My husband is a feminist - he works for American Airlines, likes to ride his harley and rides on the coldest days - so his coworkers thinks he is one tough old man.  But he will cook, fold laundry, clean house, and put up shelves, carry and bale - we live on a small truck farm.  He doesn't tell me how to live, expect me to do all the house work and he genuinely likes women - he is generous with tips to the waittresses, and he jokes and talks to the bank tellers.  There's a lot of men who only like women for sex but can't hardly stand to be around them for any other reason - I much prefer men who are feminists - who genuinely care about females.  Our only child - was a staff sargent in the USAF - she loaded bombs on F-16s and got out shortly before bush started the war in Iraq.  She is one strong, independent mom who has raised her son thru 3 Iraq deployments by her husband and he will spend the next year in Korea.  She will care for herself, use the snow blower, feed the horse and dog and work a full time job - she's got what it takes cuz she had a father who believed in her just as much as I did.  We need lots of feminist men - girls need feminist fathers as do sons.  It isn't about anything more than equal right.

I love this and it blows my mind as well. Enough said.

Feminism cannot work without including men. This does not signify "relying on men to define the future" of feminism. We should see this as a positive step to securing the future for women's rights. Equality requires everyone to be on board - excluding men can only hurt important causes from being realized. Obama already serves as an inspiration for so many people - he is a positive male role model, and we should be celebrating his proclaimed feminism.

I don't like this cover, and agree with Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville about it - her post:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/01/barack-feminist.html

- is less about Obama himself than the image and decisions behind publishing it; some excerpts:

"I wish I'd heard it from him myself, at any time during the campaign, ahem—although I'm not sure his private admission to feminist women whose support he was courting warrants the cover, particularly when there are prominent female politicians who have never been given such glowing treatment, despite being authentic feminist champions who are quite willing to publicly identify as feminist.

[snip]

Yet he's represented here as a superfeminist, which reinforces the same old narrative we see played out over and over again when it comes to men's participation in a "women's domain"—the women of feminism (or parenthood, or housecleaning, or rape prevention, or early childhood education, or nursing, etc.) are doing What Women Do, but the men who engage strongly in these areas are ZOMG SO SPECIAL AND BRILLIANT AND SELFLESS AND HEROIC!!!!11!

Rarely does an image so perfectly, depressingly capture this phenomenon, this reflexive tendency to over-reward men for doing what, in a just world, would be the bare fucking minimum to be considered a decent person.

[snip]

we mustn't misread guerrilla feminism into an image actually casting feminism as a secret identity, the latter of which risks tacitly communicating that feminism is best covertly practiced to be acceptable, to be effective, to be heroic—a message already built into every criticism of a feminist's tone, or a feminist's appearance, or a feminist's stridency, or a feminist's refusal to capitulate and be silent."

And this reading ignores that it is a privilege unique to men that a clandestine support for women's equality can be considered heroic. No one would celebrate me—nor should they—were I to wear my fervent belief in my equality and autonomy under my clothes.

There's ultimately nothing particularly feminist about an image that shoves feminism underground and reinforces male privilege."


I think the whole post is worth reading, and it's got a great alternative image included.

@ Leigh

When feminists are hypersensitive, as you and Melissa appear to be, and pro-Woman to the degree that you're anti-Man,  you do the cause a great disservice.  Sexist feminism is an oxymoron in my book.....its EQUAL rights after all.  But I suppose disagreeing with you makes me anti-Woman and nonfeminist......promote only those fighting for the cause publicly, loudly, and with 'approved' fervor and genitalia......good luck with that.....

Obama is the Man!   (And a good thing that he is)

A feminist is someone who believes in equal, women's rights. Right now, Obama is the one who can persue that further than any grassroot movement. Yeah, he is a feminist. He's no Susan B. Anthoney, but at his moment, I'd say he is. Besides; it's hypocritical and sexist to say that men cannot be feminist, isn't it? I thought we preached equal rights afterall.

