.
That’s not always the case. For instance, this, I would CALL sexual assault:
http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Open_Source_Boob_Project
even though there were little consent-buttons involved!
And, since I linked to that example of boob-grabbing, let me just quote this reaction from someone who is presumably a woman of color science fiction fan:
You know what? I cant begin to get worked up over the Open Source Boob mess. Not because its not annoying, but because (1) it seems like everything worthwhile has already been said and (2) I have a hard time seeing a lot of people get so worked up over something that a lot of women of color have to deal with every day. … From utter strangers feeling entitled to grab at our hair to men propositioning us for prostitution under any circumstances (waiting for the subway, heading to the office), plenty of women have to deal with the idea that we are already ‘open source’ or whatever the hell and have to suffer in silence to boot.Does that post have anything at all to do with Favreau? No. I don’t keep up, and I don’t know who or what are being called out, or why, or if it’s even particularized. I’m just saying: there are many reasons that women experience things differently due to their different experiences.
Interpreting that photo as a frat party pre-gang-rape somethingorother is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. And that is *enough* justification, end of story, as far as Favreau’s concerned.
But it’s not the only way for women to react. It just isn’t. And that’s something interesting to talk about. IMO.
I didn’t say this, or anything like it.
“there is only one way of seeing this and it’s mine, unless you’re a liar or co-conspirator, and your silence will be taken as both.”
I’ve spent a bit of time this morning listening to card carrying icon feminists tell me that this was just a bit of fun, and we don’t want to do harm to his developing brain, and the like by going on and on about OUR perspective. We’re only women who spent a lifetime of trying to survive this kind of denigration, servitude, sex-slavery, oppression and entitlement. Over and over if I could list them all in my own life, there would be thousands.
I agree about one thing I think you were saying, possibly more but I’m rushed, and that is, it’s the culture.
The porn-rape culture we live in. That something commonly happens, does not make it good, right, or normal.
funnie, I get the point, or one of the points, you’re making really well. We’ve all been on the pointy end of “why aren’t you blogging about this,” “if you don’t agree with me, you suck,” stick and it isn’t a good place to be and it gives rise to a lot of resentment, definitely. We’ve also all been on the pointy end of “I told you so,” which also feels like hell. My tendency is to bend over backwards to cut women slack, so I am always working hard to come up with reasons, i.e., everyone’s waiting on Obama to see what he’s going to do, women aren’t really sure how they feel about this, they aren’t ready to go there yet, they’re not completely sure what Hillary Clinton’s response means, and so on. My slack-cutting really amounts to what I think you’re describing as “making room at the table,” the table being, I guess, the meeting grounds where we process acts and events like this one. So I know what you’re saying and I don’t disagree with it in principle.
If you’re saying that in the Facebook/Myspace/raunch culture age, it’s to be expected that acts and images like this one will not shock young people, I hear you. I agree with you that people are not shocked by this imagery and I can even cut them slack for not being shocked.
Having said all that, that’s a huge, huge problem. It’s the problem, as feminists, that we lay awake nights pondering. It’s the problem Natalie Nenadic named when she asked, essentially, “What is it going to take for women to realize we are targeted for destruction?” Given the incredible levels of apathy and even glee around rape, sexual assault, date rape, violent, misogynist porn, and so on, of *course* people exposed to this stuff are going to be inured to its effects. But again, that’s precisely the problem. And that is where feminists step in and say hell no, you have got to be kidding me, we will not tolerate this.
I think we can say this, and mean it, and still recognize a whole lot of people are unevolved in the world and will probably evolve over time, including by reading what we write, and so we don’t need to write them off for good. But if someone defends that absolutely execrable act and image up there? For right now, I’m writing them off! I’ll talk to them about it post-evolution!
This is close to my heart right now because of the deep thinking I have been doing about abusive men. One thing Lundy Bancroft says in his book is, abusive men are not monsters. They are not some alien species. And, while they do consciously intend to do what they do when they abuse, they are not necessarily aware of what is motivating them or driving them. It’s not that they’re sitting around day and night thinking up ways to abuse their partner or family. They abuse for one reason and one reason alone: because it works to give them power and control over at least one person in their life, a woman, and because it works to make them the focus and center of attention to at least one person in their life, a woman. They want that. They want to have the power and to have the control over at least one other human being, preferably a woman. And because it does “work”, they almost never stop abusing. They might cry and express remorse and express regret and say they’re sorry, but in Bancroft’s experience, guys who do that are no more likely than guys who don’t to ever actually change. The only way for women in these situations to protect themselves is to get away, and to stop having any dealings at all with the guy. This is true *** even though they still actually love the guy ***. It’s true even though at many times when he isn’t being abusive, he’s a nice guy, warm, funny, kind and caring. It’s true even though the guy really isn’t a monster. There is no protection from these men except distance. Bancroft also writes at length about the way trying to persuade or cajole these men or show them your point of view basically never ever works. Never.
