Picking a President: A Feminist's Right to Choose

A few weeks ago, I had lunch with an old friend, a lawyer and a judge who has been a long-time activist in the women's movement. We discussed the exciting Democratic political field and I confessed, somewhat nervously, that I supported Barack Obama.

"I'm so glad," my friend blurted. "So do I." She explained that the decision to withdraw support from Hillary Clinton, the first woman with a serious shot at becoming president, had become so contentious that she had to refrain from discussing it with her women friends for fear of destroying relationships.

I was saddened by this, but not surprised. After all, hadn't I been nervous about expressing my own decision? But the division between women on this issue, coupled with anger and accusations of betraying feminism, is a serious one, not just for the presidential election, but for the women's movement itself.

In its earliest manifestations, the women's movement was never only about economic and professional opportunities, it was also about freedom of choice. We stood for a woman's right to break away from the stereotypes that defined and confined us. We spoke of the bonds that united women, our "sisterhood" and formed support groups to encourage and empower ourselves and each other.

But, inevitably, differences arose, and when challenged, many of us reserved our support only for those who agreed with us. When, in large numbers, mothers joined the work force and found substitute caretakers for their children while others decided to give up or put off careers and stay at home, an eruption of verbal fire sallied forth from both sides. I wrote an article about that development for Newsweek in 1990. We called it "The Mommy Wars", and it detailed the anger and accusations each group lobbed at the other.

What happened to supporting your sister's freedom of choice? It turned out it was often only evident when she chose what you chose.

The woman's movement has grown and transformed since the 1990's, but many of us still don't seem able to tolerate honest differences among us. We early feminists, those of us now in our '50s and '60s and '70s, need to realize that as we have matured so has the movement we champion. And a true sign of a mature movement is the recognition that there is room for more than one point of view. We have reached a level of empowerment where we no longer have to be governed by a kind of gender tribalism, and can, indeed must, think of the needs of our country as a whole. If a man is more compelling than a woman candidate, if he generates excitement and inspires idealism in a way that she doesn't, and if he runs for office with a women's agenda, we are not betraying our feminist credentials by voting for him. In fact, we are affirming them.

Just as we thought differently from the generation of women before us, young women define feminism differently from us. They have adapted the movement to the times and have moved to the next step in their empowerment. These young women are at the forefront of a new wave of feminism that includes the men who have embraced our arguments and believe in our goals. Progress is always in the direction of inclusion rather than isolation.

Both young men and young women have embraced Barack Obama in large numbers because they see in him the embodiment of the multicultural, forward-looking new world they inhabit. They believe that we cannot give up on politics and politicians, but that we must change them and they don't think someone who has been part of the old system can accomplish that as well as he can. And they no longer think that gender needs to determine justice.

We are older women. Many of us are mothers. It is time to listen to our children. It is their future we are deciding.

Nina Darnton, a former frequent contributor to the New York Times and National Public Radio and a former staff writer for Newsweek and the New York Post is now a freelance writer living in New York.

Comments

[griffon2k]

I find the "feminist's must vote Clinton to further their cause" argument a bit disappointing for the reasons Nina has pointed out but I also find it troubling because of the way Hillary has run this campaign. Just a short review:

Hillary still refuses to admit invading Iraq was a mistake or apologize for fear of showing "weakness"

Hillary has gone increasingly negative against her opponent instead relying on the positives about what she offers.

Hillary has continually complained about unfair treatment in the press instead of taking responsibility for the negatives of her campaign and positions and then making changes.


Those are not feminist values. Feminism as I understand it is about empowering women through action in not only demonstrating that a woman is equal in their abilities but that they can do things differently than the status quo. I, and many others have seen just the opposite from Hillary over the last month.

Hillary as her campaign has played out doesn't represent the change in thinking that feminism embodies or that our government needs, ie., that admitting mistakes and taking responsibility for them doesn't make a person weak, it shows strength of character, that we don't have to rely on the system (political or otherwise) of old that has failed us, we can change that system to one that works and that since these ideas of equality are not advanced by scapegoating the press for kid-gloves/special treatment, it's advanced by the strength of your message and the power of your own voice. Feminism is also not advanced by attempting to divide us, but by bringing us together for the same goal: equality for all.

I respect Hillary and look forward to her continuing in the Senate, but I don't feel that her performance in this campaign reflects the ideas that feminism truly represents or demonstrating that she is ready for the presidency.

I am a young man with two intelligent younger sisters, one a college graduate on a determined path to a successful career the other a teenager carving a path of her own, a wife already advancing in a very successful career and a strong mother who balanced taking care of her children AND a career. I KNOW HILLARY WON'T BE THE LAST WOMAN WE GET TO CHOOSE FROM FOR PRESIDENT.

