Skip to content
Categories:

Lorrie Moore: Feminism Is So Thirty Years Ago (and Blacks Are So Zeitgeisty)

Post date:
Author:

Guest post by Steve M.

In the past few years, quite a bit of New York Times op-ed space has been given over to novelists and short-story writers — some of them writers I enjoy and admire.  I suppose it’s a search for fresh perspectives; unfortunately, the results are often ill-informed and half-baked.

An example is “Last Year’s Role Model” by Lorrie Moore, in today’s Times. Moore seems to have become a one-issue voter, and her issue is this: Which Democratic candidate’s election would do a better job of lowering the dropout rate? Either that or she’s a white female who has contempt for white females — or wants to proclaim that she has contempt for white females in order to score moral-superiority points. And the result of all this is an essay that insults Hillary Clinton (deliberately) and Barack Obama (inadvertently).

Confused? Well, here’s an excerpt:

… 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….

Boys are faring worse — and the time for symbols and leaders they can connect with beneficially should be now and should be theirs…. inspiration is essential for living, and Mr. Obama holds the greater fascination for our children.

OK, here are some numbers:

In 2004, among 16-to-24-year-olds, 11.6% of boys either weren’t in high school or hadn’t graduated — but the percentage for girls was 9.0%. 

So, yes, one out of every nine boys drops out, which is appalling in what’s supposed to be the greatest country in the world — but if “only” one out every eleven girls drops out, it’s not as if we have that problem all sorted out, is it?

For the moment I’m ignoring the question of whether the sheer symbolism of electing an African-American or female president would have any effect on this problem.  Do we have good reason to believe that it would?

And if you go back to those statistics, you see that, yes, the black dropout rate is noticeably higher than the white dropout rate, but the Hispanic dropout rate is twice as high as the black rate.  Doesn’t that mean we should have all abandoned our support of Clinton and Obama and rallied behind Bill Richardson?

More from Moore:

The time to capture the imagination of middle-class white girls, the group Hillary Clinton represents, was long ago. Such girls have now managed on their own (given that in this economy only the rich are doing well). They have their teachers and many other professionals to admire, as well as a fierce 67-year-old babe as speaker of the House, several governors and a Supreme Court justice. The landscape is not bare.

So that means there’s no more sexism in America?  Er, there’s also one black Supreme Court justice, and one black governor.  The last two secretaries of state have been black; two of the last three have been female.  We can parse this all day, but as I read it, blacks have crumbs, women have a somewhat larger supply of crumbs, and white men still run most of everything.  So why pit blacks and women against each other?

Moore’s preference for Obama might be interesting if it didn’t stink of condescension:

…Mr. Obama came of age as a black man in America. He does not need (as he has done) to invoke his grandfather’s life in colonial Kenya to prove or authenticate his understanding of race. His sturdiness is equal to Mrs. Clinton’s, his plans as precise and humane. But unlike her, he is original and of the moment….

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton’s scripted air of expectation might make one welcome any zeitgeisty parvenu….

Maybe, as a white guy, I’m in no position to say this, but if I were Barack Obama and someone said my candidacy should be supported because I’m “original and of the moment” and a “zeitgeisty parvenu,” I’d say, “Thanks, but no thanks.  Keep your vote if that’s what you think of me.” Especially if she, as a white person, was giving me instructions on how I should and should not demonstrate my black authenticity.

I haven’t yet mention the passing reference to Rudy Giuliani’s “mayoral bunker … beneath the World Trade Center” (it was actually on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center — doesn’t anyone at the Times fact-check these novelists’ op-eds?), or the bizarre rhetorical question “Why does it seem to be the Republicans who are more vocal about reforming our drug laws?”  (Who?  Ron Paul?  William Weld?)

There may be fiction writers who can write intelligently about politics, but Moore isn’t one of them.  Maybe she shouldn’t quit her day job — and maybe the Times should stick with op-ed writers who know what they’re talking about.

(Cross-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

Comments

  • Dale

    says:

    I prefer a winky dinky parvenu. I guess you can take the fiction writer out of the fiction, but you can’t take the fiction out of the fiction writer.

    Greg Sargeant has a good article on one of my pet peeves–truncating and paraphrasing quotes.
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/383kyw

    Good stuff today, Steve M.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    Where the hell is the factory that produces these vapid twits?

