I haven't always agreed with Morgan, but I found nothing all that disappointing in this piece. And all I got out of your comments was that you didn't like her sarcastic tone. Aren't we over criticizing oppressed people for their tone when speaking truth to power?

Hi Courtney,

I'm also not sure what you found disappointing about the piece. I approve of the lack of hypocrisy Morgan displays in endorsing Obama so strongly after her vociferous defenses of Clinton during the primaries. This tells me it really is policy and not biological sex that determine her political choices. The essay is done in her usual tart-tongued fashion, with the list-making style for which she has a penchant.

Could you be a little more specific as to what you disliked?

Thanks.

Quick note: I did follow the link to the Comments you made, but I thought your comments focused largely on "tone" (as opposed to your conversation partner, who brought up the reference to Obama's memoir). Although tone can be an important talking point, I was hoping you could share substantive points as well.

In terms of the books, I have also wondered about the glut of "my father" books from well-known men: McCain, Brokaw, Russert, Obama. I understand that people odten identify with their same-sex parent--even when, as with Obama, the parent is an absentee one. But with Obama in particular, who was raised his entire life by a single mother whose life and loves shaped him to such a degree (move to Indonesia to be w/ stepfather, e.g.), I just found it surprising that the first (and so far only) book he has written about his early life gave such short shrift to the mother.

Also, I am a woman and I've written some deeply heartfelt essays about my father. Opposite-gender parents are equally important to same-gender ones, but it's the latter who often get the focus.

Huh? I thought the piece was great for the most part. The tone, which sounds a lot like a lot of her pieces' (including that of "Goodbye to All That"), struck me as that of acerbity designed to cut the obvious emotional underpinnings. I don't always agree with the woman, but I thought this piece was pretty dead-on: straightforward, honestly critical and uplifting, with its prescriptive activism.

I didn't see anything offensive with what she write. I think that Morgan was talking to those who share her viewpoint -- feminists who aren't enamored with Obama who need to be reminded that there are real, important reasons not to sit out the vote.

I understand her uneasiness with regards to someone declaring, "I let Jesus Christ into my life." Having lived much of my life as an agnostic (raised Catholic and married to a United Methodist minister) in the hotbed of the Southern Baptist convention and non-denominational evangelical breeding ground that is Texas, I have a visceral reaction to such statements. Another one: I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. Perhaps other parts of the country don't have Christianity thrown at them like a weapon, but every time I answer the doorbell I wonder if it's another proselytizer. (I long ago learned to avoid any religious discussions at work or amongst polite company.) It's my experience that the people who share freely such blatantly Christian sentiments are usually misogynists. So, yes, it does worry me when I hear the only viable feminist-friendly candidate in the election parrot lines that I associate with sexists.

I thank Morgan for reminding me of McCain's nastiness towards Chelsea Clinton. It always pissed me off when people dismissed her as ugly -- as if pretty was the best thing any daughter could be.

"...and if that offends any Born Agains, they really shouldn’t read Robin Morgan."

LOL, thanks for reminding me of this line. I love (no sarcasm, truly) people who revela in print a high opinion of themselves.

Thanks for fleshing out your points. You're right that tone can be a valid point of discussion. Now that you've raised the issue in the context of the fraught election and of trying to win people over to one's side of the political divide, I see what you're saying. And I agree with you that a milder tone might have been more conciliatory to people on the fence.

However, can I be forgiven for relishing her tartness and self-regard a bit, no matter how alienating they may prove to be?

Can anyone direct me to information on John McCain's involvement in assaults at Tailhook Conventions? I hadn't heard anything about that before reading this and am a tad freaked out...Thanks.

I don't know, I really liked the piece. It seems honest, in a style that is certainly Robin Morgan and directed to a specific audience (not just friends and beer sharers).

Also, the part about "letting jesus into my life" makes a hell of a lot of sense for Morgan seeing that she wrote an entire book about the religious right. Having come from a Evangelical, southen baptist upbringing I find it scary that he says that, and it looks a little like political pandering, whether it is or not (especially when he go so far to distance himslef from his preacher, who seemed to have a christianity I am more comfortable with).