Melissa McEwan's blog post was disappointing. She obviously knows very little about Barack Obama's record in Illinois and his work on behalf of equal rights. The people who responded to her blog wrote very frustrating comments, making it seem like no man can be a feminist. As a proud feminist I supported Obama early on and I was proud of his more "feminine" views on foreign policy and in his perspective. I majored in Women's Studies at Berkeley and we always defined feminism as any person who believes in equal rights for men and women. When we make it an exclusive club we are not helping our cause. It seems there is a generational divide on how we view feminism and the future of our movement. I hope that older feminists start valuing the input of younger feminists more and listen to us over the battles we think our worth fighting. At this point, I am more interested in results than symbolism.

I think that it's great to recognize and encourage men's contribution to feminist causes, but I also think that Melissa McEwan made valid points.  McEwan clearly wasn't terribly offended by the cover.  She wasn't protesting it or suggesting that we all cancel our subscriptions.  She was just offering some critical insight regarding the image.  It isn't hypercritical to point out defencencies or mixed messages that one sees in representations of gender even if those representations are produced by other feminists.  It's ok to look at gender representations in a GAP ad, and it's ok to look at them on a Ms. cover.  McEwan truly believed in her point and wasn't obnoxious or rude about it.  Even if you're not interested in symbolism, it is possible to be interested in it while also being invested in more obvious and pressing issues of women's/human rights.

@ David Schmidt, who said:"When feminists are hypersensitive, as you and Melissa appear to be, and pro-Woman to the degree that you're anti-Man"
I think it's you demonstrating hypersensitivity. While Leigh may be a little indignant, I think her points are valid. You are over-reacting, yourself. It is true that there are women who become "man-haters" (as the frightened men will describe them). But this isn't about being anti-man. It IS annoying to see Obama represented as some kind of superman with a secret identity as a feminist. I perceived him as an ordinary feminist, like me. 
Also, the idea of a "superman" as the object of admiration by so-called feminists kind of bothers me. Can't we just admire a regular guy who does what's right?
The reason I think  you are over-reacting, David, it this little addition to your admonition: "But I suppose disagreeing with you makes me anti-Woman and nonfeminist."  Who's over-reacting here, Schmidt? You seem to think you're suffering at the hands of the very women you're supporting, is that right?  Ah, the passive aggressive feminist man.We feminists have to deal with men like you on top of anti-women men, and it gets a little wearying. 

It is a sad fact that in our society most things become more acceptable when a man takes part in it. Nursing, for example suddenly became a 'cool' job when men began to enter nursing schools in significant numbers. Having a man on our side elevates our cause to the 'notable' level. Having a US president on our side brings it to the 'important' level. I wish we as a society would give as much weight to a woman's words as we do a man's but that is just not the case. Perhaps having Hillary Clinton in a prime position will change that a little. Until then, any man who stands on our side and makes our cause more acceptable is my hero. Or something like that...

What ridiculous, nonsensical blather.  To support equal rights and treament in every venue of our environment for women, is civilly and morally and 'constitutionally' the right thing to do.

Men who do this are not "feminists".  They are males, not females.  To be a "feminist" requires feminimity. 

  

Actually, Barak is being dragged kicking and screaming into being a feminist by Michele.  Up until now, Michele has pretty much abdicated her career to raising her chidren and Barak when he came home for the day had Michele catering to him - meals while he relaxes with a cigarrete - yes Barak is an absolute chain smoker and should quit ASAP so as not to be a poor role model, but that's another story.    They have been able to keep personal time separate for family and Barak kept the decision making politics issues discussing separate for the most part from Michele.  It will be a whole different dynamic now that Michele will have all her household chores taking care of cooking, cleaning, etc. at the white house.  Michele is one smart cookie and has demanded a larger role in decision making discussing issues of importance to the nation.  It has been a struggle for Barak to adjust during the campaign and it will be a futher struggle now.  It remains to be seen how all this plays out.  Barak is old fashioned and male chauvenist in many ways, but is being forced to adjust by Michele to a new way.  That is the new dynamic going on that no one has really caught on to yet.  Their new mode of coordination, communication will have a big impact on how seriously the interests of women including "feminist" issues are moved to the forefront.    

I don't understand the Ms cover.  Michelle has talked about lobbying to equality in the relationship.  Also, does anyone remember the time he called a reporter, "Sweetie", then later called to apologize.  Some smart staff member alerted him to the mistake.

If he had approached me and said, "I am a feminist.", I would be puzzled that he did not say instead exacted what he had done or was going to do that demonstrated his position.

