Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Divisive Primary Holds Potential Fallout for Women's Rights Community
As the battle royale between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues unabated, there has been much talk about the worrisome issue of reuniting the Democratic party once the dust has settled. I have written a juicy blog about it myself, and even gone so far as to encourage Hillary to withdraw now and live to fight another day. It was heartfelt advice as the handwriting on the proverbial wall became clear -- at least to me.
But one aspect of the ever-widening gulf amongst progressives that has not gotten as much attention is the growing breach between established women's rights leaders -- many of them ardent Clinton supporters -- and anti-war women, who back Obama just as passionately. The dynamic is fascinating, and in many ways the gulf mirrors the core issues the women's movement has been wrestling with as it has worked to redefine itself over the past decade.
To reduce the feminist primary split to merely generational -- amongst both the organized leadership of the movement as well as the foot soldiers -- dramatically oversimplifies the issue and also misses some key points. In fact, some of the most established, well known women's rights leaders of the past three decades are Obama supporters. As of Feb. 28, more almost 1,500 "feminists for peace" had signed a petition endorsing Obama; signatories include prominent women's rights advocates such as writers Barbara Ehrenreich, Alice Walker and Katha Pollitt; Ellen Bravo, former director of 9to5, the National Association of Working Women; and actor/activist Susan Sarandon. Former NARAL President Kate Michelman is also counted among Obama's supporters, having jumped to his camp after Edwards pulled out. And, of course, there's Oprah.
Because one of the things feminists do best -- like Democrats -- is kick the crap out of each other, a similar though smaller "Feminists for Clinton" effort was initiated in response. The group includes writer/activists Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, and Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner of Manifesta fame; Gloria Feldt, former President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; and Peg Yorkin, benefactor of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Other Clinton supporters include Martha Burk (of the infamous Augusta National Golf Club showdown), who came to the Clinton camp when her man Richardson bowed out. Hillary also has the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, and support of NOW President Kim Gandy.
But wait, there was a third feminist statement, this one by Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues, and law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw. This dynamic duo labeled the Clinton supporters as
"'either/or' feminists determined to see to it that a woman occupies the Oval Office..." who "...interrogate, chastise, second-guess and even denounce those who escape their encampment and find themselves on Obama terrain. In their hands feminism, like patriotism, is the all-encompassing prism that eliminates discussion, doubt and difference about whom to vote for and why."
Ouch. That's the women's movement for you -- we're just one, big, dysfunctional family. But truthfully, as I said earlier, the best way to analyze the primary split is to break it down along philosophical lines -- it's no coincidence that the split follows the same political fault lines at the very root of the debate over the direction of the women's movement, and what it's ultimate goals should be for women in particular and society as a whole.
Let me explain. During the heydays of the second wave of the women's movement -- the late 1960s through most of the 1980s -- the problems were very well defined, the barriers very visible, the opposition very overt, and many of the solutions very clear. The movement's goal, as well, seemed just as specific and just as clear -- gender equality. But as the women's movement continued to change and grow, and as white women finally began to listen to what women of color had been telling them for decades -- over and over again -- branches of the women's movement began to redefine the movement more broadly as a social justice movement. This was particularly true for Third Wave feminists -- my generation. The intersectionality between gender, race and class became the mantra, and more traditional gender equality advocates -- while not unsupportive of broader social justice ideals -- wondered at the wisdom of supplanting gender equality from the movement's central focus in favor of other progressive ideals.
It seems to me that the Clinton/Obama split in the feminist community in many ways mirrors these differing philosophies. Clinton supporters, while supportive of broader social justice initiatives, are nonetheless more focused on the women's movement as a gender equality movement, and on Clinton as an important, long-awaited first in a previously boys-only club. Obama supporters seem to be more focused on the women's movement as a vehicle for broader social justice action -- the focus on anti-war activities is a perfect example. Based on this analysis, it should not be surprising that younger women, less apt to identify with equality rhetoric, are more likely to support Obama, while older women -- more familiar with women's equality issues and the need not only for continued progress but for efforts to protect our gains -- are more reassured by Clinton.
