We Need To TalkLooking for some way to repair the feminist gender rift.
Posted Saturday, June 7, 2008, at 7:44 AM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponIn response to Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech about race, Melinda Henneberger and I tried to imagine what a comparable speech from Hillary Clinton on gender might sound like. Because this all happened eons ago (in March) we erroneously believed that if Clinton were to deliver a speech about gender, it would address itself chiefly to the unspoken misperceptions and doubts simmering between men and women.
How young we were! How naive! If there is any reconciling to be done at this point in the Democratic primary, it's between women and other women. Sadder still, the rift that's emerged is between groups of women who want precisely the same things: Equality in pay and opportunity, freedom from harassment and violence, the right to control one's body ... a woman president. This is not the "mommy wars," my sisters. If yesterday's Washington Post chat between the XX Factor team and our readers is any guide, the growing split between female Clinton and Obama supporters makes the "mommy wars" look like a pillow fight.
Our readers are angry, and some of them are really angry. My colleague Emily Bazelon characterizes this generational split between the young feminists and older ones as "heart-rending," and it's true that this acrimony is far more personal and painful than the spitballs we used to lob back and forth with the women who think its wrong for other women to have their own IRAs. Right now it seems there is hardly a Democratic-leaning woman left in America who isn't feeling either bitterly sold out by her daughter, or henpecked to a scabby pulp by mom and grandma. Early efforts at reconciliation have been mostly symbolic. Some of the country's leading feminists published a sort of working paper in The Nation last February. The inimitable Jessica Valenti urged us all to use this rift to work toward a "better, more forward-looking feminism." Emily's List has just now released a statement that both celebrates Clinton and admonishes her supporters to "come together to take the White House in November" and "unleash the political power of women to help Democrats win at every level in 2008."
Most of us are hoping that today's outrage and recriminations will begin to fade in the months to come; that our great-aunts' threats to cast a ballot for John McCain—the man who voted against equal pay for women—will prove mere threats. But even if we can all manage to realign ourselves as likeminded feminists by November, it would be a mistake for us to skate past the Recent Ugliness without making an effort to address it. Having spent five months pounding on one another like men, it's perhaps worth now attempting to bridge the feminist divide like women. That would mean listening instead of shouting and recognizing the common interests that outweigh our differences.
The worst of the intergenerational bickering of the past months has resulted from a failure of empathy; a breakdown in our capacity to acknowledge that the experiences of others are as compelling as our own. In a sense, we have simply been doing battle over whose stories are more legitimate—the second-wavers or their Pottery Barn daughters— or whose perceptions of gender discrimination are more accurate. Forgive me for saying that this is an argument that is singularly unworthy of us as women. Aren't we supposed to be great and gifted listeners and connectors?
Slate Editors Spent All Day Arguing About Cancer Screenings and Health Care Rationing
What a Meal of Beef Stomach and Duck Throats Taught Me About the New China
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Train, Plane, or Automobile? What's the Greenest Way to Travel for Thanksgiving?
The Two Craziest Men in Hollywood Teamed Up To Make This Movie
Did Easy Rider's Predictions About America Come True?
Remarks from the Fray:
Regarding the feelings of mature feminists such as myself, Shakespeare said it best: "How sharper than a serpent's tooth is it to have a thankless child." Young women who think that they have those good jobs because they're oh so much hipper and smarter than we were now want to "talk"? The self-absorbed beneficiaries of our decades of struggle and frustration, who couldn't acknowledge what they owed to those who had opened the way for them, now want to mend fences? The spoiled kids who blithely take for granted opportunities we could only dream of but who relentlessly mocked in Hillary Clinton the very qualities that won them their place in the world now want reconciliation? Oh, please, Dahlia. Grow up. Choices have consequences. We who struggled for decades making very hard choices understand that.
African Americans, on the other hand, know their history and revere the pioneers whose efforts made Obama possible. They rallied to Obama, regardless of any misgivings they might have had about him, because they knew him as the culmination of their long communal effort. They knew that his triumph would be the triumph of the cleaning women and handymen who trudged to work for a year in Montgomery rather than ride the buses, of the people maimed for attempting to eat a hotdog at a counter. They understood that and acted on their understanding. But you young women who are too smart to understand your own history and grasp the historic meaning of Hillary's candidacy now can't acknowledge your own failing. At least one good thing came out of this. The torrent of misogyny unleashed against Hillary may give you some slight inking of what our lives were like. I hope you're smarter next time. This time, your mother is not in any mood to kiss your boo-boo.