That said, I have been an Obama supporter since Hillary came to TX for the second time and tried to fake a southern accent.

Elizabeth Alexander

A feminist is anyone who believes in and supports the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.  I'd say Mr. Obama qualifies -- big time!
If there are other widely-held definitions, I'm unaware of them. 

Response to David Schmidt and Carolita Johnson

Although I find it amusing that a male is being used to define feminism, learning that Obama considers himself to be a feminist is concerning.  David Schmidt said in this post, "But I suppose disagreeing with you makes me anti-Woman and nonfeminist."  He's right on the money with that statement.  Adding insult to injury, you have women like Carolita Johnson of this post emasculating men who rightly complain and address the sexism againt men in feminism.   However, I will now explain why I am against modern feminism.

The origins of feminism can be traced back to humanism, which is the belief in the value and dignity of every individual regardless of sex, race, or culture (this is something that i strongly believe in). This would, therefore, support the current dictionary definition of feminism, which is " the movement for social, political, and economic equality of men and women." Unfortunately, the past 15-20 years has given rise to a radical feminism that no longer fits this definition and is more of a PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR WOMEN.

Virtually every college/university is predominately female, there are more black and Hispanic men in jail than college, men still live less and are much more likely to commit suicide, lack of funding for prostate cancer even though everywhere you turn there's an ad or TV commercial on breast cancer, anti-male bias in the media and court system.etc.  We all know about the hardships women face but very little is known about the crisis men are facing-and part of that is due to feminism's fight for equality even if it means creating inequalities for men.  It's almost politically incorrect to be male in this country.  Even a FEMINIST has written a book about these issues (The War Against Boys by Christina Sommers). If a woman male-bashes, she's applauded; If a  man women-bashes, he's looked upon as an asshole and sexist.  Did I mention that women between the ages of 20-30 in big cities such as NY and LA actually make more money than men of the same age group and location yet you'll still find books by radical and anti-male femos complaining that women still earn less?

Men, do not worry.  There is a father's rights movement that's developing in this country.  Some day in the future there will be a strong men's movement to counteract the femos and bring about TRUE EQUALITY for BOTH men and women.

Louis Luciano

@ Ms Johnson
Who's over-reacting here Johnson?
Wow....had to tell me that I was over-reacting 3 times ! 
Sorry to 'weary' you.  Too bad you feel that you have 'to deal with men like (me)'. The reason I think  you are over-reacting, Carolita, it this little addition to your admonition: "You seem to think you're suffering at the hands of the very women you're supporting, is that right?  Ah, the passive aggressive feminist man." 
Wow.  You seem to be suffering at the hands of the very men who are supporting you.  Thanks for making my point about hypersensitivity...I think if a woman had made the same point you may not have gotten so irritated. But that's due to my past 'suffering', I suppose. Check out Sterlings comment (To be a 'feminist' requires femininity.') and the responses to Melissa McEwan's blog. 
Oh, how I 'suffer'. 
I'm 'weary' of dealing with  'women like you' on top of women who are anti-man.  Keep it up - be suspicious of all men....by nature they're all aggressive bullies and/or afraid of women.  How  awful that pro-women men must 'know their place.'
Sexism. What a waste of time.

Its just a magazine cover.
And a celebratory moment.

@ Louis
Thanks for your 'support', but no thanks.
Get a grip......men are not being truly victimized by women in this country, despite your hard-found 'examples'.
Carolita did not 'emasculate' anyone.  What a sexist and stupid way to assert a need for addressing the sexism in feminism.
I agree with the dictionary definition of feminism, that's my point, the ultimate goal.  You state you believe in the humanist basis for feminism defined as such as well but your commentary following that statement veers off course too much to be convincing.
Casting everything in man vs woman rhetoric is wrong for all sides, especially for those who share the ultimate goal, as you claim you do.  We need no 'men's movement to counteract the femos'.....just a strong non-sexist feminist movement. 
Maybe you're the man Carolita should counsel about 'suffering at the hands of women'.

As a Women's Studies student, it warms my heart to see such engaged debate around this matter. It's also a bit comical to see conversations that were had in the 1980s being rehashed here, but not everyone keeps up to date on the development of both theory and practice in different feminist streams, so it's understandable.