I'm also African American, and have voted for Non African Americans when an African-American candidate didn't represent what I felt was best for all. If I didn't feel Barack Obama represented what was best for everyone in this country at this time, my support would be behind someone else, regardless of the fact that he's African American.

Ladies, feel free to vote for what's best for all ahead of your own personal self interests.

[MPeter]

Thanks MS Darnton. You bring great credit to your gender and the feminist movement. What we have seen with the Clintons and the old racist feminist clique is a mindless command to follow orders from the top; the kind of know-all command and control type of leadership that does not work in today's America. Thank you for a great post.

[JustMyWords]

Thank you for putting it so eloquently!

[mgloraine]

Gender equality issues suffered major setbacks at the hands of the Reaganites and Bushniks - twenty years of backlash from the wealthiest and most unscrupulous gangsters on the planet, accompanied by the Republican echo-chamber of phony gossip/talk jabberwocks like Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Coulter. etc. ad nauseam.

What's shocking is that we're here in "the next millenium" and only now looking at our first serious female AND black Presidential candidates. It's irritating for supporters of human rights and equal opportunity to be compelled to choose only one candidate and thereby refuse the other. But that's the deal at the moment.

What we need for the future is LOTS MORE non-male and/or non-Caucasian and/or non-Christian candidates to choose from. We've already seen and heard what the ultra-wealthy, ultra-conservative, ultra-white, ultra-Christian, ultra-male, ultra-chickenhawks want: more war, more domestic spying, more torture, more no-bid contracts for the "good ole boys", while women and blacks achieve the right to go die on the front lines of the next unprovoked invasion.

[Macready]

thank you Nina Darnton . . . great blog . .. I am with you all the way on this . . . I am voting for Obama . . . the future belongs to the young . . . it is their future they are deciding . . . they should not be hampered by the old outdated views of previsous generations . .. choice, the ability to think and stand by myr decisions are what I gained from the women's movement . . . a woman in the WH for the sake of a woman in the WH is totally absurd . . . and smacks of rigid status quo thinking and too much rationalisation . . . I am proud to be a boomer for Obama!

[swoosie1]

Nina--you are going deeper here with this article than you really need to. You don't need to work this thing into some sort of feminist rant about the past vs. the future. You can edit it down and just say that you drank the Kool-Aid and it tastes good. (Give it a few months and it might feel different after the reality of group-think settles in.)

[isi]

swoosie1- Let me recommend to you this prescient column by Molly Ivins, published January 20, 2006. No one has ever said Molly Ivins drank the kool-aid yet here she is stating she would never support Hillary Clinton. I would recommend that you read it.
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

[slow2]

Amen isi.

And, can we lose the koolaid analogy, swoosie1? Substitute Grey Goose or Pepsi or capri sun; the koolaid drinking is just damned silly and reflects poorly on your articulation.

Don't we wish Molly Ivins had lived, for so many reasons. What a woman, what a feminist, what a humanist; in short, what a great person and superb writer! Thanks be to God we had her for awhile -- her words were for everyone.

[standforpeace]

For me it's not about drinking the KoolAid. It is about voting for a candidate who was out in the streets with me protesting the looming war in Iraq rather than voting to authorize it. It is about rejecting a candidate who recently voted to categorize the entire Iranian army as a terrorist entity. It is about rejecting the racially coded messages that the Clintons have long made a part of their operating style at least back to the 1992 election. It's about rejecting the politics of fear (haven't we had enough of that red phone bullshit from George Bush and Rudy Giulianni and Dick Cheney,etc) in favor of an approach that calls us to be our best selves. It is about saying no to a candidate who wants to hold her income tax returns ransom (she'll show them to us later if we give her the nomination now). Somehow those in the Clinton camp have convinced themselves that all of the rational voters are going for their candidate; while those who are voting for the other guy are either hopelessly deluded or just too sexist to support a woman. Perhaps you are the KoolAid drinkers not us?

[LordMoon]

When I read articles written by Women who describe themselves as feminists, I'm always struck by the fact that they purport to speak for women. When in fact they are only speaking for themselves.

Try to be honest, you won't vote for Hillary because you don't believe she would be a good president, and that's more important than your belief that a women should be president because she is a woman.

I'm also struck by your belief that Feminism has been a positive force for women, especially in the west, where I believe women are much worse off than before feminism. Certainly they are free from the symbols of bondage. But ultimately there can be no freedom without responsibility.

However women continue to struggle to survive economically, a struggle thats actually gotten harder for them since women are more likely to remain single. In a society where it takes two incomes to survive, 50% of them are left without that second income and the support of a husband.

I wonder also if Hillary's losses at the polls, also represent a growing distaste for feminism, and the social havoc it has caused American families, and children.

America has become at it's base a perverse society, one in which it's leaders often pervert social ideals to further selfish ends, and myopic visions with unforseen consequences, to those that follow them un critically.

