Like many women who identify themselves as feminists, Kathleen Turner and I are divided in our presidential candidate pick. We spent 18 months collaborating on her just-released memoir, Send Yourself Roses: Thoughts on My Life, Love, and Leading Roles. During that time, we talked about politics quite a bit, because she sees herself as an activist as well as an actor.
I rolled my eyes last summer when she announced to me that she'd decided to support Barack Obama and was going stumping for him in North Carolina's August heat. I thought it a naïve choice, but Obama had the good sense to invite her to a meeting with a few prominent women and had asked directly for her support.
She'd been impressed, as I was when I first met him soon after his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate. And like many people, I was thrilled that the Democratic candidate lineup looked more like America, whereas Republicans were still mired in cookie-cutter white male political hegemony.
Nevertheless, it seemed at the time that Hillary Clinton was surging to an unassailable lead for her party's nomination, so I didn't need to press too hard on Kathleen to join me in supporting her.
REALITY SHIFTS AND "TRUTH" WITH IT
Aldous Huxley said, "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." Apparently that holds true for women, too. Because on reflection, the one truth I should know from my four decades in politics from the lowliest local grassroots to the highest halls of power in Washington is that today's unassailable fact is often tomorrow's untruth. Things are true until suddenly there is a new Moment and they are not true, whereupon everyone does a quick reality shift.
The reality shifted when Obama and Clinton became locked in nose-to-nose competition for the nomination after the Super Tuesday primaries. That wasn't easily predicted last summer, but we should have known something would happen to create a new truth. In addition to the more predictable movement by African-Americans toward Obama, many feminist women have lined up with him, not as a movement or with any particular strategy, but one by one. The "truth" that the women's vote would surely line up behind the first viable woman candidate for president? Out the window.
This is one lesson of history that does appear ready to repeat itself because women have never learned it: power unused is power useless.
POWER UNUSED IS POWER USELESS
Women fought over 70 years to get the right to vote, if you count from the 1848 Seneca Falls convention -- or 144 years if you count from the nation's founding year when Abigail Adams implored her husband John to "remember the ladies." In 1920, when the women's right to vote was finally ratified as the 19th amendment to the Constitution, it presented a big historic Moment.
But instead of consolidating its gains into an agenda and strategy and using that newfound political power collectively, the women's suffrage movement dissipated. What was left morphed into League of Women Voters' style voter education.
Now I am personally indebted to the League of Women Voters because they taught me much of what I needed to know about how the government works when I was a fledgling activist. But instead of the fiery advancement of women represented by the suffrage movement, the good grey nonpartisan, everyone-should-vote-as-she-wishes approach squandered what could have become mass voting power for change and the elevation of women to our just portion of leadership roles.
Opponents of women's suffrage won the war even though they lost its defining battle: among other points, anti-suffragists had argued that women didn't need the vote because they'd just vote like their husbands anyway.
Turns out that's pretty much what women did.
Power ceded. Battle won; war for full equality and justice lost. No -- given away freely. In exchange for -- nothing.
LESSONS OF HISTORY'S MOMENTS STILL UNLEARNED
That is, until a gender gap started to appear and get defined as such in the 1980 presidential election. In 1992, the Moment dubbed the Year of the Woman, women voted in record numbers. For one thing, the Webster decision rolling back Roe v Wade awakened them to a threat not previously perceived. They voted for Bill Clinton and a change from the Bush/Reagan past. Women were elected to Congress in record numbers. Politicians started paying attention. Women's endorsements were courted.
Two years later when the midterm elections came along, those same women stayed
home and we got the Gingrich Revolution, the Contract on America, and the crushingly sexist ascendancy of the religious right. Since then, many organizations devoted to recruiting and electing women candidates have arisen. They work hard. They have scored some successes, yet the U. S. remains 67th among nations in women elected to federal and state legislative office. At this rate, it could be another 70 years before we have parity in Congress, and who knows how long before we have a woman president if Hillary loses.
Will women give this Moment away freely once again? Will we sacrifice our potential power as voters to another certainly worthy cause of electing the first African American president? Will African-American women, long the most reliable Democratic voters, choose their racial identity over their gender identity in deciding where to use the power of their votes? Will the majority of all women opt for an amorphous message of hope because it's the new new thing, rather than dancing with the woman who brung us to this Moment of opportunity to wield the power of women's votes for an extraordinarily well-qualified woman whose track record indicates she'll prioritize issues women have complained for years get overlooked by the men, even progressive ones?
RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY -- NOT ALWAYS THE SAME
I credit feminism and feminists for doing many good things, but one thing we have failed miserably at is teaching each succeeding cohort to embrace the power and the responsibility of joining together as a movement to achieve goals that particularly improve the lot of women, just as every other group does and is expected to do.
