March 10, 2008
Feminist Rule: We Must Vote For Clinton
The Nation: A Rift Among The Sisterhood Surfaces As Many Feminists Show Support For Obama
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Clinton Steps Up Campaign
As the race for the Democratic presidential nomination intensifies, candidate Hillary Clinton has stepped up her campaign after recent primary wins. Susan Roberts reports from Washington.
-
Video
Democrats Spin Clinton's Wins
Sen. Barack Obama touts his delegate count, while Sen. Hillary Clinton claims wins in big states. CBS News political consultant Joe Trippi breaks down the candidates' spin with Maggie Rodriguez.
-
Photo
Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. (AP)
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Clinton
A look at a life and career full of firsts.
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.
At a Washington reception last month for a well-known national women's organization, the chair of the board asked Maureen McFadden, a communications executive with the organization, which candidate she'd voted for in the recent primary. McFadden, hoping to avoid an awkward moment, answered that she'd voted by absentee ballot. The board chair pressed ahead, "Did you vote for a boy or a girl?"
"I paused for a long time," says McFadden. "Then I told her I voted for a boy - I wasn't going to lie." McFadden, who has worked on women's issues for twenty years, says the room went silent and the board chair chastised her. "It was clear that I had betrayed feminism by voting for Barack Obama. It became obvious - if you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, you were less than a feminist and only marginally a woman."
It's no secret that Clinton's candidacy has caused waves in feminist circles. Media outlets from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post have reported on the rift between feminists voting for Clinton and those supporting Obama. Blogs have weighed in, and feminist listservs are aflame. As a feminist blogger and writer, I've been watching the tension unfold -- but with no great surprise. This election "rift," far from being a new wrinkle in a feminist utopia, is a fairly predictable response from a movement already disunited. The Clinton-Obama divide has shone a spotlight on feminism's dirty little not-so secret: the movement's longstanding power imbalance, in which a few organizations and leaders decide what counts as an acceptable platform. Indeed, feminist support for Clinton - coming from the usual suspects like the National Organization for Women (NOW), EMILY's List, Gloria Steinem and former Ms. magazine editor Robin Morgan - has been organized, strong and far-reaching. What's been less than savvy, however, is the reaction some feminist Clinton supporters have expressed toward their Obama-endorsing cohorts. I've seen Obama supporters called everything from naïve to traitors to the cause, and the majority of this ire has come from mainstream professional feminists.
For example, in a widely disseminated article that inspired responses ranging from effusive to horrified, Morgan diagnosed young women who support Obama as "eager to win male approval by showing they're not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can't identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power..." Gloria Feldt, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, penned a piece for The Huffington Post in which she warned women they would be missing out on a historic moment if they didn't vote for Clinton. "Will women give this Moment away freely once again?" she pondered.
The intensity of feminist infighting has even prompted a call for reconciliation. "Morning in America: A letter from feminists on the election" in last week's Nation, written by feminist heavyweights, called on women to "refocus on the bigger picture." But the letter - written after a breakfast of blueberry muffins served on "the good china" at Steinem's house, with nary a woman under 40 in sight - represents the exact problem it purports to seek an end to: the narrowing of feminist viewpoints. Moreover, feminists make a mistake in prematurely calling for unity. Instead of glossing over the problem with the rhetoric of sisterhood or having an elite group declare the dispute settled, let's own the conflict and use it to make real progress.
Rebecca Walker, a founder of the Third Wave Foundation, says, "There are no new issues on the table. What we see in this election is the zenith of the decades-old struggle between women of different sensibilities." Walker believes today's election friction is simply a consequence of mainstream feminist leaders and organizations not listening to critiques from younger women, women of color and grassroots activists about the exclusivity of thought within the movement. "The issue at hand has to do with [institutional] feminism's inability to respond adequately to the claims brought against it," Walker says.
One of these claims is that mainstream feminists have ignored an "intersectional" approach to feminism - one that takes class, race and sexuality into account - in favor of one that focuses on sexism above all else. NOW executives, for example, campaign for Clinton in Ohio told women voters that sexism is "the worst of the isms."