    When my youngest sister (now in her mid-20s) was in school people were still complaining that the curriculum (and teachers) heavily favoured boys. Apparently there was some sort of massive revolution in the education system and suddenly everything flipped to favour “middle class white girls.”

    I hardly know where to begin [barfing] so I’ll just throw out one suggestion:

    Someone tell Ms. Moore that the world is a bit more complicated than “middle class white girls” and “boys of colour.”

    Gah. I can’t even read your excerpts without grinding my teeth. Good post though.

  • independent thinker

    says:

    Having a black man in the oval office could indeed have a healing effect on this country, but voting for Obama because he is black is stoopid. Zeitgeisty? Puhleeez!

    Now more than ever we need intelligence, a sincere desire to do right by the middle class and statemanship in both foreign and domestic negotiations.

    We all need to research the candidates and make our choice based on the qualifications of each to be President. Period.

  • Steve

    says:

    ***So why pit blacks and women against each other?***

    The only way that the ReSkunk can win the election is by fragmenting the various sub-geographies of Democrats—because they just can’t seem to find a way to unite the charred remnants of the GOP behind one standard-bearer. The denizens of WingNuttia will not support Mittens or GhoulChild (both viewed as heretics, but for polarized opposite reasons), the uberconservatives won’t fall in line behind pHuckabee, moderate religious-types and “the free-thinking fringe” will flee McCain because of his questionable flip-flopping, most won’t even approach a Wrong Paul campaign event, let alone support with their votes, and anyone who remembers Reagan napping during his morning cabinet meetings will simply balk at even the mention of UnAware Fred.

  • Dennis - SGMM

    says:

    I’m just as uncomfortable with the idea that anyone is in any way owed the presidency because of their race, ethnicity, gender as I am with the idea that any of those things would be held against a candidate.

  • Dale

    says:

    I agree with Dennis at #5. I don’t belong to the anybody-but-a-white-guy school of thought. I wonder also when we started choosing presidents based on which kids are doing worst at school. Anyway, I think a woman or black president would inspire us old liberals more than it will the kids.

  • Anne

    says:

    So, by Moore’s calculus, isn’t Alan Keyes also “of the moment” as a person of color? Give me a break.

    I think I am going to lose my mind if we are going to spend the next 10 months arguing over who is black enough, and if it’s the right kind of color, whether being a woman running for president is so yesterday and whether the black man and the white woman will be hamstrung in being advocates for their race or gender out of an abundance of caution in not wanting to seem to be playing favorites. So, Obama can’t have “too many” people of color in his cabinet or in high administration positions, and Hillary can’t have too many women, because those who are neither black nor female will scream that it is all so unfair.

    If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, Lorrie Moore must be from another galaxy altogether.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    A co-worker of mine, prior to the Iowa caucuses was defending Clinton (although she actually supported Obama), noting somewhat incredulously that (a) the first woman President could ever fail to represent change and (b) that out culture changed gears so fast anymore that somehow we seemed to be “over” having a woman President without ever actually having a woman President. As a young woman, she found that disappointing. (And in a subtle way, I see it as potentially a form of backlash — diminishing the importance of something that has yet to happen can serve to delay it ever happening to the glee of patriarchalists.)

    It is in some ways encouraging and exciting that in a single year we had highly credible candidates who are female, black and hispanic. On the other hand, the magnitude of each of those developments, the important discussion and leveraging, the well deserved celebration of each is also lost to a degree in the blur.

  • jen flowers

    says:

    I’m surprised Lorrie wasn’t upset about the age factor. Youth is hip, age is saggy. Wisdom is so yesterday. Maybe she can wave her magic wand and get the air to be clean again.

  • Perry

    says:

    The drop out rate for girls has decreased with the legalization of abortion and the availability of the birth control pill. It has done so less for girls in Hispanic families because they do not have as much access to these (due to religion and poverty) and because they are frequently needed to help take care of younger children in the family. The drop out rate for boys fluctuates with availability of jobs and with poverty rates. Boys are better able to get higher paying jobs and they must sacrifice their education when a family desperately needs their income. Boys are also more likely to be tempted by gangs and drugs which both interfere with completing school. In Hispanic culture, schooling is also disrupted by migrant farm work because there is little continuity of education or record-keeping. This has very little to do with whether education has been feminized or whether boys enjoy school less than girls. It has to do with crass economic realities. It is insulting to everyone that so few people understand what is behind these statistics and seem to live in a Leave It To Beaver reality unaware of what happens to families who are poor.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    So, by Moore’s calculus, isn’t Alan Keyes also “of the moment” as a person of color? Give me a break.