I agree that a father referenced book doesn't HAVE to be a patriarchal tool, but it certainly is worth noting that both of them have done so.

I am however, in full disclosure, partial to Robin, even when we don't agree fully.

Loved this piece.

I think that her reason for stating: "I'm uneasy when Obama declares 'I let Jesus Christ into my life' and if that offends any Born Agains, they really shouldn't read Robin Morgan" is because of her outspoken atheism. I heard an interview with Robin Morgan on Air America's Freethought Radio, and she was phenomenal. As an athiest/agnostic it does seriously concern me when politicians speak so openly and candidly, almost preach-ily, about their "faith". Sarah Palin takes it to a whole new level. The line between church and state is so blurred lately, it is high on my growing list of deep concerns about leadership. Seriously, every candidate for president needs to pass the Jesus test, and that is frightening.

Anyone else going to see Bill Maher's "Religulous" this weekend?

Just to remind everyone how FUCKING GREAT a writer this woman used to be:

"Women are the real Left. We are rising, powerful in our unclean bodies; bright glowing mad in our inferior brains; wild hair flying, wild eyes staring, wild voices keening; undaunted by blood we who hemorrhage every twenty-eight days; laughing at our own beauty we who have lost our sense of humor; mourning for all each precious one of us might have been in this one living time-place had she not been born a woman; stuffing fingers into our mouths to stop the screams of fear and hate and pity for men we have loved and love still; tears in our eyes and bitterness in our mouths for children we couldn’t have, or couldn’t not have, or didn’t want, or didn’t want yet, or wanted and had in this place and this time of horror. We are rising with a fury older and potentially greater than any force in history, and this time we will be free or no one will survive."

Mostly her essays now disappoint me because they're all snark, with not much insight and none of the absolutely gorgeous prose that she is capable of creating.

i don't know, i think that tone is appropriate and acceptable when speaking to one's own. it's certainly not how feminist writers should always write, but i don't think it's wrong here. it strikes me as exactly the tone of say, most of what amanda marcotte writes on pandagon, for instance. it's biting and it's sarcastic, but it's funny if you agree with her.

Also, as a side note that has been bugging me; I don't think the "yucky power" comment was directed at all young feminists/women or at all female Obama supporters . I think it was directed at the people it described, the young feminists/women who *would have* supported Hillary but did not only for the superfluous reasons pointed towards (as opposed to liking Obama for any real reason).

It is a logical fallacy to assume otherwise.
Its the difference between
1) If you have anti- feminist superfluous reasons, then you support Obama
and
2) If you support Obama, then you have anti-feminist superfluous reasons.

I think Morgan meant the first. The first means that if you have A, you'll have B. It does not necessitate that if you have B you will have A, Claim 2 does.

The paragraph reads as:
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her.

I've loved reading everyone's comments! Kristen Loveland, fellow Girl with Pen-er with me, has a great post up this morning in response to this thread, and in light of last night's debate. For Kristen's 2 cents, please check out:

http://girlwpen.com/?p=1194

The link is the new Girl with Pen group site, which officially goes public on Monday, where Courtney will be blogging monthly, and where we welcome her with open arms! Even if she and I disagree on some things sometimes :)

Robin Morgan to me is the embodiment of why young women in particular run from the "F" word. And as a young woman I actively dislike her. And wow so now we can only write about our moms? All that negative whiney b.s.

LalaReina, can you explain why you feel that way?

Based on the one example you gave it seems you think Morgans comment means NO ONE can write about about fathers. I think what it says is that when both MALE candidates of a presidential election with the most female participation in high level electorial politics ever have written books whose titles refer to their fathers as main motivation it points to something about the state of things (a situation). If Morgan had said: Anyone who writes about their father (an action) is pathriarchal" I would see your point. Instead I think she is making an observation about a *situation*, not an *action*.

You writing about your father or a title about your father would not fit into her example, so no it does not mean you can only write about your mom.

My 2 cents.