So where does this leave the women's community, those of us actively a part of it and anyone who cares about the future of an active and vibrant movement for women's rights? We're a microcosm for what's going on in the Democratic party this primary season, in that we're having a pretty messy internal debate about which direction we think is best for the movement.
Read the full blog at:
http://thezaftigredhead.blogspot.com/
Comments (20)
Even Hillary has thrown feminism under the bus.
Lorna Brett Howard, president of Chicago NOW in the 90's when Obama was a state senator, was an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter. But while working on her campaign in IA and NH she became disillusioned when Hillary used choice as a wedge, misinforming voters on Obama's 100% prochoice record:
See why she left Hillary's campaign
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
The Hillary campaign then went on to try to destroy this ardent worker of women's rights. Saying she was not president of Chicago NOW at the time the "present" votes were cast.
Lorna went on to rebuke the claim stating this:
A response to Bonnie Grabenhofer, Illinois NOW President, from Lorna Brett Howard:
Bonnie is correct. I was not the president of Chicago NOW when Senator Obama made the "present" votes. I never said I was. Somehow it was reported that way, but you can review the video blog for yourself at www.youtube.com., type in Lorna Brett Howard. Here are the facts: I was president from 1995 - 1999. Barack Obama was elected to the state senate in 1996. He had a 100 percent voting record on choice all the time he was in office and Chicago Now and Illinois NOW endorsed Barack in all his state senate races, as did Planned Parenthood and NARAL. NOW relied on Pam Sutherland, Illinois Planned Parenthood's lobbyist, to do all our work in the state legislature. She did a great job and it was because of her strategy we defeated many measure designed to restrict a woman's right to choose. It was with heavy heart that I first went on the record to defend Obama's record on choice, being a firm Hillary supporter. When the line of attack did not stop but was escalated in a direct mailer in New Hampshire to pro-choice voters from Hillary's campaign I stopped being sad and got mad. This is bad for the pro-choice movement. It hurts our reputation and credibility. I stand for choice and truth.
In addition, does it not mean something that National NARAL president Nancy Keenan released a statement saying both Hillary and Barack are both 100 percent pro-choice?
Illinois and New York NOW have done serious damage to their organization's reputation among serious pro-choice men and women. It is really distressing as a feminist to watch.
Glad to set the record straight.
Lorna Brett Howard
http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/02/02/lo rna-brett-howard-responds/
February 29, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hadn't heard this... a shame, to be sure.
February 29, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I think this is one of the finest reader posts I have had the opportunity to read. I learned something and I thank you.
Bruce
February 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awww, Bruce. Your compliment made my day! Thanks for reading. :)
February 29, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, brings back the bad old days of being criticized for shaving my legs, Mormon men from Utah bringing their women in to destabilize the Washington State Women's Conference and the fear tactics used to rally the founding mothers of Seattle NOW to fend off a takeover by the Socialist Workers Party by getting out the vote to overwhelm an alternative slate of chapter candidates, of which I was a co-president candidate.
I learned my politics there and I cherish the memories.
It was the choice issue used against Obama in New Hampshire that clinched my support for him.
I will link your post at http://contrarienne.blogspot.com/ if you don't mind.
February 29, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be flattered. Thanks, Julimac.
February 29, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a good roundup.
February 29, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. A pleasure to read.
February 29, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This campaign has been a devisive blood bath and it has mostly been thanks to the arrogant attitude of the of Obama supporters.
I see the party as irreparably damaged.
And I, for one will NEVER support Obama as I blame him for it.
And make no mistake I predict we lose and lose big.
February 29, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever people blame Obama supporters, I have to look up their comments to see how even handed they've been. Your comments are all insulting to Obama supporters and to the Senator himself. I don't think there was ever a risk of you voting for him.