    Excellent point. Maybe Keyes will hear of this and throw a tantrum Moore’s way.

    She’d deserve it.

    I’d also point out that Moore joins the legions of blithering blockheads who have declared [X brand of bigotry] is dead. When Obama won the Iowa caucus M. Malkin (among others) jumped up and said “Look! A black guy won in a primarily white state, therefore racism is dead!”

    Sad.

  • dajafi

    says:

    I’m very concerned about the high school dropout rate; it’s a focus of my work, actually. But it’s obviously not the only issue to vote on, and the likelihood that the “identity” of the president would itself be a measurable factor strikes me as totally absurd. It’s maybe one logical degree stronger than the idea of a Chicago Bears fan voting for Obama because he also roots for the Bears.

    As for the relative history-making merits of a First, for myself and I think many others the reality of Sen. Clinton’s being the First Woman is less significant, in a leadership and policymaking sense, than the fact she would be the Second Clinton.

  • Jasmine

    says:

    Thanks for this. I love Lorrie Moore’s short stories but was appalled and upset by her editorial today. I’ve been supportive of Clinton but teetering towards Obama lately, but when I read Moore’s piece it disgusted me and put me firmly back in the Clinton camp. Oh, I guess I shouldn’t blame Obama for the stupid things his supporters say, but what Moore’s piece reminded me of was pretty much the opposite of what she said. I believe that having a woman as President would be a huge step forward and that feminism perhaps now more than ever needs that kind of leadership. I think that Obama would make a great president too and I’ll support him completely if he wins the nomination, but for now I’m going to stand up for women and vote for Clinton on February 5.

  • Steve M.

    says:

    Thanks for this. I love Lorrie Moore’s short stories but was appalled and upset by her editorial today. I’ve been supportive of Clinton but teetering towards Obama lately, but when I read Moore’s piece it disgusted me and put me firmly back in the Clinton camp.

    Thanks — although the attacks on Obama from Clinton and her camp are tilting me very much in his direction.

    I don’t like the right’s attacks on Clinton. I don’t like the attacks on her from people who think feminism is problematic or women are problematic, and that includes Moore. But Clinton’s campaign is getting on my nerves, with the repeated allusions to Obama’s drug use (who cares? I used a little coke myself a couple of decades ago) and the repeated racist comments from surrogates. I don’t know what to do, because I suspect she’ll win the nomination and I can’t bear the thought of four more years with a Republican in the White House, but I’m sick of it, and right now I really don’t relish the thought of having to vote for her to keep McCain or Romney from prolonging Bushism.

  • libra

    says:

    And if you go back to those statistics, you see that, yes, the black dropout rate is noticeably higher than the white dropout rate, but the Hispanic dropout rate is twice as high as the black rate. Doesn’t that mean we should have all abandoned our support of Clinton and Obama and rallied behind Bill Richardson? — Steve M, guest blogger

    The short answer is: “no (we should not)”.

    Richardson is not *visibly* Hispanic (he could be anything, except, maybe, a Dane) and, since he’s never made much effort to push that aspect (rightly so, IMO), not everyone is aware of his “mixed race”. It might have — probably *would* have — been made a point of attack if he had been the Dem nominee, since he would have made a perfect foil for the Repubs, with their anti-immigrant chest-thumping. However. At the moment he quit the race (for presidential nomination), his race (genetics) was “news-neutral”. Much less of a factor than either Clinton’s or Obama’s *visible* “problems”. Therefore, it would have been affecting (or not) the Hispanic population to a much lesser degree than Clinton’s feminity or Obama’s blackness.

    And before y’all say that I know not what I’m speaking of, let me say that I *do*. I grew up as a “mixed breed” (half-and-half Polish and Jewish) in a country where the tensions were very strong. The majority of the population — 98%, more than in either Spain or Italy — was (Roman) Catholic, while the official creed (communist) was atheist and “equal” (everything – race, religion, gender). Because I didn’t *look* like a stereotype Jew (black, curly, hair; brown eyes; long nose), I heard much more of the “subterranean” antisemitism that was going around than my mother — black, curly, hair etc — did. She was aware of some of it; I didn’t tell her it was much more than what she knew. I was embarrassed, for the other half of my heritage.