I think the situation here is somewhat similar. People who don’t see what’s so bad about that image up there or the act that inspired it, people who defend it, people who engage in or defend boob grabs — these people are abusers of women. They are abusers of women on the macro scale, where a single abuser abuses one woman on the micro scale. And the only way to deal with them, I think, is to stay the hell away from them and from your safe distance, just as with male abusers, talk it up, talk it up, talk it up, how DESTRUCTIVE what they do and accept and endorse and approve really is to women. Sure there’s a place at the table for you. When you stop defending abusing women. When you stop abusing women. When, as an abused woman (women who agree and apparently consent to boob grabs) you are able to stand back and recognize the harm you are doing not only to yourself but to me and to all women. As Renee said up there about this act and image, and I quoted her, “What harms one woman harms us all.” Yes it does. So we say that in no uncertain terms and we insist that it stop. Sure, come to the table. When you are ready to commit to never hurting a woman again, intentionally.
A problem is, I think, a whole lot of people don’t want to deal with this because they don’t want it to be what it clearly is, they are hoping for some good resolution, they are stopping up their ears against the “I told you so’s.” And there are a whole lot of people angry over the sexism in the election just itching to say “I told you so”, as well. So there is all of this emotional intensity, I get that.
Still and all, no matter how many women let a man grab their boob and think it’s funny, no matter how many men grab some woman’s boob and think it’s funny, no matter what, this was inexcusably destructive. I don’t think it should be minimized in any way, just as I don’t think the effects of any misogynist/sexist imagery should be minimized in any way.
So that’s all I have right now. Yeah, we live in a woman hating world. That picture up there communicates that loud and clear. I don’t think responding by saying, “Well, everyone is used to seeing that!” excuses or justifies anything or even clarifies anything or sheds any light on anything, except, possibly, that the woman-hating all around us is worse than some of us even realized.
Yeah, I agree with all of that, Heart.
funnie, you know, what you are saying just doesn’t work for me at all. Like most women who have lived a while, I’ve been groped many times, including recently in the bus, and I blogged about it, some piece of shit grabbed my leg as I was walking past and then laughs with his buddy, etc. I’ve been groped a lot worse than that a number of times throughout my life. Anybody who has ever been pregnant — 11 times for me — has had a truckload of strangers touching their bellies like they’re out of their gourd (unless they’re older women, in which case I never minded). Any of us who works in a big city and is out at night has been propositioned — I have many times. Hell, I’ve been propositioned in the middle of the day with my then-husband and kids not a few feet away and I was in my 40s wearing just jeans, whatever.
So hell yeah, as women we’re viewed as “open source”, open source boob project or no. As women. Without respect to our race.
That’s what that bullshit up there reveals so very well, or one thing. Hillary Clinton is also “open source”. But she isn’t just some woman, like you or me or the woman you quoted, and he isn’t just some man in the street. In this case, she’s open source as the incoming Secretary of State, demonstrating, as that MacKinnon quote I posted says so well, that NO woman is protected from this under white male heterosupremacy. Not a one. There is no amount of any kind of privilege that can protect a woman from this. That’s what that photo says.
Not only is Clinton not just any woman and Favreau not just any man, Favreau actively worked to see Clinton defeated during the election. What that image says to me is, “Hillary Clinton, you are good for one thing and one thing only and that’s what I’m doing to your image right here, that’s the way it is, that’s how it’s always been, that’s why you were never the candidate, that’s why you aren’t the President, so take this.” It’s a display of sexualized male dominance, in other words, again, on a macro scale because of who Clinton is and who Favreaux is.
My body and person being “open source” for all of my life is why that image *speaks* to me. It’s why it *harms* me. Because it reminds me that this is my place, and even if I am the Secretary of State, this is still my place. Sure, I can distance myself. I can say the rough equivalent of, “Well, so what, worse than that has happened to me a bunch of times, so why should I care?” But why, as a feminist, would I say that? If a woman does say that, that’s her, I guess. It sucks to know how many women really aren’t going to stand in solidarity with people like them. But I am not going to spend any time analyzing *why* she says that. I know why. I’ve rejected her reasons. I think they suck.
So hell yeah, as women we’re viewed as “open source”, open source boob project or no. As women. Without respect to our race.
Right, exactly. But notice that the woman I quoted (again, entirely out of context) is in fact standing in solidarity. She’s bothered by the thing. She thinks other people have said good things about the thing. She only said she’s also bothered by seeing SO many people care SO much about ONE thing that is NOT the normal context of daily life. And I’m saying … yeah, maybe that’s an okay perspective. I think it is.