In a segment on Democracy Now! with Steinem, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, an associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton, took this single-issue mind-set to task: "Part of what, again, has been sort of an anxiety for African-American women feminists like myself is that we're often asked to join up with white women's feminism, but only on their own terms, as long as we sort of remain silent about the ways in which our gender, our class, our sexual identity doesn't intersect, as long as we can be quiet about those things and join onto a single agenda."
Amanda Marcotte, a former John Edwards campaign blogger and now an Obama supporter, says there's "been some pressure from feminist Clinton supporters who feel that no reason to vote for Obama outweighs the possibility of the first female President." Marcotte, however, is quick to point out that "plenty of female Clinton supporters report being bullied by liberal men who support Obama."
Herein lies the reason so many of us are loath to discuss intrafeminist problems publicly. We know that Clinton supporters are taking heat from sexists - whether at home, at work or from pundits who relish talking about Clinton's "shrill" voice or whatever thinly veiled misogyny of the day is on cable news. We don't want to provide the backlash more fodder. We also know how hard our feminist foremothers fought to be here and how important the moment is - and we want to be a part of it. I certainly do. But not at the expense of what I believe is best for women, and not just because a movement that assumes it knows what's best for me tells me to.
No matter what Clinton's fate, feminist election tensions will start to fade - but we shouldn't let them, no matter how many calls for solidarity are issued by movement leaders. Instead of the group hug approach, let's focus on tangible goals: fostering youth leadership, working from the margins in and using intersectionality as our lens - instead of just a talking point. Let's use this moment, when our politics and emotions are raw, to push for a better, more forward-looking feminism.
By Jessica Valenti
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.
| If you like this article, check out www.thenation.com for more investigative reports, timely editorials and incisive columns |




- 1
- 2
- next
See all 53 CommentsObamma is leading in the Popular Vote
Obamma has won the most States
The Clintons will steal the Nomination away from Obamma and the Libs will give them a pass.
What I can''t understand is, what is Hillary''s attraction for women, and for feminists in particular? The rote answer of "because she''s a woman" is simply not good enough. It seems to me (as a man, I guess) that as a woman supporting Mrs. Clinton you are sending a mixed message to other women. Wouldn''t you prefer (and be better off) by supporting a female candidate who can run on her own solid list of accmoplishments, who is not beholden to her husband for political support, and can and will be her own voice in the White House. By supporting a concenus-building woman who does not alienate 50+% of her own party, not to mention the Republicans?
I would love to vote for a woman candidate for President of the United States - just not THIS woman. I can think of several women who come to mind. Govenor Granholm of Michigan is just one example of a woman whom I would enthusiastically support. I think that women, and Democrats in general, can do better.
HMMMMM;
BLACK RULE: WE MUST VOTE FOR BARRY.
What, precisely, constitutes Mrs Clinton''s so-called experience? I keep asking, but no one has specifically answered the question. How does being First Lady and hosting dinner state parties, organizing the White House easter egg hunt, and shopping while on visits to foreign countries consitute experience???
As I have asked before: how many policy decisions did Mrs. CLinton make while hew husband was President? How many times did SHE speak with the crisis center in the middle of the night while hew husband was President? How many troops did she commit to combat while her husband was President?
With all due respect, Mrs. Clinton''s is less than most of the staff that worked for her husband during his two terms. I am not saying that that makes her unqualified to be President. I am suggesting that her self-professed and so-called "experience gap" is basically fluff. Hillary is probably as experienced than Obama. If she just weren''t so damned unlikeble...
.
The voters have spoken and it is now time for Hussein to withdraw and end his divisive campaign. It has been fun watching the antics of his frat-boy and girls-gone-wild supporters, but it is now time to take the presidential contest seriously.
Responsible Dems must focus on the fact that Tony''s Rezko''s partner-in-crime cannot win the presidency by winning in small states with insignificant Electoral College votes, like Vermont, Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming and North Dakota. To win the presidency, it will take winning the Hillary states of California, Ohio, New York, Michigan, Texas and Florida.
The Hope-Change, Change-Hope, Hope-able Change and Change-able Hope BS and assorted plagiarisms of Hussein (along with his theft of most of John Edwards'' ideas) has been a delightful distraction from reality. The last thing the Dems need is another gas bag loser like Kerry that can only spout hollow platitudes. Intellectually mature Democrats must get serious and work to nominate and elect a capable president.
