On the eve of arguably the most significant inauguration of our times, I am eating granola and leafing through my RSS. Plus ca change, no? Picked up in various blog posts, the cover of Ms. Magazine caught my eye somewhat. I'm delighted, amused, bemused and instantly cynical, all at once.
Of course there's been an intense reaction. Remember that the first Ms. Cover was a provocative cartoon: 'Wonder Woman for President'. There are easy conclusions to draw here as to what this image says about progress. Response-wise there's an identifiable split between the 'Christmas, Thanksgiving and Hannukkah all at once' school of O-bots (see the video below) who are lapping it up, and the, as usual, more than slightly self-contradictory feminist Right, who are principally tearing up the former for being 'floosies.' Very constructive. I do agree that the souvenir poster edition doesn't quite sit right, unless its some kind of incredibly 'knowing' parody, in which case I'm not sure if subscribers are the butt of the joke. Still, the real significance here is in the way women have thus far related to this man - who has himself been dissected and sexualised by popular media. (That's a mammoth sea change in itself, perhaps a discussion for another post) More analysis after the jump..
The editors at Ms. can't plead ignorance as to the significance of the Superhero trope. Angsty, be-muscled, tearing at his chest to run and save the day, indeed the girl, as this is a paradigm traditionally counterweighted by a fainting weak woman languishing stage left. This aesthetic indiscretion was highlighted in this post by Amy Siskind, where she rightly noted 'it's a man, standing in a superman pose, and quite frankly, the women of this country can stand up for themselves.' Watch the whole CNN piece, including Naomi Woolf's interesting contribution - here. A sticking point for the detractors though - who's to say the proverbial off-screen heroin, the fainting weak woman, can't be America, or the statue of Liberty, (or whichever generic trope you choose) or even, let's get subversive, Uncle Sam(antha) himself!? Does a man bearing the word 'feminist' denote that he's preoccupied only with "saving" women? I'd like to think we're moving beyond that kind of simplistic signposting. If Hillary (and every other woman with more than gender equality on their plate - viz. everyone) can be a feminist without speaking only on women's issues, then why can't Obama?
Naomi Wolff points to the fact that the Obama era will be the first time feminists will truly get "the ear of the president." This is an interesting way of putting it, although she has not been without her detractors in saying so, as many people feel that it should rightly have been Hillary (or Palin, but, like Team Sarah - they're just mental) on the cover of Ms. In the war of words online, some have been quick to gloss over the fact that Clinton will, of course, be the Secretary of State, as chosen by Obama himself. Rather than highlighting flaws or running counter to, her inspiring opening speech - Read Jezebel's run down here - at the Senate Confirmation last week only serves to augments Obama's position as what I wholeheartedly believe to be a feminist. A feminist with everything to prove.
