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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well Obama romanced the votes out of you didn't he.
I sure hope this is not a one night stand. Remember a lot of these same women voted for Bush!!!!!!!!!
Didn't you make the identical comment on another recent post?
i think even obama underestimated just how desperate the clinton campaign would get. this past week -- after clinton's camp declared it would throw the "kitchen sink" at him -- he's had to endure debunked and suspcious news stories about him and people from whom he's gotten support, as well as belabored non-issues. all of this a week before the primaries that could decide the dem nominee. if he manages to pull off at least 2 of the 4 states tuesday, it's a good sign that the public is sick of these types of political tricks. it seems the media is trying to spur this continued dem indecision by beating up hillary just after a primary/caucus, then beating up obama right before it. not only does it mean more advertising dollars for the networks (political ads), it also plays into the idea that the corporations would like to see continued infighting among the dems to ensure a republican president in '08. hopefully, this won't happen, but the division this election is causing is frightful.
Congratulations Ms Darnton for a refreshing post.
It completely contradicts a blog in this weekend's Washington Post by Linda Hirshman, which claimed...
well, everyone can read it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902991_pf.html
At the risk of being a bore, I want to share an email I sent to Ms Hirshman after reading it.
Dear Ms Hirshman,
I found your article about the Clinton campaign very interesting and informative, and even-handed. But some points troubled me.
Even as an early-adopter Obamaniac or Obamabot or Kool-Aid Drinker - or whatever I'm supposed to be - I'd agree that Senator Clinton has been unfairly treated in the press and by TV pundits. They're a little too gleeful when describing her travails, and too eager to write her off. There's undoubtedly a hint of sexism, of schadenfreude at seeing a powerful, important woman humbled.
Yet surely she has only herself to blame. The media loves a winner, but if you do a victory dance in Florida over votes that won't be counted, you're setting yourself up for a nasty fall. Likewise, the hubristic air that permeated her whole campaign up until Iowa. Even then, she didn't see the writing on the wall. So the media's constant baiting of her in the wake of humiliating failure is only to be expected. She let the rank underdog get on top and maul her - 11 times in a row - and that's big news.
You also allude to the fact that Mark Penn has thus far run a disastrous campaign, but I think you don't go far enough. He has blown an almost insuperable lead and consistently underestimated and misjudged the Obama campaign strategy and the popular mood. Even now, his negative ads are undoing a lot of goodwill towards his boss. And on top of this he seems to have billed Senator Clinton a scandalous sum.
But what really bothers me is the idea that women who 'desert' Clinton are somehow neglecting their own best interests, because her health care plan is allegedly better. Surely it's equally likely that they've taken on Obama's message about Clinton being compromised by her long involvement with lobbyists and the Washington establishment?
Or do you really believe your own baffling and unsupported statement that, "at every class level, women know less than men do about politics in general"?
Yours sincerely, etc.
Sharky, thanks for posting the link to Hirshman's editorial, and for your response to it. I agree with you 100%. I don't know how she can get away with saying that woman know less about poltics at every class level, as if to say we must not know very much, otherwise we would be voting for Clinton. Good Grief. Hirshman is not someone I think much of anyway, since I am a stay-at-home mom!
And thanks for making this male feel invited into something that might be called "feminism." Whatever value exclusionary feminism might have once had, clearly inclusion is now the only sensible way into the future.
As a single father, nothing is more important to me than my child, and, as a progressive, I refuse to allow social conservatives to own concepts like "family values."
Perhaps the term "feminism" is not destined to survive, but I think we finally have the potential with Obama's leadership to transform our politics and culture away from absolutism (across the spectrum) in a way that demands equality and dignity and respect for all, regardless of our choices.
I would love to see a woman in the White House...it just has to be the right woman. Thanks for this post - it needed to be said.
This statement is so over-used & annoys me every time. Keep telling yourself that, because you have to avoid that little voice of guilt in the back of your mind that knows better. I doubt you'll see a woman come along like Hillary for a very long time &, on some level, you probably know that. She has been politically active & highly involved in the name of the "little people" since the early 70s, before she ever met Bill Clinton. Sure, she's made plenty of mistakes, but she's a politician & human being. What do you expect? She's also damn smart, compassionate, one helluva fighter & very well-equipped to handle the tricky ins & outs of the white house & foreign policy. As for this race, there's no one running that will do a better job & I suspect that you'll see the results of your poor choice sooner rather than later, once the new President gets into office. It'll be to late for I-Told-You-Sos at that point, so I hope that you'll do some serious research into who Clinton really is & what she can do before it's too late.