What that image says to ME is: “yahoo, partyin’ with Hillary, she’s my GIRL heh heh heh.”
And the fact that it’s what “you DO” with people who “are your GIRLS” — that very much IS a “display of sexualized male dominance” (where the grabber is male).
I’m not backing away from that, at all. I read every bit of the belittlement. The sexist belittlement. I just don’t read a threat of violence into it. I get how others do. I didn’t.
And with that, I need to leave this alone for a while.
Not to forget that major thing, where miming a racist act, such as whites in black face feeding Obama watermelon, is simply NOT tolerated ever, by anyone but the KKK. So there’s your equivalent. And we don’t even need to go on and on and on, trying to explain why it isn’t.
I think the woman you quoted agrees its wrong, but she isn’t in solidarity, I don’t think, because she says she is not going to get worked up over it because she resents the attention being paid to it. So I don’t see that as solidarity?
It’s almost as though this IS how a woman has to be treated at the very highest positions of power in the government in order for people on any sort of large scale to begin to get it that *this is what happens to all women.* This is women’s place in the world, what’s happening to Clinton right there. I think one reason this kind of thing is necessary is, what women say about their lives gets dismissed in all sorts of ways or trivialized or minimized. Which, of course, is what a lot of people are attempting to do with respect to this incident as well.
Well, I know what you mean by needing to leave it alone. Sorry if I wrote too many words and was too overbearing or intense; I appreciate that you felt okay to offer a (somewhat) dissenting perspective.
Heart
You don’t have anything at all to apologize for. Thanks for not wtf, funnie?!!?!ing me into oblivion, ha.
Like I said in my post last Sunday: I look at that picture and I see the Duke student/mother working as a st*ipper, the young woman who was rescued being raped at a college party with someone else’s vomit in her mouth, the lead up to the rape in the Jodi Foster movie, all the news reports of young women in similar circumstances having their cases thrown out of court, who were seen laughing and drinking (oh no!) who were at the beginning, smiling having a good time loving all the attention and their hearts aflutter (he’s so immensely talented!) and then waking up drunk, hung-over, soaked in booze, and realizing they’d been assaulted. Or maybe still not being able to put words to what happened to them. This is the foreplay to rape that is being mimed. At some point, at their choosing not hers, the laughing stops.
First:
Fwiw on the “change.gov” site I think comments that aren’t approved are ones that are not on topic. I saw that under discussion (at least today) comments are about social work/community work. So comments re this picture don’t go there. Maybe there’s elsewhere you can comment but I didn’t see where. You can also just write letters, which is probably better to do than comment when everyone suspects everyone else of being a troll or jerk of some kind. As well, in “search” at change.gov I looked up “Sexism” -zero results. ”Misogyny”-zero results. “Hillary picture”-7 results but none related to the picture in question. ”Fevreau”-zero results. I also put in “Racism”- zero results. Just saying.
Hearrt–re my silence– I was only
silent because talkabout a “me too” comment. At least re the picture. But then it’s bound to be (and ends up) about so much more than just the picture. I mean on this board who’s gonna comment “I loved the picture!” Anyway because though I want that guy fired I also have to weave through a bunch of usual “Down with Obama and co.” stuff which is also bunk to me.
If I think the picture is offensive, but also think the obligatory and endless “I told you so/Obama is the pits in every conceivable way” comments are offensive, and unhelpful, it’s an area usually better I just stay away from here. There’s a disconnect.
Aletha Obama and his staff didn’t answer your letter other than a form letter because they were in the thick of elections. You and probably million others got a form letter reply.
I wish Obama would fire these guys for the sake of form but I know he’s not going to. It doesn’t make me think more or less of Obama because I already from the beginning had an idea of Obama which has remained accurate. I knew he wasn’t a misogynist but I certainly knew he wasn’t a pro-rad fem. Imo since the beginning he’s a person of good character, a bridge builder and a President who will help us move forward and reestablish our cred in the world as Americans.
Most men and even most women don’t see the above picture through a rad fem’s view. For them, it’s just a funny picture–maybe bad judgement– at worst disrespectful. Listening to the masses — *That* is democracy. Not listening to and going off what a few say–when most people just don’t care about that picture. It’s too familiar to what we see all around us. Rape culture is our culture. This is why there’s need for rad fems to lift their voices and keep working, questioing. We can and should make the picture an issue and other things re women an issue. But if people don’t see it like we do they aren’t the enemy, we just have to keep talking. Write letters and talk about it. Obama could raise the bar by firing them but again, he’s not a rad fem. He’d probably think that is excessive, like most. It was just a ”joke”. He’s not rad-fem enlightened.
