From page 62 of Cynthia Enloe's
Bananas, Beaches & Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics:
"Women who have called for more genuine equality between the sexes...have been told that now is not the time, the nation is too fragile, the enemy is too near. Women must be patient, they must wait until the nationalist goal is achieved; then relations between women and men can be addressed..."
Sounds
reasonable,
right?
Obama has to wade in and undo all that damage eight years of
Bush did, he has to make everything right for all of us (? all of us men, or what?) before he can work on women's rights in particular.
This is not to say that Obamacare hasn't done good things, or set good precedents, or whatever. And it doesn't mean that we're all idiots and don't understand that change takes time (
or don't we? And I highly suggest clicking on this link;
Liss @ Shakesville not only knows her shit, but has excellent resources for people who just don't want to relinquish their love for Barry's "progressive" administration).
But women, as well as other oppressed groups, often hear that dealing with our specific, minority (?), or niche problem will happen after we win the revolution (we being, of course, the dudes in charge). As Enloe writes,
"It is advice predicated on the belief that the most dire problems facing the nascent national community are problems which can be explained and solved without reference to power relations between women and men."
This situation, in which we are encouraged to allow a privileged conception of the "greater good" precede the defense of our rights, reminds me of
Heidi Hartmann's writing on Marxism and feminism, and Marxist claims that feminist (read: women's rights) issues will be resolved once we have accomplished a classless society. As if the subjugation of women by men will be eradicated when our men take care of their problems with some other men.
I'm really super sure Obama is a nice guy who wants what's best for our country. And I'm really super sure that
health care reform has improved, to some extent, my quality of life. But at the expense of what, and who? More of us get health care (sorta), while others of us are further deprived of their reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. How different would it be, I often wonder, if the government made laws regulating the reproductive rights or bodily autonomy of men? How would you respond, Sir, if the government interfered with your sexual identity, your right to fuck, your right to get medical help when you need it, even if that help is for your filthy, dirty, naughty bits?
This argument that women wait is kind of like saying, Well, we got Barry into office and he saved us from starvation by giving everyone in the country one chicken sammich (yeah, I dunno), while allowing the rest of the chicken sammiches (a surplus, if you will, of delicious food), be divided among a very small group of interested parties, capitalists, and wealthy bastards. At least we got a sammich, right? Even though we are still going to starve later on.
(That was an awful comparison, but please make an effort at seeing my point, as long as I haven't bungled it beyond articulation. If you still think I'm wrong and an idiot, PLEASE go to
Shakesville and listen to what Liss has to say. That lady will make you understand what I'm attempting to get across.)