In any event, I'd like to say that what I find to be significant about this cover is not the reference to Obama as a "superfeminist" but the reference to this in a context of comic culture, wherein superheroes have also represented inspiration to the common person. They represent the will of people to make the world a more just and progressive place. (It is no coincidence that they rose in popularity during war-time periods.) Thus, it is appropriate to me that Obama be featured in this light.

One man, even if he is the President of the USA, cannot fix all that is wrong in our society. It takes all of us. (Also, it should be noted that it would not be desirable for one person to shape the world into what they saw fit, without the involvement of others in that vision.) It is up to us as citizens to take action, inspired by the opportunity for change that Obama's win has brought us, and change the world we llive in for the better.

I feel like I'm starting to sound a bit like Bill Pullman in Independence Day here, but it's true! As feminists, we cannot let in-fighting destroy our ultimate goal. As you may suspefct, I find the idea of sisterhood problematic, but I belive strongly in solidarity, wherein we don't all have to agree entirely, but we support each other in solidarity, in our effort to achieve a common goal of an end to oppression and domination. So, as feminists, or as folks who support feminism, let's stand together in solidarity, and work for change alongside the new president-Elect.

"Is Barack Obama what a feminist looks like?" You bet!  Barack Obama is one of many, many versions of "what a feminist looks like."  So.... you like that?  Great! You don' like that? That's great, too. Every body can just take a pause, and shrug your shoulders around, and let it all roll off, giving plenty of room for all the many ways that we can show up in the world. You get fixated on one thing, one image, one representation -- you get hard, maybe stuck, maybe rigid. What would it be like if you (we all) maybe soften your gaze, allow *this* image to fade into *that* image, into yet another and another and another, and let go of thinking there's one way to get it "right?" We are so many -- so, so many; Barack is having a big moment in the Sun right now, but, as he is quick to remind us, it's all about US. Put your own face on that cover...!  WOW!  You look great! 

I LOVE THIS COVER!!!!

It's a wonderful cover!

I believe that anyone in a position of power who advocates equal rights for women should be encouraged. While it is a no-brainer that this should be an automatic belief for all human beings, regardless of their sex, the fact is that we still live in a paternalistic society, with a dominant religion that denigrates the importance of the feminine.

If I put down President-elect Obama on the basis that he is a male, I am perpetuating sexism... which makes me just as bad as misogynists.

*Thinks Leigh Graham is oversensitive*

Re Steve Rose: "Up until now, Michele has pretty much abdicated her career to raising her chidren and Barak [sic]when he came home for the day."

Perhaps that was HER choice. For a woman to decide to have children and maintain the home does not lessen her inherent worth. Michele is not necessarily a stupid woman; she may have made this choice with absolute clarity. Besides, as long as women make less on the dollar than men, sometimes it is a choice made in the light of practicality. We knock her down to a child-like status if we question her choices.

Re: "Also, does anyone remember the time he called a reporter, 'Sweetie,' then later called to apologize."

I call people "Sweetie" all the time. But then, I'm a female, so I guess that makes it acceptable? LOL! Of course, if Obama called another male "Sweetie," we'd be wondering how his daughters came to be, and just what kind of relationship Barack and Michele have! Ah, the fun of conforming to gender roles! *Sigh*

Re Lola P: "At this point, I am more interested in results than symbolism." I'm an older feminist, and I could not agree more!

There is a context. The "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" t-shirt is a part of a campaign from about 10 years ago (started by Ms. as I recall). It was a way of showing that women from all walks of life, races and ages were proud of their own feminism. I rememeber Margaret Cho was one of the t-shirt wearers in the Ms. cover story. I was pleased the first time I saw a guy wearing the shirt (not in the article, but in real life). My point is that those who are saying that Ms. is making President Elect Obama the new feminist leader don't seem to be familiar with the campaign. The point wasn't to have a leader, but to say we are all a part of  feminism.