Similarly if enough people were mad that Obama and his staff wear leather and wool and have steak at democrat conventions then he’d go animal-friendly too. But public perception is generally totally NOT rad fem perception. A “cut that out” (remove the photo) is all that is considered necessary. Similarly the most they’d do to appease animal rights-ers is not wear fur.
I agree with funnie’s last post about what that picture might mean to the average person– (and to a certain extent to me when I saw it but I’m still thinking about it). ”Hillary’s on our team now, let’s party.”
Most people think it’s paranoia to see more, to see misogyny, to see a rape victim– Politicians are politicians not deep thinkers per se. They’re strategists, planners, organizers with varying characters but rarely are they real deep thinkers that I have seen. They are also a reflection of their culture, and most of people en masse aren’t rad fems either. What does this say? We are in a bad state, as women, as usual.
It just shows the need for feminists to keep talking about everything.
This was long as usual, sorry. :P
Something just occurred to me - I wonder if they would have done the same thing to a cardboard cutout of Hillary even if she WAS the president?
***“yahoo, partyin’ with Hillary, she’s my GIRL heh heh heh.”***
I wonder if the cutout was of Obama if some people would interpret it as “yahoo, partyin’ with Barack, he’s my BOY heh heh heh”.
But that would never happen, I guess. (??)
Funnie’s comments bring up strange concepts to me.
So while I was stirring my supper I thought, I’d like to hear from Jeyoani, and here she is.
The posts were removed Jeyoani, those that would come up under your search terms. The ones posted here by Emma were not rude, and were not off topic. They were posted in a section called “Ask your questions of Obama’s transition team”. It closed at midnight Thurs, and it will only appear once a week.
I sure am not saying “I told you so”. But I wonder if Obama would have responded if his Black supporters will calling for him to do so.
I am not involved in this except for the sexism that transcends nationality. This has to be the worst political case we’ve heard of for some time. Go to Reclusive Leftist and watch the YouTube of Carville. Unbelievable!
I would not be one calling for Obama’s impeachment, which by the way has raised it’s head since we began talking here. But I am one who thinks he loses something possibly irretrievable by not acting on this. It may already be too late.
Any CEO would have had to act, by now.
Well you all have to go over to The New Agenda. They asking us to help Jon write his apology. I’ve done two already!
I don’t know what you mean about Obama modelling sexism Sis.
*He called a professional woman, acting in her professional context, sweetie. That’s analagous to her calling him boy in the same context.
Not him.
*He had the music “99 problems but a bitch ain’t one” as his entry music at one of his major wins.
respected, not your pal.
I learned about this picture less than a week ago so give black women bloggers some time to process and respond.
I am talking about the politicos who have been blogging about the election all along. I’m not going to name anyone, but there are some who should be speaking on this, are right up to date with what’s going on, Blagojevic etc. Favreau? Nada.
Also it’s not only black women who should be responding to this.
*I am not, in this context, here, naming everyone. Heart has named some, I’ve named some. I am talking, here, about one aspect. And it’s a very important aspect I think. Some Black women bloggers who were very mouthy against white Hillary supporters, are now silent. They were Democrats, and some were just free-ranging racists. That seemed to be their political ideology.
That said my wish I know won’t happen is Obama would sack both of them. To set the tone and send a message that “this is disrespectful to a powerful female politician”. By removing the photo from the guy’s facebook Obama and his staffers want it to fade, but that isn’t good enough.
*It’s still there last I checked. But what you suggest would be my wish too. This is Obama’s responsibility, now. And was all along in fact, particularly under the context of his projected personae. If this was Bush (who I blanked out for eight years) I’d not have any expectation. In the context of what he says he is, ante up boyo.
Also it’s frustrating that Hearrt provides for you an example of a black blogger who did speak out and you go on to say “good for those who speak out” (without saying you spoke too soon and too accusatorily)
*I don’t recall which Black blogger Hearrt pointed out. Donna is native. But *I* was the one pointed out Black bloggers who support Hillary, and have seen the sexism and objected to it. I didn’t name them, because I don’t know what they’re blogs are. I said, they have YouTubed. Those Black women been harassed by other Blacks because of their political choice. I didn’t say I spoke too soon, because I don’t think I did. I mentioned Blacks, and whites. I said, I don’t read there re Feministe. So that would follow I probably don’t know who the posters are, right? Except Donna.
you are NOT reading very many black womens blogs. Read egotistical whinings, What Tami Said, Womanist Musings and Allecto.
*Yes, I read those. In this context I read some of those.
Sis I wrote this long rant but everyone is saved as it got deleted somehow and my fire went out, hahah.
Here’s what I have left:
Sis Re Obama and the change.gov site — I see. But when I searched, it was coming up with news articles not comments I don’t think.
Re the other matter of them deleting comments– Since Obama’s staff/Obama are choosing to try to sweep the Hillary photo thing under the rug I certainly think it’s great for anyone to express their personal or collective outrage over the guy not getting fired and their outrage over concerns dismissed in Obama’s hopes the incident fades from memory.
