Thursday, March 13, 2008

Feminism in the Democratic Campaign

This is an interesting post by Michelle Goldberg found at The Guardian (UK). In light of the Geraldine Ferraro comments, Goldberg examines the role and meaning of sexism and feminism as supporters of Senator Clinton attempt to persuade women to vote for the Senator from New York. I find this article interesting for two reasons:

(1) It examines the generation divide in the same "ideology." While every political ideology has many different adherents and nuanced positions, I am always interested to see how ideologies develop over time and how smaller groups within the ideology debate the ideology. (I am also interested in how others on this site will read the article, especially if they click on the Gloria Steinem link and read the caste line.)

(2) After reading the article, I skimmed through some of the comments. The fifth comment stated:
I'm just relieved to be a nasty old right-winger, Michelle. Not being a self-declared 'progressive', I can vote for whoever the hell I like without having to worry that my choice is subconsciously racist, or sexist, or, probably, both.

This comment seems somewhat appropriate to the current campaign. Before this campaign, I thought that the only way a minority candidate could be elected president would be if that candidate were Republican, which would make the candidate "safer" for the majority of Americans. I would argue that if he wanted to run for office, Colin Powell would have defeated Clinton in 1996.

Maybe because of the conservative argument for "merit" over "affirmative action," which overlooks systemic problems, the American public accepts conservative minorities more than liberal minorities. There may be fewer candidates that meet this criteria and the most noteworthy of Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas do not fit as they never ran for public office, but they may be safer choices and free from the liberal PC scrutiny.

Note: Clarence Thomas does not have the same standing as Powell and Rice but some of this relates to his introduction to the American Public as he was put in a terrible position to start when George H.W. Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with Thomas and, when Bush announced the appointment, he stated Thomas was the most qualified to serve even though he had only been on the federal bench for a year. And this occurred before the Anita Hill allegations.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Honestly, I'm less offended by Linda Hirshman's caustic claim (that "pro-Obama voters are elitists who can't relate to their less fortunate, Clinton-voting sisters. 'Or, it could just be that women with more education (and more money) relate on a subconscious level to the young and handsome Barack and Michelle Obama, with their white-porticoed mansion in one of the cooler Chicago neighbourhoods and her Jimmy Choo shoes.'") than I am by the general consensus that younger women are voting for Obama simply because they don't believe feminism is necessary anymore.

As a young feminist, I fully recognize that there is a glass ceiling in politics and in business and pretty much in every other career realm. Women's health care is substandard, women's domestic work is underappreciated. The list could go on. And so I put these VERY unfortunate facts into an equation with many, many other concerns that must be addressed by the next president. And, while it's one of the top ones, it's not the only one.

As a feminist mother, I want my daughter's world to be a very, very different place than it looks like it may be. I want it different socially, politically, environmentally... I just want it different. And I honestly believe--whether I'm right or wrong is another matter--that a President Obama would be the most progressive and the least bound by partisanship, although of course, he will still be bound. Women--and men, for that matter--vote for complicated and individual reasons. To try to simplify this into a notion that young women falsely believe they live in a post-feminist world insults me.

M said...

Megsg-h,
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I want to make two points.

1. I'm not sure that you and I fall into the category of "young feminist." I think this descriptor probably applies to women in the 18-24 demographic, although I may be wrong.

2. I don't think that Hirshman is talking about women who have an understanding of the finer points of the feminist movement--i.e., the differences between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wave feminism. In fact, I think she is somewhat unclear about these finer points herself as she neglects to mention the 3rd wave at all, which we are already well into.

That said, I do think Hirshman's point that women are voting for Obama because they don't believe feminism is necessary anymore is somewhat off the mark. But my reasoning is somewhat different than yours. Having taught 18-24 years olds for the past 10 years, I don't think the majority of women in this demographic (and yes, I'm generalizing based on my experience of having taught roughly 500 to 600 students in that time period), especially those from privileged background, consider feminism at all. By and large these young women don't think feminism is relevant to their lives, so I don't think most of them are considering feminism as they decide whom they will vote for. I don't know why they are drawn to Obama (although I would venture to guess a lot of them are drawn to his relative youth, his charisma, and (what I see as) his deceptively "clean" campaign.

On a somewhat different topic, I'm also beginning to think that young people, not only women, are relatively unhappy with the way the country has been run for the past 8 years, and that Hillary Clinton looks (both literally and figuratively) a lot like who has been occupying the White House for the past 8 years.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it funny? In writing my comments, I predicted your response. (Man, do we know each other!) I actually agree with you on several levels.

Sadly, after responding to the post, it occurred to me that I am no longer a "young" feminist! Boo to you for brining it up!!!

I do think that your student example is apt, although I hate the generalization for some reason. Maybe I just don't want it to be true, but I've also had many female students who are quite feminist, whether they use the term or not. (Which is, of course, a whole different can of worms...)

M said...

I too have had students who are staunchly feminist, but in my experience, those students are in upper-level classes. They are typically young women who have already declared their major and have some experience in the world. I think my generalization is most applicable to freshmen and sophomores.

And sorry for pointing out that we're no longer in our 20s!