@ David

Obviously, you cannot really compare the victimization of women caused by men to the problems men, particular boys, are facing in society.  However, there was an AOL survey done that showed about 45% of men feel they are victimized just as much as women in society.  I'm not saying this is a true or reliable survey but am just making a point.   Your comments show that you're either oblivious to what's going on with men in this country or have been brainwashed by femenist propoganda.  It's sad to see you say that what I said are just "examples" when they depict real problems being faced by boys in this country.  Men like you are a good example of why there aren't many strong male voices out there talking about the plight of men, especially black and Hispanic men.  The simple fact that Carolita said you're the one who's really "hypersensitive" commenting on how being against feminism makes you ant-woman demonstrates a degree of sexism that I find to be emasculating.  There is nothing wrong with being a sensitive male but being a "hypersensitive" male shows that you lack masculine qualities and have a high degree of female qualities.   There is nothing "stupid" about that point, which can be proven by the obvious psychological and biological differences between the sexes.   I assume you're able to have a reasonable and constructive discussion about this topic without resorting to immaturity.

As for "suffering in the hands of women," I think that's a bit ridiculous.  You can make an arguement that even good, educated, and financially secure fathers are "suffering" from the sexism of the court systerm that makes it difficult for them to be more than a paycheck and a "weekend dad."  Boys might also be suffering from the disproportionate increase in attention and resources given to help girls in school, which is no doubt a factor in why boys are doing so poorly in school.  Aside from those two examples, I think it's ridiculous to say that "men are suffering in the hands of women" because this is still a male-dominated country and world. 

"No men's movement but rather a non-sexist feminist movement."  Feminism will always have a bias again men because feminism was created to counteract male oppression of women.  If there's a men's movement, it will counteract the current radical feminism, which could engender a new movement for TRUE gender equality.  The name of this new movement will not have a male or female connotation and wll comprise of an equal represention of men and women committed to true gender equality.  That's my vision.

'Relying on a man to define it's future.'
Feminisms problems AND solutions lie within the hearts of men to begin with, since the whole issue is about equality between them both.
If men are stepping up to the plate and saying that a woman can do just as good of a job as a man, so be it. Who cares what or who feminism is 'defined by'. It's not about the symbol, it's about the idea, and if even one of the most powerful men agree, the idea is winning.

I remain skeptical. I think Michelle is more of a feminist and I hope she will not do what every Washington wife is forced to do by our society -- shut up and be a dumb housewife.

I'm inclined to agree with McEwan's point, though I don't necessarily think the cover is a bad one. Maybe that seems contradictory, but to me, it just points up that it's hard enough to get men to take pro-feminist stances in public that finding one is seen as a cause for celebration.

OTOH, I'd have put Biden right there alongside Obama, or even perhaps out in front. Biden got the law written, lobbied his colleagues, and whipped DC into supporting passage of the VAWA, even though when he started it was rare for even the police to see domestic violence as a serious problem. That's feminism in action, feminism when it counted. And that's a man who isn't threatened by being associated with women's issues and concerns.

I feel sometimes that Obama's claim to feminism is that he's just got the kind of urban social aesthetic that sees women's participation in all spheres as unremarkable, but not that he's necessarily done much in the way of soul-searching on the matter. Maybe that's good, that some level of feminism is sort of a default, but I can't help remembering running into an Obama supporter wearing the infamous "Bros before Hos" tshirt with Obama's picture above Clinton's. I was left wondering whether the campaign's messaging couldn't have been geared in such a way that the young man in question would never have thought such a message of 'support' was welcome.

All I know is that so-called Feminist are doing some strange things.

Please sign my petition and pass it on

http://www.petitiononline.com/ivfrape/petition.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SAVE BABY X

Artificial Insemination used for Immigration & Paternity Fraud and the complete removal of this child's rights to a father.

Baby X has been stripped of his rights to have a father, by the State of New Jersey and Bergen County Courts, by a malicious plot involving NJ Bergen County Family Court and the corrupt Judge Edward Torack, Dr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, of the Mount Sinai Hospital/Reproductive Medical Center of New York.

Baby X is a victim of a sinister plot by the ruling class to destroy
Black Families and Men using the false flag of Child Support system and Women's Rights. Baby X was created during unauthorized artificial insemination by Dr. Mukherjee and a Black Woman facing deportation for defrauding a university in New York City. In order to avoid deportation, Dr. Mukherjee and The Mother of Baby X conspired together to take and illegally use the semen of a Black Male US Citizen in order to perform an artificial insemination, and create an anchor baby. They also conspired to victimize the said Black Male with the responsibility of Child Support without his consent to an IVF.