Re impeachment If Bush weren’t impeached it’s not going to happen to Obama who, unlike Bush, the majority wanted. Re wondering if Obama would be responding to black people more, I think it’s good to remember it’s 13 percent pop. at most in the US., and I don’t know. If it were a small segment of black people, (the way it’s a small segment of women re this Hillary issue though that may change) I’m sure he might X their questions re some issue too, choose to ignore. Like I can imagine Obama ixnaying on comments about reparations for blacks, or ixnaying certain comments about the US and Israel/Palestine, what have you. Anyone sounding like Rev. Wright would certainly have their comments ixnayed.
Jeyoani, it could be true that the Obama campaign was just too busy to answer this:
That was in the beginning of September. I think it got ignored because, unlike Jerome Corsi, the campaign felt it was safe to ignore (was I too polite?), and also, unlike Jerome Corsi, my article is not easily refuted. I did not just get a silly form letter. I got another 42 fund-raising appeals to add insult to injury. Perhaps I should try again to get a response, but I imagine the Obama people are so busy dealing with the economic emergency, I will just get another form letter. I think the Obama people figured it would do them more harm than good to respond to me, and they are probably right about that. The last thing they want is to give a feminist critique of Obama any credibility.
Aletha I read your letter and think your questions are among the most important addressed to Obama that beg answers. But yes, I just think w/politicians –people actually in office at that level– it’s about expediency and putting out fires acording to size. We
already know Obama’ s administration is not a radical feminist one, and all radical feminists are in the minority anyway. So there is no pressing need to answer any radical feminists –because of their small numbers.
Doubtless in my mind they answered Corsi because he wrote a book against Obama and it was a successful book and he’s a well known conservative. Which is Obama’s biggest opposition group. So they needed to put out that fire pronto, yeah esp. in election season.
I just don’t see how subject matter even enters into it. How would the response be any more personal if the topic had been Iraq and not women? Obama has over 10 million people’s email addresses, or did as of the end of the campaign, who knows what it is now that people who didn’t support him are writing him.
I imagine that it has worked something like this for months: email enters the system, programs (and, to the degree necessary, low-level staffers) code the topic/s by keyword, form letter email is sent (perhaps with topic-specific message “plugins,” perhaps not). Data as to subject matter and maybe pro/con position are tracked in aggregate. Next?
In fact, millions of people were emailed a long, detailed survey to help ‘agenda set’ or whatever, near the end of November. I suspect that this type of data is what’s being monitored, and has been monitored, by the campaign all along. Not rhetoric, feminist or otherwise. Half a million people gave *solicited* feedback.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gGPB5hINcZWiVLGOu_95Se36fPwQ
On the change.gov site people put up their ideas and vote for things they like. Again, in this scenario, ideas only need come to the Obama campaign’s attention once they have a critical mass of support behind them.
So, in sum: public opinionmakers get a more personalized, detailed, public response than private citizens. To quote Joe Biden, “that’s not change, that’s more of the same.” And that’s true in one sense.
But in another, there are some differences in how this communication is being run: citizens can see what messages other citizens are sending to the campaign, in some sense — and citizens can lobby each other for support.
Obama may be exploiting the grassroots in some ways…but the grass IS able to network (using his network and resources while generating his data, of course). You can put your idea up on change.gov and try to get your friends and family and social networking facebooktwitterspaced acquaintances to support it. And you can blog about it and try to get other people aboard your cause and try to get your idea some traction within the Obama campaign. It’s very clear that this is how they’re doing things.
Now — there are a lot of questions and problems that I have with this system as being representative of democratic feedback and grassroots. Obama-sytle netroots really is something else entirely.
But…? What one needs to do in order to be taken seriously as a “factor” by the Obama campaign could NOT be made any clearer: you need a damn big megaphone. And if you don’t have that as an individual, you need to muster it as a group.
Whoops, sorry. I was trying to link to something I saw earlier and realized that I confused change.org with change.gov. Duh.
Disregard this sentence —
“You can put your idea up on change.gov and try to get your friends and family and social networking facebooktwitterspaced acquaintances to support it.”
(everything else is the same, though. change.gov even has an open-topic message board of sorts up now — I imagine things won’t get flagged as off-topic. Lots of people discussing Rick Warren on it.)