/
Oh wait, we can''t have one, that would be SEXIST!
What I see is many people voting for a weak, inexperienced,talk-and-no-action (Armed Services committee) no-resume, con-artist (Iraq vote), woman over a strong, experienced, tough, likable, capable, dedicated man. The reasons for this backwards vote are chauvinism, GOP brainwashing and the typical Democratic tendency toward eloquent liars.
Gee - works for me!
Have the women checked on all the scandals that have followed Slick willie and Hillary all the way from Arkansas?
Where all the qualifications and experience comes from that is attributed to Hillary also escapes me.
Here, you have two really sleazy lawyers from Arkansas, the second most backward State in the U.S. who make their way to the White House, one of the great faux pas'' of all time.
Please ladies, a woman will, one day, be elected to the presidency of the U.S., Hillary, however, does not deserve to be the one.
Ah it becomes clear. Her essay is no call for unity, she%u2019s negative on Clinton - but her real target is "mainstream feminists." Clinton is just a happy accident along the path of selling her core product: blame. She has a beef with feminists, even when they offer a letter of reconciliation. "But the letter - written after a breakfast of blueberry muffins served on "the good china" at Steinem''s house..%u201D A blogger noted, %u201Cwhat does Gloria''s china have to do with anything, Jessica? %u201C Bear in mind, she is creating a product. So, don''t look to her to define unity. She writes: "feminist election tensions will start to fade - but we shouldn''t let them" She refuses any olive branch. Of course the tensions shouldn''t fade. It''s good for her career. Look, the older feminists are very inclusive. Let''s call these writers on their ***. Even Gloria S is now making the rounds in speeches with a pro-Obama feminist. She has always been inclusive in her engagements. The third wave feminists I know applaud her, even when they disagree.
Although there are a few misogynist neanderthals still out there [and always will be], there is a sufficient percentage of the voting public to whom the gender issue is irrelevent that we can safely vote for candidates based on their qualifications.
Our country deserves the BEST candidate, male or female. Sadly, there are too many "Hillary-haters" out there who will never vote for her, not because of her *** but because they see in her more of the same Washington insider machine politics.
The country wants a change from that, and if Clinton is the Democratic candidate, far too many voters will simply be uninspired to vote, giving McCain an even chance.
Posted by quatrops at 08:49 PM : Mar 10, 2008
What''s so sad about that? You''ve stated a perfectly legitimate reason not to vote for a person for President. And that is exactly why I would never vote for Clinton (I don''t trust her - especially at 3AM). I have no problem with a woman becoming President, just not THAT woman. So not every Hillary-hater is necessarily a misogynist and anyone who says so is a stupid beeetch(kidding).
Hillary simply does not have the experience she touts, nor any integrity. I have followed her career for years and she does not walk the talk. Women should vote for someone who can unite this country, not further polarize it. She is definitely not the role model I want for my daughters and granddaughters.
She has the persona and intelligence to be a good leader, but for her alliance with Washington insider machine politics. Like far too many on the national scene, she has sold her soul to the Washington establishment.
How long Obama can steer clear of that temptation remains to be seen. We can only hope. And vote!
I meant "sad" in the same way as how sad it is that a promising politician like NYs governor couldn''t stay away from $1000/hr. prostitutes. What a sad waste of a promising political career. Although I think Americans pay far too much attention to the sexual proclivities of politicians, the reality is that they do, and such revalations can bring a quick end to a career.
But I really do get sick of ''people'' trying to shame us out of our feminist pride and power.
It really shocks me how many seem to have forgotten that women couldn''t vote in the U.S. until 1920; that women were largely denied access to universities until just recently; that women in the U.S. still make only .56-.78 to a man''s dollar for the same job.
That women all over the world are still regarded as second class citizens without rights and subject to the basest abuses.
I''m a Feminist Damnit, and I''m proud of it! BUT I''m voting for hillary because she''s smart, experienced, and her vision for the future kicks *** so hard it makes Obama look like a babbling idiot. But by all means, vote for whoever you want to.