During hearings at NJ Bergen County Family Court, Baby X's Father was able to present a copy of Baby X's Mother's immigration records (which should a history of immigration fraud conducted by Baby X's Mother) and get Baby X's Mother to admit, under questioning, that she had the child via Unauthorized Medical Experiment/IVF.

Immediately after clear evidence was presented in the court, that Baby X was created by an via Unauthorized Medical Experiment/IVF for the purposes Immigration Fraud, the Father was completely banned from all courts and all judges - by the corrupt Judge Edward Torack of NJ Bergen County Family Court.

The court ban against the Father to Baby X includes the denial of the following rights:

1) Ban against a "Request for a DNA test of all parties"
2) Access to appeal & any other judges/courts
3) Ban against visitation between Baby X and Father X.
4) Any modifications to Child Support, including a decrease in income of Father X
5) Any ruling on evidence pertaining to immigration and paternity
fraud in the case.

The end result is to totally strip Father X from any rights to the
child except to shut up and pay. He did not have a right to say when where and how to have a baby, and he did not have a right to have any representation in court. And therefore the State of New Jersey has stripped Baby X's right to have a Father!

Ladies/feminists alike congratulations this is a shinning moment in a long struggle for equality. I am on the side of every woman when it comes to equality.

What worries me is a as the media puts it "a non news worthy movement" for a con con. A con con is the term to describe a Constitutional convention; the constitution of the United States of America can be changed two ways (legally).

1 By the US Legislature; better known as the constitutional amendment rout.

2 a con con or constitutional convention. This is where the states individually petition the US gov't to amend or totally change the Constitution.

The last con con (Constitutional  Convention occurred just prior to the Revolutionary War.  The convention was initially chaired to modify the Magna Carta.
The outcome was us The United  States of America. The only free people. in modern times with a guarantee of freedom by the US Constitution and further spelled out in our Bill Of Rights.

I am not accusing anybody of anything: But there has been a move for a con con in secret for over a year now and they want to bring back the original petition of the 22 states who petitioned for the equal rights amendment.

I cannot read minds but I have a bad feeling the evil forces of the New World Order are going to high jack the woman's movement for equal rights to destroy what makes us America. That is our  guarantee of liberty and freedom.
If they attack that and succeed their is one of three outcomes .

1 we win, and We The People, continue to right the book of freedom for all humanity
2 A new War. A war bloodier, more violent than any civilization on Earth has ever known with the outcome unknown.

3 If we lose the fight for freedom " We The People' will be slaves. Slaves in every sense of the word for a force as dark and evil as its true leader (satan) [will not dignify beast with a capital s].

Its up to you America to be vigilant an not let anyone/ anything  sucker " We The People" into willingly giving up our freedoms.

Think before you act.

I am THRILLED that Pres. Obama considers himself a feminist!
Lots of Pros and Cons being offered here but only one thing offended me.
Calling some of us dumb housewives shows true ignorance and prejudice.
A TRUE feminist supports women's decisions about what they do with their life.
A TRUE feminist doesn't denigrate other women's CHOICES!

"*Thinks Leigh Graham is oversensitive*"

Classic.  Femist over-reacting!  Clean-up in aisle 4!

Good one.

Next, please!

Feminism, as defined by feminist bell hooks (lower-case prefered), is a "movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression."

I don't see Obama, a Democratic Party president-elect, who supports the death penalty as anti-oppressive; I don't see supporting the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel, the Israeli attacks and the civilian casualties of the Palestinian people as anti-oppressive; I don't see being capitalist, frankly, as anti-oppresive; I don't see supporting the new FISA bill as anti-oppresive; I don't see supporting the $500 billion bail out to the richest people in the world as being anti-oppressive; I don't see not presecuting Bush and his administration with war crimes as anti-oppressiv: but I see rather accepting and colluding with the oppression of others as being linked with patriarchy (sexism), white supremacy (racism), and classism (capitalism). As long as he supports any and all of these (by ignoring them or otherwise), we can't seriously see Obama (or anyone) as a feminist.