    I think the same’s true in US. People don’t like to admit — even to themselves — to their prejudices. But that doesn’t mean those prejudices don’t exist. The pack had not yet been whipped up into the blood-baying frenzy against Hispanics before Richardson had dropped out.., that’s all.

    And that’s before I even consider Perry’s (@10) much more reasoable and less impassioned argument 🙂

    I’ve been mulling over that Moore article since last night and I’m, probably, the only person here who’s not only *not* particularly upset with it but, to a degree, in agreement.

    Polish women, because of the “absence of men” (partitions, followed by imprisonment and exile to Siberia on the slightest pretext), had to be strong, for over 200yrs, to get things done or, at least, to keep life moving on. The laws had been against them, *in every respect*, until 1945 (when the absence of men was an even starker factor). Afterwards, the laws were for them, but the tradition wasn’t, so they were *still* “hobbled”. I think, an apt — if, perhaps, offensive to some — comparison would be to the black women during slavery and, to a lesser extent, to the white women of the South shortly after the Secession War. Things got done, by the women, with hardly a whimper, *despite* everything going against them.

    I’m not inspired by HRC; I think she’s done as well as she could have in a difficult situation; didn’t whine, and still doesn’t (personally, I think she’s not been playing the gender card too hard. I think *all* of them — Clinton, Obama, Richardson — have been downplaying the “unique” card, and rightly so). But I agree with Moore; women, especially white ones, have lots of models to look up to (my personal one is Maria Sklodowska-Curie; talk about overcoming adversity!) and, while all of them are impressive, it’s really nothing new.

    Obama, OTOH, *is* new. Even with everything else being equal (policy positions, political coat-tails, electability etc) — which they’re not, or not quite — Obama’s race-card beats Clinton’s gender-card as the “inspiration for the nation”. He doesn’t have to use it — he’s right not to — but Moore is right when she says he carries the spirit of the time (zeitgeist) with more panache than Clinton does.

    OK, so flame me 🙂

  • libra

    says:

    PS. Re Alan Keyes (Anne, @7)

    Y’all (Anne, tAiO, et al) seem to think that Moore is considering *nothing else*, but skin-tone and gender, and that she says that those factors should be the only ones considered (someone is “owed” the presidency more than someone else based, strictly, on those factors). That’s BS. That’s why, while she thinks Obama is inspiring, she never even mentions Keyes. All Keyes inspires is derision. He’d have been out of the running — on positions — even if he were a black female. MAybe that’s why she’s not saying that Condi would be the *real* apogee of this election.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    Nope Libra, that’s not what I think at all.

    I think if some air-head is going to write a bunch of drivel about race/gender and which candidate should get more of a boost because education is for the little Middle Class White Girls but not the little Boys of Colour and hey, there’s a “babe” in charge of the House of Reps, I get to poke fun at them.

    By Moore’s own logic (since all we have to consider is gender/race), Keyes is just as zeitgeisty as Obama. If Phyllis Schlafly were running for Prez Keyes would be more zeitgeisty than Schlafly.

  • Cass

    says:

    Moore is just another of these idiots who feel America is “too feminized” now. Talking about dropout rates is just a screen for that. There are a fair number of people who have this gut fear that the country is turning into a bunch of sissies and wimps and that having female leaders is accelerating that path. They have bought this nonsense that there is something wrong with “our boys” – which is just hysteria anyway – and of course blame it on women. And using that fear they generate among people to justify putting women in their place. It’s related to the belief that fatherlessness is the root of our problems these days (which is built on bad data or no data) and that women are to blame for that too. As the single mother of a son who is grown now and turning out just fine, thanks, it really pisses me off to read this crap.

  • The Answer is Orange

    says:

    Yuh-huh. Keyes perfectly reflects the spirit of the current GOP: Completely unhinged, scarier than Godzilla and meaner than a rattlesnake with a toothache.

    I really wish he’d get more camera time so he could better spread his message of spittle-flecked loonitude.