That's awfully presumptuous of you thinking you know what little voices of guilt are whispering in the backs of people's heads.
You make a reasoned argument about what Hillary offers in addition to being a woman. Some of us can disagree (or have other priorities) according to our own reasoning -- with absolutely no guilt whatsoever.
But, as I've said elsewhere, I am not nearly as pessimistic as you are that we won't see another woman "like Hillary" for a very long time -- if by "like Hillary" you mean viable. Actually, while I give her a lot of credit for clearing the path, I think our first female president will probably be a much stronger candidate and leader.
I'll tell you what would make me feel really guilty.
One of my parents is female. Both of them are feminists. Both are pacifists. My vote is primarily based on who started the war in Iraq and who's going to continue it.
I've seen plenty of better women come along in my time. One of them is one of my state's senators, Barbara Boxer.
Senator Barbara Boxer would be a much better president than Hillary. I resent being labeled "anti-woman" just because I don't support Hillary freekin Clinton.
Seriously, that's a ridiculous argument. 300 Million Americans, at least half of them women (150 Million +) and you could even form your lips to say or fingers to type "Hillary is the best there is?"
Ha. So, there's no woman in American more capable or likable or honest than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is as good as it gets? That's a rather disturbing thought, if one took it seriously.
But she voted for Iraq, Iran, and the bankruptcy bill. She caved to Bushie on important things. I want a president who has more of a strong backbone.
This has been tough on all of us for whom having a woman candidate was a source of pride but being intelligent we cannot simply vote like morons on the basis of gender when the candidate herself has nothing positive to offer. Hillary Clinton has been a great deception to say the least.
Supporters of Hillary Clinton are not morons. We're passionate about seeing this awesome leader do her thing, clean up the Bush mess, balance the budget & focus on her pet issues like health care, restoring the middle class, and children's advocacy. And yes, we're thrilled & proud that she also happens to be a woman.
Her health care plan is a sell out to the insurance companies. They will make a fortune. Is she planning to endorse changing the law so the government can negotiate with drug companies? She hasn't said much. She has caved to Bushie on important things. I don't find her awsome I find her adequate. I don't care what gender she is but I want a President that is better than adequate, if she is the nominee I will vote for her but I really wish we could get better than adequate. Fortunately for her McCain isn't anywhere near adequate, now he is courting bigots. At least Clinton hasn't done that.
hillary is not going to balance the budget . . with Iraq costing billions . . . get real . .. don't get caught up in a nostalgia trip for the clintons . .. that era is long gone . . . the past 7.5 years have made it a generation ago in term of the damage the chimp and co have perpetrated both domestically and in foreign policy and don't forget . . .hillary and bill were for the illegal invasion of Iraq ... bill supported lieberman, hillary backed kyl/lieberman . . . Obama will do the same things and is not bogged down by all the garbage trailing the clintons . .. . . and who knows what bill will be up to when he is back in the oval office again . . . America needs change big time . . . . wake up .. .
I almost get the impression from some Clinton supporters that they're resentful that "the first woman with a serious shot at becoming president" has to run against the first African American with a serious shot at becoming president. It's as though they're implying "Hey c'mon, that's not fair!"
Some -particularly the older women- seem panicked that this is the last shot that they'll get to elect a woman as president.
I don't have any answer other than to say that I think the very fact that the two strongest candidates for president are a woman and an African American should be a cause for celebration rather than division, and that voting for Clinton simply because she's a woman would be as wrong as voting for Obama based solely on his race.
Already the landscape has been transformed, thanks to both of them. Many many mental barriers have been torn down in the collective national psyche.
I do think, however, that the most vocal and absolutist feminists could undo some of this progress if they continue to throw around hand-grenade words like "sexist" and "traitor."
As a man from one of the younger generations, I can assure you, Hillary Clinton will *NOT* be the last viable female presidential candidate during my lifetime or in the lifetime of most people who are alive today.