I wouldn't be suprised if, when Obama comes to power, we'll see him commit or support other war crimes. Clinton did. Carter, too.

If supporting the death penalty and ignoring a complete, immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan don't give Obama blood on his hands, the next four years probably will. If you can't see that, you aren't looking.

Peace to all.

I agree with Jude, above. But I think the front cover picture is too soon and pre-emptively prejudicial. I wish people would put some of their thoughts, particularly the sensationalized, in a drawer for a few months. Let's be rational adults.
If educating and changing the meme of a large portion of the male population helps women gain respect, rights, and fairness, I believe Obama sets a good example.

this is wonderful.everybody in the pool!what's the beef?

this is wonderful.everybody in the pool!what's the beef?

Brilliant move by Ms.  I have been a fan since college when your founder visited our campus in Ohio at Capital University.  The next great step forward must be inclusive as many here have indicated. It's a new day and it would be wise for the movement to embrace this reality.

This is just wonderful and I agree that Ms should produce a t-shirt before someone else graps this opportunity.

Brilliant!

I have no problem with a man being listed as a feminist.  I have a problem with a man who cares as little about poverty in USA as this one does being called a feminist.

I don't think that Ms. magazine's decision to use this image was meant to imply that Barack Obama is the "new voice" of feminism or that we should praise him for his feminist views (because we shouldn't). I can understand the critiques of the cover and believe some of the points are valid, but I agree with Ms. magazine and Jen N. This cover says that we are all part of this international movement for equality, and the more diversity in this movement, the better. We need women AND men in this movement, we need men who are passionate about human rights and gender equality and who show it. So I support Ms. magazine's cover, and I'm proud to say that I am also what a feminist looks like.

 
LOVE IT!!!

So is it over now? A feminist is running the country.

Historic Events! President-elect Barack Obama Made Political History...

Please read the refulgent and concise; description of the following story at such a time as this!

President-elect Barack Obama Made Political History fulfilling Dr. King's Dream in conjunction with You're A Worthwhile Person in More Ways Than a Million; which lifts spirits, improves self-esteem, and replenishes hope which boosts the morale of none celebrity members of society with lots of benefits to you and your readers and those who keep the wheels of society moving.
President-elect Barack Obama is a paragon example; anyone given the right opportunity in America can aspire to greatness: Including the commander-in chief of the United States of America.

African American and all minorities should take pride in knowing you are a worthwhile person in more ways than a Million! 

Thank you for the efficacy of your cordial and gracious response:

Carolyn Wilson, a Women's Studies student, says "It's also a bit comical to see conversations that were had in the 1980s being rehashed here, but not everyone keeps up to date on the development of both theory and practice in different feminist streams, so it's understandable." 

I understand your point, Carolyn, but as a doctoral student in sociology I have been dismayed that so many theorists and academics choose to talk to each other rather than engage the public in theoretical debates about social issues and theories such as feminist theory. Academics need to stop communicating to each other via scholarly journals and fawning over each other at global conferences and direct more of their work to the general public through the the mainstream press and the internet. 

Rather than focusing on the idea that people are not taking the responsibility to keep up to date on theory and practice, let's take the responsibility ourselves as theorists to look for more venues outside of the ivory tower to talk and write about feminist theory and practice in everyday language. Yes, Ms. Magazine and other mainstream publications are outlets, but so are newspapers and pop culture magazines, radio programs, podcasts, and blogs. When mainstream media invite discussion about current issues like the economy, the war and environmentalism, we have an opportunity to show how feminist theories address these issues. 

The public is much smarter and more interested in feminist theory than we may believe, but justifiably find scholarly journals to be inaccessible, and single-issue-oriented publications to be off-putting. We need to do more to get information about feminist theory and practice to the public. We can do better.

No, I don't think Barack Obama is what a feminist look like. If he does, it's possilbe the feminist movement could be in real trouble.

I say this because though indeed our soon to be President may be more respectful of and to women and regard us as more equal than some, especially some others of his gender, he still seems to have a blind spot when it comes to women and our needs and rights. If he didn't, he'd either not appease folks who would limit or take away reproductive choice rights in the first place or he'd make it very loud and clear while he's doing this that he believes it's always a woman's right to decide if she'll bring a pregnancy to term (within agreed upon legal parameters) because without this right she is not truly free and thus, not equal.

