First of all, I think alot of these threats will never come to fruition. It’s understandable that these folks are hurting. For many of them, it was a given from the beginning that Clinton would not only be the Democratic nominee, but the next President. In fact, that’s one of the criticism’s I’ve heard of Clinton’s campaign; that her and her supporters were simply too sure of themselves. When something you’re that sure of fails to materialize, it’s jarring, scary, and it hurts. I know, I felt that way for a couple weeks after the 2004 election. When one is hurt, it’s completely natural an understandable to lash out at the one who (you perceive) did the hurting, but November is still 5 months away and time is nothing if not healing. Once the sting is gone, I have little doubt most (certainly not all, but most) of the folks will look at John McCain and look at Barack Obama, and decide their vote based on the policy positions that best match their own (and if their top choice was Sen. Clinton, then Obama will almost certainly win their vote over McCain).

While these folks are making their threats and expressing their hurt, it’d be smart to watch how broad of a brush their painting with. The vast majority of Obama voters are not sexist. Did sexism cost Clinton some votes? Undoubtedly, though it was likely more or less balanced out by the votes Obama lost due to racism. If any vote against Clinton is an indisputable symptom of misogyny, as I’ve heard suggested by these folks, then by the same token are all of their votes (against Obama) a symptom of racism? Of course neither are true and both expose the sheer silliness of the other. And what about the women who voted for Obama. These women have been called horrific names by other women and for what? Deciding for themselves their vote based on the issues independently from their gender? Isn’t that, in part, what feminism is about? I thought feminism was about every woman having the right to think and live for themselves, not about exchanging an oppressive patriarchy for an oppressive matriarchy. Is one really that much more preferable than the other?

In one or two of the posts of Aunt B’s I linked to above, she touches on something that I think is painfully obvious even to those of us not so deep into feminism. There seems to be more than a bit of narcissism involved in this. One feminist speaking in the comments at Just Another Pretty Farce referred to Hillary Clinton as “the nation’s one and only serious shot at the presidency by a woman.” Unless I’m WAY off base in my understanding of feminism, feminist women (and men) haven’t been fighting for all these years just so Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton ALONE could be president. They’ve been fighting so that (among many other things) a woman, any qualified woman, could be president. I’d suggest that the very fact that Clinton was a serious contender in the race for the nomination is, in fact, evidence that they have been successful in the struggle (not that it’s over). It’s hard to imagine someone, following such a near success of a female candidate for nomination, would suggest that no other woman will ever run for president (and indeed win) again. Therefore I can only assume that they are upset because given that presidents serve four year terms, it may well be a decade or two before it happens. Depending on age, that may well mean Hillary was the one and only serious chance at a female president in their lifetime (though I’m not so sure I buy that, as we may very well have a female candidate on the ticket as early as 2012 or 2016). Here’s the thing though, being involved in a movement like feminism is being involved in something that is supposed to be bigger than yourself. Yes, I fight for gay rights because I want to be able to be safe from losing my job or home on the basis of my sexuality, to be able to marry TheBoyfriend™, or even to be able to simply walk down the street holding his hand without fear, BUT I also fight for gay rights so gay kids being born today, tomorrow, 5, 10, and 20 years from now will be able to grow up not even knowing a time when such things weren’t commonplace.

That is the reason it’s completely irrational for a feminist to vote for McCain. You may get some kind of personal satisfaction by “punishing” the Democratic Party at large for not picking your favorite candidate, but what will you be doing for the future of young girls who aren’t yet old enough (or even born) to have a voice in the election. You’ll be setting them back by potentially resetting all the advances you’d managed to make for them. Even if you won’t see the advances you’d like to see, isn’t it worth it for these young girls to keep the ball moving in that direction?