Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

How Will Feminists Vote?

By Jill Filipovic, AlterNet. Posted February 5, 2008.


On Super Tuesday, the feminist vote remains divided between Clinton and Obama -- but can the split be reconciled?
feminist1
Advertisement

Today is Super Tuesday, and the feminist vote is torn. Much has been made of the gender gap and the generation gap in the Democratic primary, with women supposedly drawn to Clinton and younger people backing Obama. And while the prospect of the first female president may seem to make Clinton the obvious feminist choice, prominent leaders in the women's movement remain deeply -- and publicly -- divided.

Gloria Steinem was among the first to gain significant attention for her endorsement when she threw her support behind Clinton in a New York Times op/ed, where she argued that "women are never front-runners." Steinem took the position that gender is a key component of the race, and that the "sexual caste system" continues to make political success more difficult for women:

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

But not all feminists were buying it. Feminist bloggers -- and feminists of color in particular -- took issue with Steinem's argument, wondering, as Jenn of the Reappropriate blog did, "Where do those of us who are disadvantaged both by our race and by our gender fit in?"

Former NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman worked for the John Edwards campaign, and then backed Obama once Edwards dropped out. She, too, cited gender issues for her vote:

When I endorsed John Edwards for president, I did so because I was confident he would help lift women out of poverty and protect a woman's right to make her own decisions about if or when to have a family. I was confident that if John were in the White House, the single mother, who was working two jobs, living paycheck to paycheck, and worried about health care and child care, would have more influence than the well-healed corporate CEO armed with a team of lobbyists.

And when I endorsed John Edwards I also knew that Barack Obama shared every one of these concerns, and over the course of Barack's own campaign, the nation has come to believe in him just like I always have as well.

Former NARAL executive director Karen Mulhauser agreed, specifically pointing out that Obama's record on reproductive rights is clearly and strongly pro-choice.

Judith Stadtman Tucker, editor of The Mothers Movement Online, also issued an endorsement of Obama. So did Ellen Bravo, a feminist professor and former director of 9to5, the National Association of Working Women. Bravo argued that "Something's happening in these elections that feels like a tipping point," and said that many of her feminist friends and colleagues were voting for Obama because "justice matters."

But, again, not all feminists were on the same page. Marcia Pappas, president of the New York State chapter of the National Organization for Women, published a now-infamous press release calling Sen. Ted Kennedy's support of Obama "the ultimate betrayal." She further angered some fellow feminists by arguing that women have an obligation "to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who 'know what’s best for us.'"


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: feminism, barack obama, hillary clinton, elections, gender

Jill Filipovic is a New York-based freelance writer and a law student at NYU. More of her writing is available online at her blog, Feministe.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Look in my inbox
Posted by: veronicaeye on Feb 5, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cause the emails I'm getting are hard and fast. Vote for Hillary or you're not a feminist. I wouldn't call it a cat fight, but it ain't an elegant debate. I got 2 anti-Obama emails today from HRC supporters and 4 "Isn't it wonderful to vote for a woman!" emails. Ugh...maybe I should have pulled the Green party ticket.

Great piece, btw. ;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm Not Voting for Hilary
Posted by: Kym525 on Feb 5, 2008 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Just because she's a woman.

I'm a woman, a feminist and I'm voting for Barack Obama.

And NOT because, like me, he's black.

I admire Hilary and respect her as a strong and passionate leader. I liked her as a first lady because she stood up and tried to enact change, such as universal health care--and as I recall was dragged through the mud for it. However, I have been disillusioned by her support for Bush's warmongering. I truly thought she would have done the right thing and taken him to the mat for it. I need a leader who will think rationally before making the kind of decisions that may alter the fate of an entire country. She regrets having sided with Buch, but with thousands of people dead or wounded, it's a little too late.

I don't know how many times so-called feminists try to bully other feminists into going along with their agenda by playing "who's more feminist than thou". I was disgusted by NOW's idiotic op-ed piece castigating Ted Kennedy because he lacks a uterus. Hmm, Ann Coulter once said that she didn't think women should have ever had the right to vote. Phyllis Schafly of the Eagle Forum helped to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment (in case you don't remember). We have "surrendered wives" who think giving all control to their husbands isn't a bad thing. Having a pair of breasts and a vagina doesn't automatically mean all women have each other's best interests at heart.

What really bothers me is when these so-called "feminists" always try to make gender more important than race. I'm still wondering how many "feminists" back in the day supported Shirley Chisholm's bid for the White House--and she was the best of both worlds--A BLACK WOMAN. Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the NYT was so off the mark it wasn't funny. These feminists always harp on the fact that black men had the right to vote before women. Well ladies, just in case you were too busy putting on your lipstick or ogling the star quarterback to pay attention in history class, black men only had the right to vote IN THEORY. In PRACTICS there were poll taxes, literacy tests (which many of the former ex-slaves could not pass because they could not READ) and serious voter intimidation courtesy of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan which included getting beaten or killed for even attempting to cast a ballot. So actually, black PEOPLE didn't get the right to vote until the late 1960's with the Voting Rights Act--several decades AFTER the 19th Amendment. And the Voting Rights Act is still not firmly encoded into law, as all the voter fraud in 2000 and 2004 proved.

Obama doesn't have all the experience that Hilary has, true. But he does have hope and he does have as much passion and drive. It's time we turned the page on so-called "experience" and go with someone who will bring a new dialogue to the political process.

Obama '08. 'Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm Not Voting for Hilary Posted by: Equalitynow
Obama is risky on choice - in his own words
Posted by: Ciccina on Feb 5, 2008 2:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am saddened and ashamed of so-called leaders like Kate Michelman and Karen Mulhauser who have thrown their feminist principles aside to support Obama.

This isn't polemics. For weeks the answers provided by the Obama and Clinton campaigns to a questionnaire on sexual and reproductive rights distributed by RH Reality Check have been posted online.

Compare the answers given by both candidates question by question, which you can do here: http://thelurkingcanary.blogspot.com (includes links back to the original documents on RH Reality Check). You will see some key differences in terms of experience, breadth of platform and issue framing.

And you will also see this, a most troubling is Obama's answer to this question: "Does (the candidate) support any restrictions on abortion, or does (he or she) believe it should be entirely up to women?"

The Obama campaign's response is:

Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

Those of us with even minimal experience in these issues know what that means. To date, every restriction the Supreme Court has approved has been deemed compatible with Roe v. Wade. This answer indicates that Obama wants lots of wiggle room on choice, most likely to appeal to religious conservatives (see his response to the 2nd question for a hint about that).

I am quite frankly disgusted by the feminists who have lined up to kick Hillary in the teeth without once thinking about the impact this could have on real women here and abroad. I don't believe they have done due diligence on the issues upon which their credibility as leaders rests.

If they want to support Obama because of other issues, fine. But to call yourself a feminist and not support the first politically feminist candidate for president - a candidate who has a track record of working on women's rights, and who has detailed plans for what she will do for women's rights in the future - is simply absurd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Apology and explanation Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Apology and explanation Posted by: Equalitynow
» RE: Apology and explanation Posted by: Kym525
» wait, so feminism boils down to Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» More power to ya, ma'am Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: More power to ya, ma'am Posted by: Kym525
Third party alternative: Cynthia McKinney
Posted by: lotus23 on Feb 7, 2008 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know I'm putting the cart before the horse, since it's primary and caucus season. But, looking ahead to November, for those who don't live in swing states, consider former Democratic US Representative (Georgia) Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, the likely nominee. She's a true progressive who has been subjected to sexist and racist ridicule of right-wing bloggers. No, she won't win, but that's not really the point of third parties anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]