Haven’t read or posted here for awhile; lots going on in life and family regarding transitions. What amazing articles and comments for this solstice season. Here’s what I sent to Valerie Jarrett’s email (thanks for the link in this posting thread) — not with expectations of change in “high places” of patriarchy but because it made me feel better:
To Ms. Jarrett and the rest of the transition team:
Jon Favreau’s online-reported breast-grope of an image of Senator Hillary Clinton (prospective Secretary of State) can only be evaluated for its misogyny if re-cast by the hypothetical of turned tables. What if Senator Clinton’s speechwriter had attended a party and groped the crotch of a life-size image of President-Elect Obama, to whose pictured lips another woman held a bottle of beer? Would that be only good fun, girls will be girls? I think not.
It is my hope that the incoming administration is not willing to sacrifice authentic and self-actualized womanhood for the prevailing liberal conceit that the image of woman as underclass may be sexualized and denigrated according to the worst of male ideation. Senator Clinton may be schooled to make light of sexist disparagement as the entry price to play in the political big leagues run by men. As a woman and a constituent, I protest what disparaging Senator Clinton does to disparage the self-respect of girls and women everywhere. Those women who are opting out of involvement in a political system which internalizes misogyny across the conservative to liberal continuum may have the right idea. Meanwhile, I’ve given up false hope crowned by faux humor masking deep sexism.
Yours sincerely,
Judy
Judy, Judy, as always your messages make my mind glow.
How succinctly you have put the current status of women and girls in the Western world.
It gets worse year by year. That picture would *never* have been given a pass in the 70’s.
It drives me nuts to hear women talk about “how far we’ve come”.
***It gets worse year by year. That picture would *never* have been given a pass in the 70’s.***
Yes, it’s amazing how much more misogyny is given a pass today than back in the 70s and before. The first time I saw the picture, I at first thought it was a party of college frat brats, but then when I saw they were Obama White House staffers I was stunned!
My mind spoken, my heart goes out to us all who struggle in a world gone awry, awaiting change to our evolutionary movement. Thank you for the affirmation of not being alone in realizing the truth. Now, to set us free …
No it would not have gotten by in the 70s. 70s feminists were simply tougher than the feminists of today. Back then they didn’t give a damn about public opinion. Heck, we picked men up bodily and threw them in the street when they invaded our woman only events. Now, some Gen X clueless would argue for the man’s rights.
Geez!
The thing is, I wonder if Hillary Clinton is speaking up about this behind closed doors. One can only hope.
The Boston Globe Magazine has selected Jon Favreau as one of 6 “Bostonians of the Year”. How insulting!
This is an opportunity to speak out! I encourage everyone who has a moment to do the following.
1. Send a Letter to the Editor’ to the Boston Globe Magazine and to the Boston Globe newspaper (which publishes the Boston Globe Magazine every Sunday). Here is the contact information:
• Boston Globe Magazine, Letter to the Editor: magazine@globe.com or by mail at: The Boston Globe Magazine/Letters, PO Box 55819, Boston, MA 02205-5819.
• The Boston Globe newspaper, Letter to the Editor: letter@globe.com or online at: http://bostonglobe.com/news/opeds/letter.aspx?id=6340
2. Write a letter or email and send it to the following Boston Globe Magazine contacts. They are the reporters and editors for this piece:
• Charles P. Pierce is the reporter who wrote the article on Favreau: cpierce@globe.com phone: (617) 929-2724
• Doug Most, Editor of the Globe magazine: dmost@globe.com phone: (617) 929-3454
• Susanne Althoff, Senior Assistant Editor: Althoff@globe.com phone: (617) 929-1543
3. You can comment on the article. Here’s the link: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/12/21/the_speechwriter_in_chief/
Together we are strong!
***The Boston Globe Magazine has selected Jon Favreau as one of 6 “Bostonians of the Year”.***
For what? For being a sexist jackass pig?
For being a champion of the male right to publicly hate, humiliate, sexually assault and ridicule females. He’s a hero, doncha know? Can’t have those c***s thinking that they’re anything but c***s. Guys need to be guys and keep that goin’ on. Otherwise, what is “life” for?
&*%$#, I hate men.
[...] picture of himself and another Obama staffer feigning sexual assault on Hillary Clinton. This first link is a couple of weeks old but there’s such good discussions going on and it really speaks to a [...]
Thanks “A Supporter” for the Boston Globe info. I wrote a protest letter about Favreau by email, and I’m hoping that they are flooded with letters outraged about his womanhatred rape promoting behavior.
Thank you, Satsuma, for writing a letter to the Boston Globe.
There are more stories on Jon Favreau, and a number of papers are reprinting the Washington Post article edifying him. His PR team is working hard. . .
Please write Letters to the Editors of the following papers that are spotlighting Favreau. These newspapers have reprinted Eli Saslow’s Washington Post article that spins Favreau as a wonderful guy . . .