  • jen quinn

    says:

    Thanks for the breakdown. I gave up on the essay and am now really glad I convinced my parents to quit paying for the Sunday Times. This was in response to the hiring of william kristol who is about as wrong and partisan and evil as it gets. I never thought the Times would hire such a liar. My god Lorrie Moore is an idiot too (though hopefully not evil). Who knew? (Actually most people who have ever taken a creative writing course from a famous writer would know better than to hire them for their political commentary. Espeically when it’s this pedantic and stupid. Don’t they have kill fees anymore?) I loved some of the stories in Birds of America, but now I know I will never read her work again. There are too many fine writers out there to waste time with a self-loathing, woman-hating patronizing idiot.

  • Joseph Small

    says:

    Thanks for debunking Moore’s miguided ramblings. My goodness, has the Times editorial page become completely unhinged?
    Moore says that during the Clinton years “Waco was gassed and burned.” The Branch Davidians set themselves on fire and autopsies revealed that most of the people still inside died of (self-inflicted) gunshot wounds to the head,
    Moore writes, “Baghdad was strafed and embargoed.” Yes, a policy inherited from George H.W. Bush that worked at containing Saddam Hussein. Is today’s alternative better?
    Moore states that “the Clinton White House . . . were not years of accomplishment.” When Bill Clinton took office, the average life span of someone diagoosed with AIDS was 18 months. When he left office it was 18 years, and continues to grow because of his unceasing fundraising and work around the world. There was record job growth during his years in office, while the gap between rich and poor shrank. Education and innovation were a priority. Yes, universal healthcare was not to be, but I gratefully used Family Medical Leave when my mother died and have used COBRA twice in the last decade.
    Moore claims we need someone in the White House that failing boys can look up to. We’ve had a failure of a little boy as President for the last 7 years. Let’s try the responsible Mom!

  • Gerry Anglin

    says:

    Lorrie Moore’s “Last Year’s Role Model” (New York Times 13 Jan. 2008) focuses attention on an important policy issue. She argues that an Obama vote will help fix the ‘lost boy” problem by providing an important role model. Lorrie properly stresses the problems faced by “boys—especially boys of color. ” Though boys confront a problem in elementary and secondary schools, and need more male role models in the classroom setting, the key solution involves building respect for each boy’s (or student’s) individuality and autonomy—a situation left unaddressed by too many educational policies, and insidiously exacerbated by international policies that favor war rather than diplomacy. Eliminating obstacles for young men and women need not rise to a zero-sum game, nor should efforts to combat various forms of discrimination be so viewed. Senior Democratic heads need to merge the Clinton/Obama assets with a vote competition based on enlightened debate. Then policies might emerge that address the disgraceful underutilization of lost boys and women stymied by discrimination. Having filed the first Department of Education Civil Rights complaint alleging school structure constitutes systemic discrimination against males and minorities, I understand the appeal of Lorrie Moore’s argument that Obama will help address the “lost boys” issue. I laud her for forcefully directing attention to an issue altogether too neglected in this campaign, and I encourage the most careful weighing of her opinion. Ultimately democrats will display the greatest wisdom by forging a ticket that understands the range and components of issues and the way to mobilize America to produce solutions. Above all, democrats must avoid sly tactics and dialogue that debase our civic community, advantage forces opposed to equity and jeopardize this year’s opportunity to send America in a new direction.

  • Kenneth Burns

    says:

    Here in Madison, Wis. we momentarily stop shoveling snow and pay attention when Lorrie Moore has an op-ed piece in the Times. She’s one of ours, after all.

    For an interesting look at what a newspaper editor thought of another of Moore’s op-ed writings, read her April 23, 2006 New York Times piece on Shakespeare, and then read the edited version that ran the next day in the Times Company’s International Herald Tribune. About 326 words got cut — for space, I gather, though it’s fascinating to note which 326. (One of them was soupçon.)

  • DivaJean

    says:

    On January 13th, 2008 at 1:37 pm, Steve said:
    ***So why pit blacks and women against each other?**

    Why pit gays, blacks, and women against each other? Why pit varying types of religious belief against each other?

    Its how the status quo gets to remain in power. If “minorities” pooled their resources together (I quote minority- since technically, women are a majority), the dinosaurs would lose.

  • James Moore

    says:

    Since Barack Obama is running for President I think it was another one of his “BONEHEADED MISTAKES” IN NOT ATTENDING THE ANNIVERSARY OF MARTIN LUTHUR KING`S DEATH, THE OTHER CANDIDATES WERE IN ATTENDANCE.