In my mind, a true feminist would not have considered Tim Kaine seriously as a running mate nor selected him to be head of the DNC, an important poairion of leadership within the democratic party. Though Kaine purportedly says he'll support abortions continuing to be legal, he comes from a religious mind set that considers them to be wrong and immoral. I understand Kaine also supports abstinence only programs in public schools, which even if part of a broader curriculum of sexual education to me is a dangerous intrusion of a certain strand of Christianity into the public arena. In short, I see Kaine as one who comes from a tradition that he doesn't understand continues to be patriacharcal and disenfranchising of women, no matter how well-intentioned and in many ways holy. I find elevating this kind of perspective within the democratic party and thus in our nation dangerous and actually very alarming.

Another point that makes my case is allowing Bob Casey, who opposes legal abortion in all cases, to speak on Hillary's night and the anniversary of women securing the right to vote at the Democratic convention. I found this outrageous and enraging, no matter how good a man or good democrat Casey may be in other ways.

Plus, so far as I noticed, the only person who actually specifically choice rights during televised coverage of the democratic convention was Al Gore, who was brave enough to mention the state of legal abortions could easily hang in the balance of the next Supreme Court selections. I think Obama and democrats could have won even without such politicing around choice rights (e. g. omitting it from conversations intended for mass audiences while putting out strong ads to scare carefully targeted audiences that access to legal abortion, even when the life of the mother was in danger, could be threatened if Mc Cain won; this just feels a little too wishy-washy and destructively accomodating of a fundamentalist mindset regarding women and our bodies and lives).
 
And more recently, there's Rick Warren, who one can't say holds very supportive positions regarding women and our rights.

Obama himself and others may argue that he decides policy matters, no one else, and we (whether we are women or homosexuals or others who are concerned) should trust him. To me this is is just more of the same - a clueless male that doesn't get that he needs to show us with words and deeds, even repeatedly, why in fact he should be trusted.

It will be great if my worries about Obama turn out to be unwaranted and he really comes out strongly in support of women's rights, including our reproductive choice rights, during his adminstration. I will be thrilled and he'll win back some of my trust that's he's lost for now. We shall see. I'm not holding my breath.   

I think Obama supports feminism, & I am glad he does. There still isn't equal rightsbetween genders in America, so I hope he further reduces this discrimination, like he did with race by becoming president.  I am hoping he supports the protest gotopless.org is having in several U.S. cities on March 8th 2009--there are still many states that have old Christian laws that treat women differently. A few places such as NY have voided these unfair laws. I also hope Obama overturns the stem cell ban--conservative Christians are also against stem cell research.

Well, I think it's a great cover.It's not relying a man to advance the feminist movement...it's relying on a president.

i honestly look at this and see that he is only being blown up into an image closer to gods than man

I'm really hopeful because of Obama's inauguration but I don't want him to ba feminist. I don't want a feminist as the leader of the USA just as I don't want a white pride activist or religious activist or any other kind of activist running any country -  I want an Equalist and I believe Obama is just such a person.

Regan, please explain what you mean by "equalist" and why you think feminism is not about equality.  Many people are thrown off by the word "feminism" and think it is about putting women first. Feminism is most definitely about issues of equality.  Let's compare notes!  :-)

I think this image is actually a reference to a couple of pre-existing popular images.  As Deborah points out, the T-shirt is a reference to a T-shirt campaign that has been around for a while.  The Superman pose is a reference to the various Obama-as-Superman pictures floating around the internet, usually involving him tearing off his shirt to reveal an "O" graphic.  Obama is a Superman fan and collects the comics.  He even made a joke about being Superman in his roast at the Alfred Smith dinner this year.  I think that the people designing this image were more likely alluding to those two images (the T-shirt campaign and the Obama-as-Superman pictures floating around) in order to make something humorous and eye-catching.  They were probably not considering how this might make feminism look like a "secret identity" how it might make it seem like women are dependent upon a male champion.  I think those are valid criticisms of the image, but don't think that those were the ideas that led to the artist's creation and Ms.'s publication of this cover.  I think that they're a side effect of the collision of two cultural allusions.