1. Kansas City Star article, “Meet Obama’s Speechwriter”: http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/16180
• Letter to the Editor (up to 150 words): letters@kcstar.com or via paper mail to: The Kansas City Star, Letters, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64108,
• Mike Fannin, Editor and Vice President: mfannin@kcstar.com
2. Minneapolis Star Tribune article, “Word for Word with Obama”: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/36503444.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUMEaPc:E7_ec7PaP3iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU
• Letter to the Editor: Dennis McGrath, Editor, StarTribune.com/Politically Connected, djmcgrath@startribune.com
• Nancy Barnes, Editor and Senior Vice President for News, Star Tribune, nbarnes@startribune.com
•
3. The Charlotte Observer article, “Obama’s word man has the world waiting”: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/653/story/427997.html
• Rick Thames, Editor, The Charlotte Observer, rthames@charlotteobserver.com
• Ann Caulkins, President and Publisher, acaulkins@charlotteobserver.com
• Dee-Dee Strickland, Senior Editor, deedeestrickland@charlotteobserver.com
• Street address for mailed letters: The Charlotte Observer, 600 S. Tryon St. Charlotte, NC 28202
4. And, of course, the Boston Globe article anointing Favreau as one of 6 Bostonian’s of the Year. There are some great comments here if you need ideas, and the site is still taking comments: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/12/21/the_speechwriter_in_chief/
5. And keep sending those Letters to the Editor to the Boston Globe (addresses in post # 76)!
Thank you all.
Papers are hard by for copy this time of year. It may now stop since the attack on Palestine.
The other papers are owned by the same chain, so they post each other’s ’soft’ news at this time of year.
Lesson: Use this time of year to your advantage, women. Start getting your ‘human interest’ stories to media, but especially print media, beginning mid-November; make sure they are not dealing with Xmas (or Hannukah) make them hopeful, uplifting, yea, even annointing type stories such as this one we scorn. They file such stories to use now. They slate similar award stories for this time of year.
Consider having a Women of the Year appointment in Dec. 2009. And send the press releases on the winners out Dec 15. Then, and sometimes a bit sooner, they plan the newspapers, layout and all, with holes left for bombings. Seriously.
Supporter take that to TNA if you will.
Of course, then just before Jan 1 you send out your Sexist of the Year winners and runners-up and honourable mentions press release.
Voice your opinion on Favreau to Obama’s transition team.
A NEW YEAR’S ACTION PLAN:
Right now, the Obama transition team is soliciting questions from the public via their website: http://www.change.gov . Visitors may “vote” for the best questions, which will apparently the Obama team will respond to. In addition, you can submit your own questions.
Instructions for Voting / Submitting Questions:
1. Visit http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions20081229/
2. Click the small “Sign In” text near the bottom of the screen. Sign-in with your email and password on the right. (If you haven’t signed-in before, just fill out the short form on the left.)
3. In the search box on the left side of the screen, you can type in “FAVREAU” or “WOMEN”. This will take you to questions on Favreau and on women’s issues.
4. To vote for the questions you would like the Obama transition team to address, click the small “check” box beside it.
THE BOTTOM LINE HERE is that we can post and ‘vote’ on comments on Favreau, and also on questions that will help advance women’s issues. The more ‘votes’ the good questions get, the better.
5. To Submit a question, click the “submit a question” box at the bottom of the screen and type it in.
This is an opportunity to have some input. We encourage everyone to go to the website and use your voice. http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions20081229/
Sure you can post a question. Until it’s taken down. change.gov is an obvious scam to keep Obama supporters feeling like they’re still part of the “movement”. By all means, post questions, but don’t be deluded that your voice is going to be heard.
Don’t be co-opted. Find a way to let Obama know that power exists outside of his future administration, that he hasn’t hoovered up all the activists and activism to his agenda. One suggestion it to go to outside power centers, like HillPac, or your own congresspersons, and give money and time to them and comments/critiques and an agenda to pressure Obama with. Or give time and money to feminist organizations, with explicit instructions and expectations that they not be co-opted by Obama. If you have a progressive or even Democratic agenda you need to recognize that only outside power and pressure will make Obama adopt any part of it. You cannot expect to effect change from inside the Obama-sphere. You have to find power — any power — that exists outside of it and augment and support that power.
Obama is part of the system and we need to remember that and act like it. Outside power and pressure is the answer.
I think as women that we should never ever give money to men or men’s organizations. Our resources are too limited. The Obama campaign has enough money, but women controlled organizations often do not. I don’t want men making decisions for me, and support alternative organizations all the time. It’s a given.
Emma, thank you for your thoughts. I agree that outside power, pressure, and connections are where we need to involve ourselves. I think we have to continually keep the issues visible (i.e., sexism, misogyny, Favreau, violence against women, etc), and continue to speak up and press for change. Satsuma, I agree we should financially support those organizations working for women. Funnie (#69), I appreciate your comments.