We progressive women, we feminists who are activists in a thousand worthy social causes, might decide to squander this Moment and justify in a thousand ways why it's our right to decide as individuals when we choose our candidate.
Well, yes, it is our right. But is it the sum total of our responsibility? Is it enough to really, really like Obama? Is it enough to flee from Hillary Clinton because of, say, one vote we didn't like (even though her opponent never had to put his vote where his anti-war voice now is)? Or because her husband lacks impulse control? In my mind, no.
And I believe history will agree with me when feminist activists 70 years from now -- yes, friends, at the rate we're going there will still be a need for feminist activists then -- look back at this year. I believe they too will say, "No, it was not enough."
Now I argue with Kathleen publicly and privately, though still cordially and respectfully as women are prone to do. Soon enough we will know if women missed our Moment again.
Follow Gloria Feldt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Heartfeldt
She supported an unnecessary war that has left nearly 4000 American service men — and women — dead.
I'm glad you can so casually dismiss it as "one vote we didn't like."
It's not the U.S. servicemen and women who failed. They are doing their job, as always when called upon, and deserve our full support. It's our president and Congress who failed.
I agree decisions like that need to be made with deliberation and wisdom. My point is that this decision was NOT made with deliberation and wisdom. Our president railroaded this nation into war, and certain lawmakers let themselves be bullied into going along with it.
If you want to believe the president's rationale, or believe they know something we don't, that's your business. I, for one, thought he and Colin Powell, a man I used to respect a great deal, made an extremely weak argument for going to war.
There were other options to pursue first, and even supporters of Hillary Clinton will tell you that was her intent when she voted for the resolution.
Incidentally, scolding African American women for not supporting Hillary Clinton won't win you any elections.
BrooklynLager never claimed she did. I believe the reference was to Gloria Feldt.
I think this post is wrong on all accounts.
Words, words, words; and you are so right. This exceedingly long piece by Ms Feldt is just... patching for Bill and Hillary's crumbling dike.
Some of us, maybe ALL of us, do not need or want to be scolded because we reject Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. The not so subtle "or else" and the seize the moment mentality is stupid; older men and women like younger men and women have decided to vote for another candidate.
So, Ms Feldt and the others who are seemingly shaking in their bras/boots and making THEMSELVES look like victims should lay off the advice to the rest of us. I am not a victim; my gender does not align me with Feldt and her anxiety-ridden group, whoever they are.
Gosh, given that extraordinary first line of her bio, you'd think she'd be capable of a better argument for supporting a presidential candidate.
P.S. Great job on the book--it will become a best-seller!
When the Monica Lewinsky story broke, Bill Clinton (literally) pounded the podium and wagged his finger and denounced her:
"I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!"
Ms. Melann830 makes crazy arguments that Clinton was not the aggressor Monica was. Poor Bill! He allowed a woman to sexually service him and then she illegally carries his DNA out when he does what he did! Let us all pity poor Bill! The helpless Commander in Chief!
What could he do but denounce Monica Lewinsky and make her seem like a lying pyschopath?
Tell the truth? A Clinton would rather submit to water-boarding!
And Hillary? The wronged wife, betrayed by a young hussy? She kept a feminist silence while the President of the United States dragged the already embarrassed girl through more embarrassment.
Hillary's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" denunciation was true, but she made it false by defending a liar.
That is her pattern: go with the powerful man whether G W Bush or Bill Clinton.
Blame young women for liking Obama all you want, but only an idiot would say "I support Hillary because she is the woman running in the race."
P.S. The bulk of Hillary's accomplishments as Senator from NY are "Fought for this' and other ambiguous claims that Al D'Amato also could make. In Western New York, Hillary pledged to bring 200,000 new jobs. She misssed her goal by 200, 000. I won't blame her for the actual job situation which is a LOSS of jobs. But her denouncing Obama as being a person who cannot deliver is silly.
If Hillary were a Take Out Place, you would wait forever for your order to be prepared, much less delivered.
I feel sorry for Clinton and her supporters.
Seriously, as an Irish Catholic man, I am proud to note that yes, Kennedy came along first... I will also note that my grandparents, God bless them, voted for Nixon. Such is life. I don't accuse them of betraying our cultural heritage and religion and missing our Moment, I just think they wanted experience over idealism. A "tested and ready" candidate that will "do what it takes from day one."
You vote with your gut, heart and mind... not your skin or your loins. I don't know about you, but niehter of those organs have ever told me a damn thing of value.
I find Hillary very offensive, so, I would not like Hillary to be the first woman President. If I had to choose someone, I would choose someone like Feinstein from California. The issue is no one likes Hillary. She not only voted for the war twice, but a lot of other Bush issues as well. Also look how hard she came down on Shuster for that remark, Hillary wanted the man fired! There is too much repression involved with Hillary. Feminists need to realize that Hillary is not the one. There will be others, qualified women too!
