That's not a bomb she's hiding.

This is interesting.

MADRID: When she was appointed Spain's first female defense minister in April, the aspect of Carmé Chacón that drew the most public attention was not her gender, nor her rapid rise through the ranks of the governing Socialist party, but her prominent prenatal bump.

Chacón, who began leave Tuesday after giving birth to a boy, became an instant symbol of the Socialist government's commitment to gender parity in Spain, a traditionally macho society whose new equality laws are among the most progressive in Europe.

I don't know much about Spanish politics, but I can certainly buy the argument that this is a symbolic gesture meant to force a rethinking of what the military means or to signal a shift in the identity of the military. While I do have some hesitation about swallowing the idea of a pregnant woman being reduced only to her symbolic value as the creator of life, I can appreciate the effort to juxtapose concepts that we don't normally associate with each other. It also makes us question how we understand ideas of manliness and womanliness.

Women who have risen to positions of power elsewhere have assumed the mantle of "macho," whether they contribute to that image or not. In order to even attain that position, they certainly have to exhibit characteristics often associated with being a man: assertiveness, aggressiveness, confidence, independence. And here we have a woman who has presumably done all that, and she occupies one of the most typically aggressive positions in government -- but the fact that she is a woman is inescapable. Her baby bump is showing.

And this:

However, José Conde, president of the Association of Spanish Soldiers, a group composed mainly of retired military personnel, called the appointment of "a Catalan, pregnant, woman" an "insult" to the army. Catalonia, the semi-autonomous region where Chacón grew up, is viewed by conservatives as an enclave of anti-Spanish sentiment.

Which part is the "insult"? Catalan? Pregnant? Woman? All of the above? I think some people are feeling the itch of cognitive dissonance.

Thinking about the election gets me really thinking.

Let me start off by saying that I have supported Barack Obama since the beginning of this whole election process. The first time I found out who he was -- with his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention -- I was intrigued. I kept tabs on him every now and then, and I read first his book Dreams from my Father and then The Audacity of Hope. (I was much more impressed by the former.) He has always been my preferred candidate, largely because I see something of myself in him and in his ideas. His foreign policy has been the clincher for me, especially when others were saying that he was "naive" or willing to speak to our "enemies." I saw someone who looked at the rest of the world and understood the notion of a global community and the necessity of diplomacy. I identified with his international experience, and I was encouraged by it. I identified with him as an internationalist, which is not a four-letter word.

And these ideas are basic. These should be fundamentals.

I didn't see that in Hillary Clinton. So I chose Obama as an alternative. I've been thinking about that choice a lot lately. It is decidedly not that I determined that racism was a worse cross to bear than sexism. In conversations with other Obama supporters, I have sometimes been the one to say "not-cool" when it comes to sexist and totally unnecessary comments about Clinton.

I am a feminist. Now that it seems more and more that Clinton will be bowing out, there is a part of me that is disappointed. But I have not identified with the feminism that seems to be solely concerned with "breaking the glass ceiling." For feminism to mean anything, we need to broaden the definition. For example, the feminism I believe would look at the war in Iraq, the situation for women, the role that US militarism and occupation has played in creating this situation -- and address that as a feminist issue. I have been heartened to find places and learn from people who are insisting on a feminism that means more.

I'm not at all dismissing the "glass ceiling." Because of some lucky choices that I made and the organizations I have been able to work for, I have rarely felt held back because of my race or because of my gender. But narrow and exclusionary definitions of feminism have put a bitter taste in my mouth regarding the Clinton campaign.

Or "How Feminism Made Alice Walker a Bad Mother"

I saw this article today from the Times in the UK, listed on Racialicious. I have renamed it, because that seems to be what the writer is going for -- so why not make it clear. And maybe that's what Rebecca Walker is trying to say as well -- she obviously harbors resentment for her mother's choices and statements. But the author certainly has some strong definitions of an earlier generation of feminists.

The so-called “first wave” feminists believed that housework was another form of slavery and that women did not have an innate need to nurture but had been conditioned into their subordinate role as wives and mothers through centuries of patriarchy.

This is a popular perception, and that's definitely the understanding of feminism that I had for a long time -- which deterred me from identifying as such. But I suspect that it's not an accurate description in the first place...

I obviously know nothing about the personal relationship between these two women, so I won't even comment on that. My issue is more with the implicit link that is made between Alice Walker and the de facto position of all feminists of an older generation: that they're all about Hillary Clinton and will not tolerate younger women saying different.

"[M]y mother and her friends, they see [feminism] as truth; they don’t see it as an experiment.

“So that creates quite a problem. You’ve got young women saying, ‘That didn’t really work for me’ and the older ones saying, ‘Tough, because that’s how it should be’.”

The debate goes on: Rebecca, who lives in Hawaii with Tenzin and Glen, his Buddhist-teacher father, recently wrote about why she was supporting Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton — and immediately came under fire.

“The response from older feminists was that I, and other young women, were naive in thinking Obama could ever truly represent us, and we should be supporting the female candidate. The belief is that women become more radical as they get older, that we’re naive and we’ll ‘get it’ later on.”

Since they lump Alice Walker in with all the other "older feminists," the presumption from this article would be that, of course, she's a Clinton supporter. But I distinctly remember reading this, which says quite different (and which is very much worth reading in its entirety).

I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him. Cannot see what he carries in his being. Cannot hear the fresh choices toward Movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans –black, white, yellow, red and brown - choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.

Yeah, that last quote is Alice Walker, so there's at least one thing that mother and daughter can still agree on. Not sure why that point was obscured so neatly in this article.