LORRIE MOORE’s OP-ED
January 13th, 2008
A couple of summers ago I attended the Tin House writing conference in Portland. I remember being surprised by the assumption that all conference attendees hated the president and were wildly disgusted by direction in which the country was headed. I felt like there was an inside joke among the writers (both aspiring and famous) that “these dark times” heightened our responsibility to create good work. Sometimes I feel embarrassed for fiction writers who are publicly passionate about politics (like when Steve Almond quit teaching at BU because the school invited Condoleeza Rice to speak at graduation). Often, I don’t see how their insights advance the discussion. Calling Condoleeza Rice a liar doesn’t advance the discussion. I expect fiction writers to have an even knottier, more conflicted relationship with politics than journalists do, and I hate to see a famous one climb up on a soapbox only to reiterate the same knowing spiel you’d expect from a MoveOn.org campus organizer.
Anyway, Lorrie Moore wrote an Op-Ed about Hillary Clinton in today’s New York Times that does contribute to the political discussion and complicates it in a new way:
“Does her being a woman make her a special case? Does gender confer meaning on her candidacy? In my opinion, it is a little late in the day to become sentimental about a woman running for president. The political moment for feminine role models, arguably, has passed us by. The children who are suffering in this country, who are having trouble in school, and for whom the murder and suicide rates and economic dropout rates are high, are boys — especially boys of color, for whom the whole educational system, starting in kindergarten, often feels a form of exile, a system designed by and for white girls.”
March 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I find HC difficult to comprehend. I’m always struggling to think at the same time–yes, she totally sucks–and also, simultaneously, most mainstream media suck much worse for THEIR misogynistic explanations of why THEY think she sucks.
I feel like the girls-perform-better-in-school argument is whack. Or, rather, I’m sure the stat is true but almost any other stat about women (salaries, household workload, etc.) would suggest the gender oppression that very much still exists.
Moore’s pointing out the presence of class and race oppression is a good thing, of course. But the idea that one needs to decide what group is oppressed MORE seems to be a pretty harmful & powerful mass-mediated suggestion to split people concerned about such things into factions. It also elides the economic links/motivations between many many forms of oppression.
Aargh. But that is the way of the two-party system, I suppose. Still haven’t decided if I’ll vote for the Democratic candidate, to help keep the Republicans from destroying the planet immediately, or abstain b/c my feeling is that the whole thing’s nonsense.