But look at me...Obama was a very distant second choice for me. I would only vote for Clinton if that was my only option, but she ranked lower than Gravel for me. Now, I will not support her if she's the nominee. Why? I'm sure you're dying to know. And it's even on topic with this post, which is clear you didn't read.
First off, as a Muslim, I was offended that the Clinton campaign thought that using my religion as a smear was okay. That really dropped them lower in my book. The Clinton's threw black people under the bus during their first two terms. That already left a bad taste in my mouth. But when they and their surrogates spent most of December race-baiting, I was getting fed up.
Keep in mind that around this time, I was also done with all the bigots supporting Clinton. I spent all of the fall ignoring and avoiding the Clinton bigots, but once the campaign started the race-baiting, it was open season and December was bad.
Then Gloria Steinem wrote that insipid op-ed. See, I understand that when feminist speak, they aren't speaking about me. They're speaking about fairness for people like Steinem and Clinton; white women born of privelege. I don't fit in that. Steinem's op-ed and all the Clinton bigots then started in on the insulting, "He should wait his turn." silliness. They told me that as a black woman I was "betraying my gender", when I can't think of a damn thing a white woman like Steinem has done for me. These feminist told me that I should vote for Clinton because she is a woman. They told me that black people are only voting for Obama because he's black.
That in itself is insulting. I take a long time to research my candidates. I don't think about their skin color or their chromosomes. I look at their history, their backgrounds, their votes. Obama fits with me. Clinton does not. These white feminists just assume that since I'm black, there's no logic behind my choice. Like I think like they do. Don't tell me to vote for a woman "because it's time", then tell me that my vote for a black man makes me racist despite my almost 9 months of research and emailing the campaigns.
So, you can whine and keep posting your little posts insulting Obama supporters. I welcome the fact that you won't vote for the Senator, because I would never want to associate myself, my beliefs with someone like you.
February 29, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
i really enjoyed reading your post. i've found it interesting how different feminists i know have chosen to support obama or clinton. And as you mentioned, it seems the 3rd wave feminists I know tend to go with obama.
as an obama supporter myself and more a 3rd wave feminist than anything else, i have been happy to see that this isn't always a generational decision. Still I have found the obama v. clinton debate highlights the differences within the feminist movement more starkly for me than ever before. Like fabooj i found myself livid after reading Gloria Steinem in the NYT, something i would not have ever expected a few years ago. and i have had many fascinating conversations about feminism's end goal, they are always invigorating, and i hope that feeling and discussion keeps happening.
February 29, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should note that my post was to stravu9 and not the OP.
February 29, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, ZR.
One thing that I've noticed about various movements for social justice, and as I start to type this I feel a bit unsure about how this is going to come out, is that there seems to be a tendency toward focusing on the identity of the particular group of advocates. I observed that this can lead to conflicts with different groups even though they have similar aims.
The comments of a Adelfa Callejo this week illustrated one such rift. Even though the African American and Latino communities each have unique issues, movements for social justice within these communities essentially have the same aims. Where there could be unity on this front, instead there are fractured relationships resulting in a sort of diaspora among the worldwide nation of Those Engaged in the Struggle.
Your insights illustrate that this even occurs within a particular advocacy movement.
It seems unfortunate to me, given that there are so many people in so many places that are pursuing a similar goal.
March 1, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, ZR, from another redhead....
I'm a 44 year old woman, a feminist, and a strong Obama supporter, but I haven't been able to figure out why I can't get behind Hillary. This post helped me see it better, at least partly--it IS the war. I can't help but believe that Hillary's vote for AUMF and early support for the war was a political calculation. I know Obama wasn't in the senate at the time, but as someone here pointed out the other day, when he spoke out, the country was in the grip of war fervor and speaking out made you a traitor or at least a dirty hippie. I live in the Cincinnati area--in Boehner's district, for God's sake--and trust me, it was scary to be a liberal, progressive, anti-war feminist from the time W got elected until about a year ago. I had admired Hillary through the Bill Clinton years and thought she put up with a bunch of outrageous BS from the press as well as from him. But I can't accept her calculated move to the center.