Hillary has been there. And Hillary has vowed to write full equality into law - meaning finally equal pay for equal work. Universal health care is a gift well give our children and the men and women we love, a shift to green energy jobs is a gift to the economy and to the environment (Obama is a nuke industry lobbyists'' pet). Hillary is a wonderful choice for all in 2008, men, women, children - plants, fish, animals.... :)
WHEN REAL WOMEN STAND UP AND REGISTER FOR THE MILITARY DRAFT LIKE ALL MEN HAVE TO THEN THEY CAN TALK ABOUT A FEMINIST MOVEMENT!
AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!
Why would I vote for someone I (1) do not trust (2) don''t believe (3)is not a good fit for the position she is running for (4) has a husband that will more then likely cause more problem then a herd of elephants.
No, I am not a sit at home mom(never was), but I am a woman who has seen enough, in my lifetime, to be able to decide if a candidate is capable of doing the job or not, without all the feminist b.s.
Give me a female candidate that I can believe in and I will vote for her.
She used her husbands coat tails to get into office so what exactly - other than being a woman - has she done for other women? Stood by a lying, cheating, womanizing of *** teens? Or was that because Hillary needed Bill''s coat tails and to drop him like the trailer trash he is would have meant an end to her political ambitions??
Hmmmm - not thats experience you can''t get just anywhere.
unfortunately, it is one''s individual responsibility to make room for oneself at the table. that''s the way of the world. i''ve never viewed any wave of the feminist movement as exclusive. was it started by middle/upper class white women? absolutely. but to assert them to be an "exclusive" group? nope. feminisim is in-clusive. that''s at its theoretical core. the rest is anecdotal; and, THAT part, is our responsibility. so, yes, let''s take this anger and put it to use for us. but, don''t use this as an opportunity to bash those who''s shoulders you stand on.
unfortunately, it is one''s individual responsibility to make room for oneself at the table. that''s the way of the world. i''ve never viewed any wave of the feminist movement as exclusive. was it started by middle/upper class white women? absolutely. but to assert them to be an "exclusive" group? nope. feminisim is in-clusive. that''s at its theoretical core. the rest is anecdotal; and, THAT part, is our responsibility. so, yes, let''s take this anger and put it to use for us. but, don''t use this as an opportunity to bash those who''s shoulders you stand on.
unfortunately, it is one''s individual responsibility to make room for oneself at the table. that''s the way of the world. i''ve never viewed any wave of the feminist movement as exclusive. was it started by middle/upper class white women? absolutely. but to assert them to be an "exclusive" group? nope. feminisim is in-clusive. that''s at its theoretical core. the rest is anecdotal; and, THAT part, is our responsibility. so, yes, let''s take this anger and put it to use for us. but, don''t use this as an opportunity to bash those who''s shoulders you stand on.
unfortunately, it is one''s individual responsibility to make room for oneself at the table. that''s the way of the world. i''ve never viewed any wave of the feminist movement as exclusive. was it started by middle/upper class white women? absolutely. but to assert them to be an "exclusive" group? nope. feminisim is in-clusive. that''s at its theoretical core. the rest is anecdotal; and, THAT part, is our responsibility. so, yes, let''s take this anger and put it to use for us. but, don''t use this as an opportunity to bash those who''s shoulders you stand on.
unfortunately, it is one''s individual responsibility to make room for oneself at the table. that''s the way of the world. i''ve never viewed any wave of the feminist movement as exclusive. was it started by middle/upper class white women? absolutely. but to assert them to be an "exclusive" group? nope. feminisim is in-clusive. that''s at its theoretical core. the rest is anecdotal; and, THAT part, is our responsibility. so, yes, let''s take this anger and put it to use for us. but, don''t use this as an opportunity to discipline those who''s shoulders you stand on.
What a real feminist is not, is a woman that wants to put down men, get preferrential treatment, whine about every imagined slight, and take a woman''s side in any dispute, even if the woman is wrong. Those type of women are a true feminists worst nightmare. They cause more damage to equality for women than any other factor.
I would love to vote a woman into the Whitehouse. It is about time we had a woman, and we will. This, in my humble opinion, is just the wrong woman.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 53 Comments