In the end there is a backlash, a reaction and a disolution, a repetition of history again and again. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton feminism may have become an idea whose time has come, and finally, thank god, gone.

[nigeria0]

I agree in part with the fact that feminism has not done what we need it to do. I believe that focusing on nominating a female president or equal pay as men pales in comparison to issues like minimal rape convictions and short rape sentences, domestic abuse, higher infections of HIV in women, child sex abuse. I always thought feminism was about equality, having a female president does not in of itself give women equality, however someone who will fight for equality is the best choice, and I am afraid Hillary Clinton does not embody that. I was raised by a single diasbled mother who left a domestic abuser, and I worked so hard to get where I am, making a lot of mistakes along the way, however my current success tastes so much sweeter as I earnt it myself. I find it hard to support Hillary Clinton as a wife of a former president. I do not feel she has earnt it. However the most important issue is I do not think she is the best candidate for the job. I AM AN EQUALIST

[uberlefty]

For those who are afraid that Hillary is the last chance for a woman in the White House in their lifetime I would point at Barack Obama as an example why that might not be the case. No one outside of Illinois knew who Obama was until 2004. We saw him speak at the convention and he has energized a generation. If he becomes the next president who is to say that at the 2012 convention we wont see a woman get up and stir the same passions that Obama has. I think of all the brilliant young women watching as this primary plays out. Thinking of them choosing a life in public service instead of the corporate world. I think of the brilliant women currently in public service who will be inspired to continue into higher office. An Obama presidency reaffirms that thing we are all taught as children. That anyone can be President of the United States. That should inspire us all, women and men alike. I know the argument that Hillary inspires the girls as well but I would counter that being married to the president as a road to the presidency sends a bit of a mixed message to the girls. Try explaining that to your 8 year old daughter. My point is that the times they are a changing and much faster than most of us thought they would. Aint it grand!

[Phife]

Absolutely uberlefty,

The idea that Hillary is the last viable woman candidate we'll see for the next 50 years or whatever is a form of fearmongering. Who knew about Barack before he ascended? Who knew about Jim Webb in Virginia or any of the new wave of Democratic senatiors and congresspeople that sprouted in 2004 in response to the Bush Administration?

Most of the time we have to recruit talented people into politics from other fields like the military, law, and medicine.

I think Hillary and Barack's campaigns will inspire new generations of women, black, latino, voters and everyone else.

Hillary has served the role of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in this campaign. The identitiy candidate or the 1.0 candidate. Now there is a blueprint for female presidential candidates in the same way that Jessee and Al served as blueprints for Obama; showing him what NOT to do and what buttons should not be pressed.

THe next female presidential candidate will look at Hillary's campaign and say, hmm, maybe I should avoid the identity politics, that didn't work so well for Hillary. Maybe I should try to be as authentic as possible, that was another factor which hampered Hillary, female presidential candidate 1.0

I am very hopeful that we'll have a female president in the next 20 years.

[jsq]

Feminism teaches that the entire system must be remade. It is not enough to replicate patriarchy with women at the top, yet that is just what the Clinton campaign proposes. That all we need is the same politics, the same policies, the same tactics but somehow a different end because its a Clinton or a Democrat in the White House. Obama speaks to real feminism, that a new system must be created, new strategies, new vision that creates real equality, real peace and a real way forward. As a woman I am proud to stand with him.

[CindyV]

The article and subsequent posts really bother me. I'm in my 50s and I don't think I will see a female president in my lifetime. And I have so-called feminists to thanks for this. Hillary is qualified to be president. If you watched the first 17 or 18 debates, she won them all. She won because she knows the issues. She has a firm grasp of policy, domestic and foreign. I guess we expect perfection from our female candidates and Hillary is far from perfect. But her heart is in the right place. Too bad the so-called feminists who are voting for Obama are so unforgiving. And for the lesbians voting for Obama, double shame on you. Obama, on his southern gospel tour, invited homophobic minister Donnie McClurkin to share the stage with him. McClurkin in no friend of LGBT folks and for Obama to enlist him for politcal gain is, well, just like the boys in Washington work.

[BobLargomarsino]

I don't get why you doubt you will see a woman president in your lifetime. This will be the first election in a long time that will be won by a senator. The path to the presidency is through the governor's mansion and the two most highly regarded Democratic governors are women. There's Janet Napolitano from Arizona and Kathleen Sebilius from Kansas. With women making up a vast majority of the Democratic Party it seems a certainty that a woman will win the nomination soon.

I also don't understand why you say that Hillary's heart is in the right place. From where I sit Hillary is all about herself.

