Friday Reading January 11, 2008 Jill I have about 9 million things to say about this piece by Gloria Steinem, and perhaps I’ll find a few minutes to post on it tomorrow — in the meantime, Jenn says it better than I ever could. If you haven’t read her post yet, go, now.
I’ve been disgusted with the treatment of Clinton by the main stream media during the campaign, but also surprised at the amount of misogyny directed at her. I am also disappointed in my own lack of faith that any woman will follow after her for a long time. I almost feel and I feel foolish to admit, that somehow, if I don’t support her, nothing will ever change for women. I’m not thrilled with Clinton, but then there are parts of the Clinton team that I’ve always liked and I have no problem with that. On the other hand, I’ve liked Obama from the start, but have been disappointed in some of his rhetoric over the past year as I’ve watched him groom for the campaign. I think both, as professional politicians are well handled and crafted for public consumption. Probably the most disappointing for me is that I will probably have no way of truly knowing the heart of either of them. I know also that I have no problem supporting either one, each having his/her own faults. Gloria Steinem has some good points, but as someone said over at the blog linked to, she can’t seem to get herself out of her white upper middle class privilege for even a second. This has always been Steinem’s greatest fault. She belittled poor women and their struggles during the welfare reform debate and had nothing of substance to offer in support, at a time when feminists everywhere should have been outraged. In addition, like many white, upper middle class identified woman, she belittles the struggle of race in our society or class, instead referring solely to sex discrimination, preferring to believe all oppression stems from that one root. I didn’t buy that argument then and I don’t buy it now. Which candidate I’m buying, I’m not sure yet. I sure do hope though that they continue to run through to the end of the race, to get as much exposure to the electorate as possible and to bring to bear, to the light of day, the still ever present rule of the white male that the rest of us must live under.
Oh and just so Steinem and others know, I know of plenty of men who support Clinton as well. I just can’t stand the press’ insistence on the fact that older women have voted for H. C., which in the mind of the patriarchy is an insult that the MSM media and general society seems to revel in. How many old folks support McCain or Thompson compared to younger male voters? Does anyone care? I guess its only a matter of time before Chris Matthews warns of those irrational ladies abandoning the quilting bees, knitting circles and bingo halls to show support for the Patron St. Hillary of the Hags.
Jenn makes a good argument about the pitfalls of pitting race against gender, but the part about Clinton denying she’s playing the “gender card” is a bit offputting. I hate that expression as much as “race card.” I really don’t have a problem with Clinton asking women for their votes or Obama asking people of color for their votes. There’s nothing wrong with that. We need to motivate our voters to vote. The only reason it’s a bit dicey is because the media will cry about it, but why should we do their dirty work for them?
Let’s say a dirty secret. I think that it’s easier for feminists to put aside their needs and agenda for a better future for women and vote for a black man – because that is progressive. Funny. Some women can be excited about that historical option, but not so much about a woman. Putting others before themselves is an easy habit. But corporations and other activists are very clear on what is good for them and openly lobby for more of the slice of a pie, and they are excited about the pushovers, while they play on the guilt of women to not openly support a woman for a women’s sake. But when people get into the secret of the ballot booth, they may vote differently than you’d gather from rallies. There’s also that factor of coolness and let’s face it, it may be easier to live with a man and get laid if you aren’t so overt and supporting Clinton. Even at work, how do you face men and minorities, it’s safer and more nonconfrontive to be for Obama. It would really be too much out there for some women to support Clinton, because they’d face the criticism and disapproval she always had. You know it was the same in the Gore campaign – “he just, I don’t know, is not as exciting and I don’t want to have a beer with him.” Gore would’ve been so much better in the last 8 years, but we wanted a president that somehow made us feel better when he gave speeches. Bush had that touch at the time and he deal with hope and no specifics. People get the government they deserve as someone wise once said. You can’t believe that someone who comes in an seductive package would not be the best. Clinton is a feminist choice. She went to overseas and repeated said, why don’t we think of women’s rights as human rights? She is also qualified in every way and specific, not vague. It is clear to me that we’ve never had a woman president, while all presidents have been men. So putting another man in there is not going to further the cause of women. We have a highly qualified woman. Let’s put her in. We’ve had coalitions very clear on the agenda they want to achieve, let’s be clear and focused and put in the most feminist president. We have a two-fer here. A woman. And a very feminist woman.
Paula, how is being hawkish pro-feminist?Misogyny and militarism are completely intertwined. Then again, 2nd wave privileged types seem to think that only white women count as “women”. It was obnoxious and stupid of GS to imply that women of color need to prioritize one aspect of their identity over another and to downplay racism (ignoring the fact that some people experience BOTH racism and misogyny). She also glosses over parts of history with the mention of black men getting the vote first to “prove” her point that racism is less virulent than sexism, without considering the violence against black men who tried to vote. Oh yeah, and the fact that white suffragists threw black women to the wolves by trying to ally with white supremacist groups and appealing to white men’s sense of racial solidarity. I’m so sick of these people who still can’t grasp the concept of intersectionality.