Yes, she may be the strongest candidate in a generation. But I could easily foresee several female candidates even by the next cycle. I would encourage people (especially those who are afraid of voting against "the only chance for a woman president in my lifetime") to vote for the candidate who they believe will move the country in the right direction not just for the candidate who makes you most afraid of a missed opportunity. If my generation continues to have a say, you will have many more opportunities to see women cracking higher and harder glass ceilings in the years ahead.
Bravo za2008 . .. . no hillary will not be the last female to run for prez . .. . and she certainly isn't the best candidate for the Oval Office at this point in our nation's history . .. she is not a milestone but is a millstone . . . .
Interesting article. I do wish all of these self-identified feminists out there would stop with their guitly postings about the rights of feminists to vote for the non-female candidate at their first opportunity ever to exercise their decision. It's like advocating for the rights of vegetarians to eat meat - it's surely their decision to make, but please stop calling yourself a vegetarian, no?
As an African-American I can say for certain that I would never vote for a Condelezza Rice or a Clarence Thomas type candidate. Am I less African-American? Are there any women political figures whom you would not vote for? If being a women is the only requirement then I guess not because to admit there is actually any other consideration would mean feminists could consider someone other than Hillary. Which as GENUINE feminists you say they can't do.
If a right-wing candidate with an anti-woman agenda were running, I would not support her on the basis of gender. When we have two candidates with very similar policy positions and the woman is the more qualified, I will support her, especially when the man is running on the cult of masculinity. Do we all need a strong man to save us? I don't think so.
Here's t;he problem, not everyone thinks that Hilary is more qualified. I think that both have around the same level of experience (regardless of Hilary messaging) and their policy differences are slight. I chose Obama for the way that he's been able to inspire people, for the way that he's made people feel part of the Democratic process again. For the way that's he's inclusive and not polarzing. For all these reasons, I believe that Obama is more qualified, regardless of gender. When a female candidate comes along (and she will) that is truly qualified, based on her merit and not just name -- she will have my vote 100%.
Well, thanks for totally invalidating my right to be a feminist. I didn't know it was judged entirely on my voting or not voting for *one* flawed woman candidate. Here I thought it had something to do with education and the right to choose and flexible work/job plans for women with families and the movement to end poverty among elderly women.
My mistake. I guess I'll take off them shoes, put on that apron, and head back to the kitchen now.
A feminist is only a feminist if they vote the way they are told to vote?? Feminists must vote as directed??
Feminists make up their own mind, that is the essence of being a feminist. A thinking human being of either gender does not vote for the shape of genitals. A thinking human being votes on the basis of positions, plans, and facts, not on the basis of gender.
Sorry ,it isn't guilt, it is evaluating facts and making a decision. Reflexively voting for someone because of gender is stupid, for either men or women.
Thanks for finally standing up as a feminist who sees the big picture.
I've been so embarrassed by so many of my former idols who have tried to make me feel like a traitor to my gender for actually thinking for myself and choosing the candidate who most exemplifies my own political ideals. I'm almost 50 and was in grade school at the start of the women's movement. In high school, I adored Gloria Steinem. I thought feminism was all about empowering women to think for themselves.
It's sad how so many of the old guard feminists have become exactly what they used to fight against.
"We are older women. Many of us are mothers. It is time to listen to our children. It is their future we are deciding."
EXACTLY.
I would love to vote the first woman into that office.
Hillary is not that woman I can vote for.
As a feminist myself, I can state she is not the one for the job at hand.
And that is my reason for not voting for her.
Glad to hear I have good company.
I'm not a mother, but I'm with you all the way on this comment otherwise.
It's weird for me to be on the other side of the feminist heroes of my youth: Gloria Steinem, Billie Jean King. What are they seeing that I'm not, or vice-versa? Both these icons inspired and led and brought about real changes in this country - why are they not supporting the candidate who can also do so? Surely it's not because of his gender? I'm so disappointed.
I thought it was all about choice. I heard a quote from BJK saying she feels like her life's work will go down the drain if Hillary doesn't win. I thought her life's work was to harness the power of women to make our lives better. I think Barack will accomplish this and more, far better than HRC who might not get a chance at all.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