I do wonder how representative the change.gov website is, and agree that we need to work from outside to really be heard. However, in the meantime, and knowing that our voices may not be heard or heard well, it can’t hurt to work on all fronts. It wouldn’t hurt if everyone went to the change.gov website “Open for Questions” section — http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions20081229/ –searched for “Favreau” and voted on the comments there and added more. Other mechanisms will work better, but lots of votes might just catch someone’s attention.
Because your comments there are likely to be removed literally and figuratively (we have had no complaints) I suggest you keep a copy of your post, question, and post it somewhere else as an archive.
Great idea Sis. And we can all spend the majority of our time pursuing other avenues of activism.
Frankly, I don’t want to register at change.gov because the spam from the Obama camp is endless and obnoxious. I could go the rest of my days without seeing another email from Plouffe, Axelrod, Brazile, Dean, Biden, the DNC, or anybody else connected to Obama in my inbox.
I’ve made my views on Favreau known to the Obama administration through other avenues. He doesn’t give a crap. change.gov is an obvious co-optation strategy. I honestly believe it cannot act as any way to put pressure on Obama because it will always be manipulated by his administration and his supporters. It exists for the purpose of manipulation and to advance Obama’s power.
UPDATE ON THE BOSTON GLOBE’S LOVE AFFAIR WITH JON FAVREAU:
The lead article in today’s Boston Globe Magazine, “Can Political Speeches Make a Difference? Just Words,” edifies Jon Favreau and his relationship with Obama. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/01/11/just_words/?page=full
This article is brought to you by the same reporter, Charles Pierce, and the same publication that honored “the Groper” Jon Favreau as one of 6 “Bostonians of the Year” in their December 21st issue. You can find that article here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/12/21/the_speechwriter_in_chief/
Although the article isn’t about Favreau specifically, his name is mentioned eight times in the last portion of the article. Quote from today’s article:
“Only after working on John Kerry’s campaign in 2004 did Favreau meet and begin writing speeches for Barack Obama, and, like Sorensen and John Kennedy, the two men worked so closely together in so many places for so long around the country that Favreau soon found his voice indistinguishable from Obama’s.”
It’s frustrating that the Boston Globe Magazine has not printed any of the Letters to the Editor protesting Favreau’s selection as a Bostonian of the Year. Perhaps they plan to print a letter later (they printed letters about their December 14th issue today).
The Boston Globe itself (not the Boston Globe Magazine which selected Favreau as a Bostonian of the Year) printed one very short letter on Christmas eve (guaranteed not to have many readers), but that letter has been removed from their website.
SUGGESTED ACTION PLAN:
1. Let’s keep the issue alive. Send your Letters to the Editor at the Boston Globe to both addresses below:
• Boston Globe Magazine, Letter to the Editor: magazine@globe.com or by mail at: The Boston Globe Magazine/Letters, PO Box 55819, Boston, MA 02205-5819.
• The Boston Globe newspaper, Letter to the Editor: letter@globe.com or online at: http://bostonglobe.com/news/opeds/letter.aspx?id=6340
2. Send your comments and letters to those involved:
• Doug Most, Editor of the Globe magazine: dmost@globe.com phone: (617) 929-3454
• Charles P. Pierce is the reporter who wrote the article on Favreau: cpierce@globe.com phone: (617) 929-2724
• Susanne Althoff, Senior Assistant Editor: Althoff@globe.com phone: (617) 929-1543
3. Go to the Boston Globe Magazine and COMMENT on the article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/01/11/just_words/?page=full
4. Copy your letter or email to your Senators and Representatives. Ask them to take up the issue of sexism in the media and to ask Obama to fire Favreau. You can find your elected officials’ contact information here: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
We can’t afford to let the press continue to gloss over the Favreau incident; it’s a symbol of the rampant sexism and misogyny going on today.
They really are into censorship these days. I had three other friends write letters to the Globe about this.
Yes, the Globe is into censorship. The Globe Magazine received many letters protesting Favreau’s selection as a ‘Bostonian of the Year’. They printed one – one sentence long.
Quick ACTION PLAN:
1. Leave your comments about Favreau and the Globe’s barely acknowledging the comments and mail they received about their appointing Favreau as one of 6 Bostonians of the Year. You can comment here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/01/18/letters/
2. Nominate the Boston Globe Magazine for for NOW’s Media Hall of Shame.
http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall_of_shame/suggestion.html
(They ask for a URL. The original Globe Magazine article is here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/12/21/the_speechwriter_in_chief/
I sent in my N.O.W. Hall of Shame nomination for Favreau, thanks “A Supporter” for the link!
Well, the Hall of Shame nomination I emailed in today was rejected, because N.O.W. is only considering bad media portrayals of women, and Favreau is not a media person. Anyone who nominats Favreau to the NOW link will have it rejected. FYI