There are a lot of things at stake here:
1. Does the Democratic Party survive or does it die like the Republican Party?
My ex-Senator Lincoln Chafee -- a Republican voted against the war in Iraq . . . he showed moral integrity and courage (qualities hillary lacks) . . . he has since left the Republican Party and is supporting Obama . . .
Hillary and Bill are both DLC. Hillary voted for most of the chimp's policies; she voted for the invasion of Iraq; she supported kyl/lieberman; she voted against the Levin amendment; she voted against a bill to ban landmines and cluster bombs; when the chimp called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organisation . . hillary screamed the same thing ... she has shown herself to be a follower with poor judgement as far as I am concerned . . . her voting record makes her a DLC dem like feinstein and schumer . .. Iit baffles me that you ignore her voting record . . .
Bill supported the Iraq war, campaigned for lieberman against the anti-war Liberal Dem Ned Lamont in CT and in the fall of 2006 he spoke at the Labour Party Conference praising tony bliar the chimp's poodle dog saying bliar was the great PM . .. tell that to the British . . if bill were running rather than hillary I WOULDN'T vote for him even though I voted for him twice . . .
2. America needs change not more of the status quo - bill and hillary are DLC status quo . . .
3. I want a president who will sit down and talk with the president of Iran . . war is not the answer . .
4. this campaign is not about gender -- or race .. .it is about having the best candidate . .. a woman for the sake of a women in the WH is just plain nuts ... it is about change and about making sure the Democratic party doesn't go the way of the GOP . . .
Enough for me to not have her be my first choice.
I am just confounded that I am expected to vote against some characterized ephemeral hope, and instead vote despite my best reasoned judgement on actual issues I care about...because of the much more solid argument and reason that Hillary has all X chromosomes. This is an idiotic argument and not worthy of an intelligent person.
And this once again tries to frame the argument that as women we NEED to vote for Hillary, or else! This does Hillary no favours and certainly does feminism no favours by once again, proving every bad stereotype about feminists.
Women like you need to stop trying to fear monger or shame women into voting for Hillary and let her win, or lose, on her own considerable merits or possible faults
The problem is not with "women" but with "feminists." Gloria's argument falls apart in several areas, but let just focus on this one.
Topic: Sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
Scenario: The male chief executive uses male employees under his direct control to "scout" for certain female employees to provide temporary secretarial services while he is on official business outside of his headquarters. The male employees are given criteria by which the females would be considered qualified for the temp job. Howver, they are required to keep the nature of the qualifications to themselves, just ascertain that the female employees meet the standard.
The chief exec meets with a female employee and if suitable, she is hired for the temp job. Upon hiring, the CEO drops trou and requests a blow job or fondling from the female temp. Those who comply are rewarded, those who don't are threatened.
A female employee balks, tells her story and although she is initially not believed, she presses her case. Several other women come forward and corroborate her claim. Another female employee is found to be involved with the CEO in a consensual affair. Earlier still another woman reveals a 12-year affair with the CEO and plays audiotapes of phonecalls she made to prove their relationship. The first female employee is finally rewarded with a settlement in federal court for $850,000. The CEO is disbarred, and nearly loses his job. His contract, when it expires is not renewed.
Throughout the CEO's career, his wife defends him vociferously against any and all charges, including the sexual harassment charges, and both of the affairs.
If you haven't figured it out already, the CEO is Bill Clinton. The wife is Hillary. The first female employee is Paula Jones, and the paramours are Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky.
How any self-respecting feminist would vote for the enabling wife of a serial sexual harasser, not to mention her having suffered the public humiliation of his infidelity, is the hammer that shatters Gloria Feldt's rationale.
It is instead exactly the reason why feminists should be shunning Hillary Clinton -- co-dependent, enabling, weakling of a wife -- and supporting Michelle Obama's spouse.
Gloria's argument suggests that women should just vote for Hillary because she is female. Not because she is qualified (here again, we have a woman whose "experience" is derivative of her husband's -- she has none without his), not because she is independent (she is not) but simply by virtue of who she married.
That is why this rush to embrace Hillary is hypocritical and disingenuous.
'Is it enough to flee from Hillary Clinton because of, say, one vote we didn't like' How many Americans and Iraqi's have died because HRC read the polls and not the intelligence report? I can tell Ms. Feldt has had no one she cares about serve in Iraq.
Voting for someone simply because of their gender is as bad as voting against someone just because of their gender. Sexism is sexism.
2. How is accusing someone sexual harassment? It might be lewd, stupid, mean spirited etc... but not harassment.