[Macready]

CindyV . . . hillary's grasp of foreign policy . . . what do you base that on . . she voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq; she voted against the Levin amendment to extend debate on Iraq; when the chimp screamed that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a terrorist organisation . . .she piped up right behind him . . . she supported kyl/lieberman, she voted against a bill to ban landmines and cluster bombs, what grasp of foreign policy -- . . . her votes don't indicate this . . . they are more of the same old same old failed policy in foreign policy -- they shown bad judgement . . . . she has conducted her campaign as though she is owed the presidency . . . because of bill's years in the WH, she has falsely touted that she has had 25 years experience, the truth is she and bill are desperate to get back into power .. and will do anything to get there . . .

[AtlantaBill]

Cindy - I'm shocked to hear an adult in her 50s state that she is voting for a candidate simply because of her gender. I am an african american (AA) and an Obama supporter but would never have based my choice on the fact that Obama is an AA. In the past, other AA's (Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson) have been on the ballot but in those instances I've voted for the other candidate. And by the way, I am in my early 60s and could care less about the skin color or gender of our next president. The qualities I do care about in our next president are these: Character; Good Judgment; Vision; and, Leadership Ability. My decision to support Obama is based on my assessment that Obama excels in these areas. My last point to you Cindy is that of electability. Should Hilliary win the nomination you and all the other feminist that blindly supports her can be assured that "bomb, bomb, ... Iran" John McCain will be our next president. All those new voters, independents, and many of the traditional dems would either stay home or choose to vote for McCain. Even though I voted twice for Billary in the 90s, I am not one who want to see this act repeated in the 21st century. Assuming Hillary wins, the country will immediately fall into a four year period of "extreme gridlock" where nothing will get done. There is no guarantee that Obama can unite the country, but at least his campaign is based on the reality that unification is necessary for us to move forward. Hillary's campaign on the other hand seems to be one that welcomes a return to the "fight, fight, fight" kind of government that we had in the 90s.

[Computer Geek]

Bravo! Well thought out and well said!

[Selam]

Thank you, Nina. A movement is about inclusion. Hillary is smart and a professional woman, she has my respect but I don’t think she is the right person for our time.

There are a lot of women out there, in corporate America, focusing on the bottom line. I can not vote for them because they don’t share my values.

I think we shouldn’t bog down in the identify politics. Sometimes, we need to recognize the bigger picture even if it slows down our self interest mission. This is that kind of moment that calls, to let go a self serving fight, for a common purpose.

[AmericanReflections]

Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, my choice is Obama. And it's not about gender. It's about what each of them presents to the voters in their speeches and the debates. I see excellent qualities in both Clinton and Obama, and it was not an easy choice to make.

Having said that, what I'm seeing in Senator Clinton is a candidate who has hit the wall too many times on camera. She strikes me as a person who has a problem holding her temper, and I just don't think we need that in the White House. I can live with Clinton as the Democratic candidate, if she does get the nomination. I can, in fact, vote for her in the general election with no serious regrets or uneasiness.

But by comparison, Senator Obama appears to be able to stay calm, to respond to attacks without getting angry. The man's reasonableness amazes me, and I believe his decisions would be solid and well thought out. I think he would do well at selecting his cabinet, and unlike what we've put up with the past seven years, he would listen to advice. We need a president who will listen to what the people want, and I'm just not sure that HRC would accept advice.

This year Democrats have a choice between a woman and an African American male, both from minority groups. Every one of us is free to vote as we choose. If there are people (and I know there are) who select their candidate based on gender or race, so be it. But there are those of us out here also who want to see the strongest, most viable candidate lead this country after we're rid of George Bush, no matter their gender or race. I'm proud to be part of the group that has attracted and supported these two remarkable people.

[sypage]

I am a 55 year old openly lesbian feminist and lifelong Democrat. Obama has not "romanced" ME.

He has, however, impressed me, inspired me, and motivated me, and I support him unreservedly.

[lafrance]

Thanks for writing this as it so badly needs to be said.
I am also in my 50s and am so tired of the over the top name calling and accusations by Hillary's supporters.
I have long believed in supporting the best person for the job. I happen to think that Barack Obama is the better candidate.
All you have to do is look at the way the two campaigns have been run to see that Hillary is simply not suited to the job.
I am secure enough in myself not to feel I have to vote for someone I feel is not the best candidate simply because she is a woman and I feel the need to validate myself as a valuable person through her.
If some women feel the need to vote for Hillary based on her vagina that is fine but, do not try to bully or berate other women who do not feel the same way.

[Jenai]

Thank you Nina. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am a 48 year old woman. I am in the work force and I support Obama. I feel that I am free to choose and that is great.

[stavros]

Well! The comments seemed to be nice and thought provoking for a minute there.

Good piece. Wish some of the posters here just read and didn't include their thoughts.

Thanks Nina.

[milosarah]

We are older women. Our futures matter too.