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
  • 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

Feminist Ultimatums: Not In Our Name

By Kimberle Williams Crenshaw and Eve Ensler . Posted February 5, 2008.


Clinton-supporting feminists can do better than the "Either you're with us or you're against us" rhetoric.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadebate1
Advertisement

The rubble that was once the World Trade Center was still smoldering when President Bush issued an ultimatum that marked our foolhardy and tragic descent into war: Laying down the law, he declared, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Progressives, feminists, civil libertarians, compassionate conservatives and independent thinkers alike denounced the president's rant as a simplistic but frightening attempt to hijack the outpouring of grief felt world wide to serve his pro-war agenda. Thousands refused to be held hostage to this friend or foe logic in the face of considerable doubt and genuine disagreement about how to respond to the tragedy of 9/11.

It was in those early moments of our national trauma that progressive New Yorkers came together to say no to war and to refuse to lend our name to the intimidation and sabre-rattling that President Bush's "with us or a'gin us" rhetoric represented. It is thus a sad irony that years later, as our nation faces an opportunity to confront and perhaps end the human misery we have inflicted in Iraq and Afghanistan, a new iteration of the "with us or with them" rhetoric has emerged.

In seeking to corral wayward souls into the Hillary Clinton camp, the new players of this troubling game are no longer the hawkish Republicans but "either/or" feminists determined to see to it that a woman occupies the Oval Office. Drawing their feminist boundaries in the sand, they 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. Armed with indignant exasperation, this "either/or" camp converts the undeniable misogyny of the media into an imperative to vote for Clinton. The balanced reflections and gentle warnings that were voiced months ago have been jettisoned for a one-sided brief about why voting for Clinton is the only sensible thing for women to do. Perhaps because there is a viable opponent who carries a competing claim to breakthrough status, the "either/or" rhetoric has become particularly fierce. While denying any intention to square off racism against sexism, the "either/or" feminists nonetheless remind us that the Black (man) got the vote before the (white) woman, that gender barriers are more rigid than racial barriers, that sexism is everywhere and racism is not, that a female Obama wouldn't get nearly as far as a Barack Obama, and that a woman's vote for Clinton is scrutinized while a male vote for Obama is not. Never mind of course that real suffrage for African Americans wasn't realized until the 1960s, that there are any number of advantages that white women have in business, politics and culture that people of color do not; that all around the world women's route to political leadership is through family dynasty which is virtually closed to marginalized groups, and that the double standard of stigmatizing Obama's Black voters as racially motivated while whitewashing Clinton's white voters as "just voters" constitutes the exact same double standard that the "either/or feminists" bemoan. The "either/or" crowd surprisingly claims that the two Democratic candidates are more alike than different, yet those who gravitate to Obama find their motives questioned and their loyalties on trial. Even long standing allies of the women's movement have been unable to escape the label of "traitor" for opting to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.


Digg!

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

Kimberlé Crenshaw teaches Civil Rights and other courses in critical race studies and constitutional law at UCLA and Columbia School of Law.

Eve Ensler is the award-winning author of The Vagina Monologues, and the founder and artistic director of V-Day, a global movement to end violence against women and girls (http://www.vday.org).

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:
I Like Hillary but Will Not Support Her
Posted by: Kym525 on Feb 6, 2008 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [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. She is definitely pro-choice, as is Obama--and both are far better than the Repugnicans who can't wait to overturn Roe. However, I was 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 Bush, but with thousands of people dead or wounded, it's a little too late.

I am so sick of the so-called feminists who 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 PRACTICE there were poll taxes, literacy tests (which many of the former ex-slaves could not pass because they could not READ because ta-dah, it was ILLEGAL to teach slaves to 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. In fact every few years it comes up for ratification. Think about that!

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 wants to give government back to us, and by doing so, we make the choices as to what to do with it.

THIS FEMINIST FOR Obama '08. 'Nuff said. Don't like it? Too bad. No one died and left the wanna be gatekeepers Bella Abzug's hats.

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

Hmm, where are the shrill feminists when things like THIS happen???
Posted by: Kym525 on Feb 6, 2008 5:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/76171/

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

Feminists are always an easy target
Posted by: Ciccina on Feb 7, 2008 4:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know of any pro-Hillary feminists who have said they won't vote for Obama in the general, but I hear plenty of Obama supporters saying they won't vote for Hillary.

How completely disingenuous of Eve to sign this.

She gives not one single example of this actually happening. Yet Michelle Obama herself made remarks about not supporting Hillary in the general election (remarks that she later retracted, and rightly so).

Its always been easy to slur feminists by saying "they" believe some outrageous thing without offering any proof.

It is very sad to see someone of Eve's stature stooping to such a tactic. I am very, very disappointed.

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

This is the single
Posted by: rickiey on Feb 9, 2008 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Best article I've ever read on Alternet.

And that is saying something.

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