As the primary season has moved along, I've found it painful to see her campaign's childishness and arrogance. I really, really don't want a return to the DLC politics of the 90s, and I really am saddened by her recent gotcha style politics--and very impressed with the Obama campaign's ability to refute her at just about every turn.
In any case, just thinking out loud. Thanks again ZR, for a clear-eyed post.
March 1, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Zaftig Redhead.
Whether or not the eventual nominee breaks down barriers to become the first African American or first woman president and thereby changes one or another set of cultural assumptions, we should not delude ourselves about the depth of the problems of misogyny or racism. Part of the ongoing fights will be to better understand the rifts within both movements that have worsened as a result of this closely contested campaign for the nomination, as well as the related rift between the two movements.
March 1, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't heard much criticism of Obama by us old bag feminists, but I've heard alot of mewling and puking and rationalizing from young feminists about voting for Obama. I don't care who you vote for and I don't know many "older feminists" who insist that you vote for anyone much less Clinton.
Yes, the younger feminists are more interested in social justice than we were. What conceit, what temerity you have in suggesting such a thing. What a lack of knowledge and insight and empathy you have for feminists and the feminist movement. What ignorance and disdain you have for the movement. There hasn't been a time in the history of feminism that we have not worked for social justice and many times asked to defer women's rights in order to secure social justice for others. There hasn't been a time in the history of our movement that when others, having secured their goal of social justice, having done so with the power and work of the feminist movement, haven't thrown us out of the lifeboat if it suited their own ambitions and agendas.
The feminist movement is historically based on issues of social justice and it always has been. It has historically been on the side of social justice from the first Seneca Falls convention to the abolition movement, when the feminist movement put aside its goals of suffrage and equal rights to fight slavery in this nation, only to be characterized by those who should know better such as Frederick Douglass as "white women who already have the vote through their husbands and fathers" when he so willingly sacrificed the feminist movement in support of the 15th Amd.
That you would even suggest a "heyday" in the feminist movement as though there was a time when it was easy or we accomplished all our goals and that "white women finally began to listen to women of color" is indicative of the contemptuous indifference you have for the history of the women's movement in this country and your misunderstanding of it. The feminist movement IS a social justice movement, it has never been about "gender equality" it has always been about ALL people being treated as first class citizens, that until all people fight and achieve that goal that none of us can truly be first class citizens of this country. That women had to set aside all goals but suffrage in 1900 when they had consistently and often alone agitated for the labour movement to include all people, that their first journals published in 1869 was about social justice for all people, equal pay for equal work, access to the voting booth, the right of labour to organize and environmental protection for ALL workers, was because we did not receive like support from other movements. It was 51 years after the Equal Rights Amd. was passed that women were enfranchised in this country. That you don't consider the feminist movement as a social justice movement is an affront to me, that you would even insinuate that the movement was and is "white women" working for "gender equality" with an ignorance or lack of knowledge of "social justice" is offensive to me.
Your claim that there is a select group of "anti war feminists" is the most egregious to me. The feminist movement has worked harder and longer on issues of victims of war than any other movement in this country, beginning with the civil war and up to this present war. No group has organized, lobbied and agitated for the forgotten victims of war than the feminist movement, whether it was Susan B. Anthony in her fight for the rights of freed slaves or Eleanor Smeal and Mavis Leno in her fight for the rights of Afghan women and the use of rape as a weapon of war everywhere in this world. No other movement has extended its organizing skills, its funds, its political power in fighting for the rights of all people in this world, not just the citizens of this country. That you're not even aware of this is indicative of the distance, the lack of knowledge and interest in social justice that is missing from someone who self-styles herself as a "third wave feminist", a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.