--DC Dame
(To reply, click here.)
I would like to suggest that this isn't just a generational split. I'm a second wave feminist who has been appalled at the attempt to blame Hillary Clinton's strategic blunders on sexism. In the later part of the campaign, Obama appeared to me to be acting out of more feminist principles than she was. I supported him from the beginning because it appeared to me that he had a better fundamental understanding of the problems and potential solutions that are at the root of the dangerous situation we find ourselves in. Feminist values are certainly necessary to find our way out of this mess, but the idea that only women can have feminist values seems decidedly unfeminist to me.
--sarah deats
(To reply, click here.)
What is the goal for feminism now? What is the valiant effort you aspire to? Will the apex be to have a woman in the Oval Office, no matter what her qualifications or competence? It seems your generation has achieved the apex, to me, of that movement: freedom to achieve your aspirations and also to choose for yourself what to believe and support.
But, the question begs, what more is there? It seems that feminism and the Civil Rights movement have reached the same plateau; great gains have been attained, and the majority of people that have always simply wanted to live their lives and their dreams and are now able to have been doing just that: living life and leaving the fight. Absolutely there are still specific instances of inequality that need to be addressed, but aren't some of these fanatical claims and protests from prominent members of both movements a bit of calling down the specter of times past?
--fuddman7
(To reply, click here.)
As a feminist in my late-30's, I've dreamed and speculated about the first female president for years. The qualities she would bring to the office--strong listening and facilitative skills. A toughness that doesn't require bullying. Creativity when it comes to problem-solving. The ability to put the greater good ahead of "I" in the national/international political scene.
I've backed Barack Obama because he exemplifies these leadership qualities even more so than Hillary Clinton. He's shown that playing hardball doesn't require doing it like the "good old boys" that we as feminists are still working to discredit. Strategies and tactics of the past don't have to be a part of our future--and that's good for men, women, boys and girls alike.
The truly transformative leadership style of Obama will benefit women for generations to come and pave the way for a female president who doesn't have to change her own style to win. It's time for we as feminists to rally around the candidate who possesses the qualities and leadership skills that we value--whether it's a woman or a man who demonstrate them.
--coloradomnm
(To reply, click here.)
I find myself very angry at the treatment of Hillary and the lack of outrage at how any powerful woman could be treated as she has been, with no one defending her. This is the real crux.
The attacks on Clinton were legion. The respect given to her strength, power, determination, and resume were slight and tended toward the superficial. The misogyny showed abundantly here and there, but somehow was not considered as relevant as her displays of many foibles, or any hint of racism.
Now it is over, and people are still talking about how awful she is. But where is the honoring and the credit given? She is arguably the most powerful woman in America. We don't have to like her or anything about her to celebrate her. She deserves credit for what she has achieved.
It doesn't matter if Hillary was less than ideal, we should have defended her- and if not at the heat of the moment, how about now? Can we at least lionize her now? Meanwhile the Millenials/ new feminists talk about Hillary's lack of perfection and the need not to vote for someone just because of their chromosomes. And while they occasionally hear the emotion underlying the loss by Clinton, they do not clearly understand it, or what they can do about it.
--meganwf
(To reply, click here.)
No one is calling Clinton supporters names when they point out that they are 1) older, 2) white, and 3) women. It's true of many of her most stalwart supporters. This is not name-calling, it's identity politics, which is fair game when people have made the case that women ought to vote for women.
Out of nowhere, older women seem to be angry with me for not being a more militant feminist - I hear that I am not taking up the fight for equality. I absolutely am. I fight to be paid properly, I fight sexism and harassment at every turn, and I consider carefully the pro-choice voting record of candidates I choose to support. What is it that I'm not doing?
Being a feminist means I've got to use my brain, and once I have, I get to demand respect for my vote, no matter who I voted for. It doesn't mean that I have to support a woman or suffer being barraged with insults and threats by women who think I should support a woman... that's not my feminism.
--paradisefound
(To reply, click here.)
(6/9)