That you even think there is such a thing as a "third wave' in the feminist movement is amazing to me. When did the goal of feminism, equal rights for all people in this country, actually happen? When have women, especially achieved the goal of equal rights in this country when they still have not even achieved the goal of reproductive rights, the most basic of human rights? When a president can command a force of thousands of personal bodyguards, but a woman can't be protected from an abusive spouse? When rape is a weapon of power and humiliation and control? When the leading cause of death in pregnant women is murder by a spouse or partner? And you think we have such a thing as "gender equality" in this country? You think that the feminist movement has achieved anything remotely like "gender equality" when women are still afraid to walk to their cars at night?
You think that it is now time to use the feminist movement as a "vehicle" in which to promote "other issues" as if the feminist movement is some self-indulgent, has been movement, that can now afford to "broaden its mission" is as typical as it is fundamentally
wrong. That you would even consider using women as vehicles to promote your own agenda is business as usual as far as the feminist movement is concerned. And the sad thing is that you don't even know it.
March 1, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bev D, I'm not even sure where to begin. And, truthfully, given the tone and tenor of your post I'm not sure there is anything I could add that you would accept anyway. I certainly don't believe you read my post with the spirit with which it was intended.
For others reading this response, I would simply say this. It was never my intent to imply that the women's movement in general or feminists individually are unconcerned about social justice -- I would have thought that was fairly evident, since we are part of the larger social justice movement. Rather, I was merely trying to delineate some of the internal tensions surrounding the direction of the women's movement -- primarily, whether or not to focus on sexism as the primary "ism" for our fighting energies, and if not, what that means for gender equality issues. Many parts of the women's movement have already refocused in a variety of ways, with various degrees of success depending on who you ask.
As to my referencing various "waves" of the women's movement, historians and students of the women's movement alike have been using those references for a good long time now, to separate different historical and cultural periods in the movement.
I would also say, with all due respect BevD, that your reply actually helps to illustrate some of the points I was trying to make. I made no claims in my post that one way was better than the other, or even that the various arguments had to be mutually exclusive. This was simply one more way to analyze the Clinton/Obama rift in the Democratic party. It is all inter-related and we simply need to respectfully talk to each other and figure it out. I also certainly made no claims that true gender equality has been achieved -- if I'd thought so, I wouldn't have written a post worrying over the effects of a primary split in the women's community.
But I have to tell you, BevD, this "my feminism is better than your feminism" nonsense is crap. And the fact that you, as a feminist, believe you personally get to develop and apply the litmus test to measure the strength of my passion, understanding, and committment to women's rights is also crap. I am a feminist, whether you like it or not. And you have tried and convicted one of your own on the barest of facts. Such hubris has been turning younger women away from feminist activism for years, and we're all paying for it's effects.
March 1, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if you're a feminist or not, what I care about is your mischaracterization of feminism and the feminist movement in order to promote your own agenda. You don't get to define the movement either, and you really don't get to define it by misinformation and dissembling. If you don't understand it, if you don't know the history then do not write about it or analyse it or portray it in a way that is false and misleading to those who are not familiar to the movement, who don't know its history and don't understand it.
I made no claims as to who or what was better for the party or the movement, I made no claims as to whether you're a feminist or not, I don't much care if you are or not, I'll be damned though, if I will let you define the feminist movement as less than a social justice movement or disparage or misrepresent the feminist movement in this country. "Third wave feminist" indeed. The fact that you'd buy into such a profoundly wrong and misinformed view of feminism is offensive to me.
March 1, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Zaf --
was intrigued with the post, and the comments were interesting too. Then I got to this hiccup in the comments at the end. Yowza. You get brownie points for at least trying to respond to BevD in a reasonable way. As one third waver to another, I appreciate it.
March 1, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto..nice response to BevD
March 1, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment