There is a lot of discussion about "feminist in-fighting" of late, spurred by the election. Jessica Valenti of Feministing.com is doing a piece on the subject for The Nation. Here is my response to her query:
1. The fact is there have always been many "feminisms," but one dominant, more visible Feminism, which is essentially comprised of the needs, views, and philosophies of straight white women with a certain degree of privilege. Now we can add "and of a certain age" to that list. Women of different backgrounds have been speaking to this issue of exclusivity for decades, and their critiques have been voluminous. The lack of resolution of these critiques is currently manifesting in an exacerbated form, and labeled "infighting." There are no new issues on the table. For example, my mother, Alice Walker, did not create the term "womanist" in the late '70s because she was feeling creative. I did not offer the concept of Third Wave in the '90s because I wanted to inject a catchy phrase into the Feminist discourse. And, many "mainstream" women did not reject the Feminist label in the '60s to present because they don't know what Feminism really is.
The complaints brought against Feminism include racism, classism, ageism, out of touchism, and a certain tendency toward First World arrogance. There has been an enduring wariness in communities of color specifically, about Feminism's mantra of independence rather than interdependence with male family members and the world at large. This would include Feminism's ambivalence about motherhood, marriage, and domestic life in general. This would include Feminism's divisive and ultimately unhelpful commentary that women need men like fish need bicycles (women need their grandfathers, fathers, sons, brothers, etc. for a host of reasons too lengthy and obvious to list here). This would include Feminism's dismissal of religion itself based on its patriarchal leadership. This would include Feminism's characterization of young women who don't fall in line with the Feminist status quo as naive and ungrateful. This would include Feminism's short-sidedness that will ultimately undo the work of their anointed protegees.
Simply put, if Feminism was Wal-Mart, and had as many decades-old unresolved grievances against it, it would have long ago been bankrupt.
2. What we see in this election is the zenith of the decades-old struggle between women of different sensibilities seeking empowerment, enfranchisement, and their rightful share of the resources available. The issue at hand has to do with Feminism's (not feminism's) inability to respond adequately to the claims brought against it. If, for instance, the leadership had taken the aforementioned critiques, including those in my 1995 book To Be Real seriously, many younger women might not feel so alienated from a movement that achieved so much for them. Women of color at large might not still be skeptical of what they perceive to be Feminism's true agenda -- to empower the few and not the many. Men, many of whom would be allies to feminism's cause, would not feel attacked, rejected and alienated from a movement that held great potential benefit for them as well.
The rise of Women for Obama then, to some extent has to do with Feminism's creation of a vacuum. This is why, for instance, a Wal-Mart would "go green" at the insistence of its customers. If Wal-Mart did not respond to the messages of its base, its base would go elsewhere. To a consumer environment that better suits their sensibilities an aspirations, perhaps. The same could be said about Feminism.
3. Overall, the response of Second Wave Feminist leadership has been a stubborn insistence that it has already accommodated the aforementioned views and critiques, and that if people would just understand the "real" history, this would all be cleared up. There does not seem to be an understanding that this very response is problematic, insulting and trivializing to those who have brought forward these concerns. It is not that this diverse community of challengers is ignorant, it is that they have surmised the landscape to find many of their concerns and reservations confirmed. It is no secret that, just as middle class blacks have benefited the most from the civil rights movement and the rest are either impoverished or in jail, so have a certain group of women been the primary beneficiaries of Feminism.
To continue the analogy, if Wal-Mart claimed it had made the switch to green, but the products on its shelves were, in fact, not reflective of that claim, Wal-Mart would lose the faith of its customers and again, over time, be forced into bankruptcy.
4. Based on the above, I am not entirely certain that the calls decrying Feminism's death are incorrect or even undesirable. Perhaps a Feminism that has not responded to the needs of its constituents needs to die. Perhaps Obama is unintentionally killing feminism and facilitating the rise of "feminisms." We shall see. He has clearly addressed the issue of ageism. Young people are not marginalized in his campaign or team of advisors. In fact, young people of all backgrounds have come out in support of his message by the hundreds of thousands. This generation has yet to do the same for Feminism.
I also did things that girls normally did. When it came time for me to be heard, I was put down for being a female. It took me awhile to understand that. What that meant. I am still hard headed like that.
I went from corporate, to the construction trades and loved it. Still having a hard time why people don't understand why a woman would want to do this type of work. Surprising many at my ability, especially when they can't believe it was done by a woman. I keep forgetting about that because I get wrapped up in the work and the satisfaction of it.
I am a mother of a daughter. Love it. Like being a mom. When I needed help, I forgot that my own would contribute that to being a women and a single parent and condemn me for it.
I lived in a multcultured part of town for some time. Lived amongest every color. Love it, and many friends. I thought I knew what it was to be different. Until I saw my friends being treated badly because of their color and because of their gender. I know different now. I am glad I know different.
Feminism? I am not sure how I fit into that word. I know I am not black, or yellow or whatever race color other then white, because I am not them. I did get a real good peek though. It gave me more then heartburn.
I have worked with women who worked against each other, rather then with each other. I have worked with men that played that against us. I have worked with many of different races.
You know. The gender, the race? It's only really part of who we are. As for who I want in the white house? I want someone who has the experience and the humilation. The battle scars and the fortitude. If I had to rate each candidate without knowing the race or the gender. I would vote for HRC.
Not because she is a woman. But because she is more qualified.
I have to look past the charmisc person. I have to look at who is really qualified.
I'm the last person to be a fan of Nancy Pelosi, for instance. But Pelosi is a thousand-fold more qualified for the presidency than Hilliary.
My primary interest, as a female, is attaining the right to be who I really am, not what society says I must be, due to the majority's beliefs about gender. Prevalent, preconceived notions about gender have prevented me from achieving this goal.
While the "Third Wave" and the anti-feminists purport to be saying something new, they are merely creating new boxes for women, which they find more "inclusive" (a term which became fashionable around the dawn of political correctness). Many feminists/anti-feminists from that time period believe that calling something by a different name, or attempting to alter its meaning, causes it to cease to exist. I would contend that objective reality exists independently of anyone's perception of it. Therefore, changing the name of a thing does not change the thing itself, only one's beliefs about it.
All of the "Waves" (and their offshoots) have failed to achieve women's equality because their leaders have tried to impose artificial constructs upon society, which I regard as "inclusive femininity". In other words, they try to create a definition of "femaleness" by including groups of women across age, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. This will not work because women are individuals. And, yet, none of these feminist/anti-feminist groups tolerate individuality in women. By individuality, I don't mean something outside of our culture's mainstream lifestyle, i.e. an alternate group like transgender or bisexual. I mean allowing someone to express the full range of individual traits they were born with, regardless of whether others attribute those traits to members of the female gender.
Over the years, I have discovered that most women, whether feminists or anti-feminists, have rigid beliefs about how other women should think and behave. Consequently, despite women's insistence that they are "nurturing", they are extremely unsupportive of (and often cruel to) women who don't fall into line with the image they believe constitutes "femininity".
For example, I live a highly cerebral life. I spend inordinate amounts of time absorbing knowledge, in a wide range of disciplines, and developing theories based on that knowledge. Some of those theories are applied to my own work, and some are "donated" to the work of others, in fields where I have no formal credentials.
I do not define myself by marriage, parenting, care-giving, nurturing, or any of the other "feminine" attributes that the youngest generation of (mostly) anti-feminists espouse as central to a woman's life. In fact, marriage, care-giving, and nurturing are antithetical to who I am as a person. These traits would only pertain to me if I were defined solely by my reproductive organs. (However, I do not mind if other women wish to define themselves by any or all of these attributes.)
As one who values intellect above family and nurturing, I have never experienced the support of other women. In fact, those of us who are exceptionally intelligent, are viewed as "unlikeable" by almost all women. Apparently, modern feminism/anti-feminism, only pertains to females who can and will conform to someone else's notion of what femininity ought to be.
For this reason, while I am one of a handful of women in a male-dominated field (where, despite no difference in responsibilities or hours, women earn considerably less than men), I refuse to mentor young women. Since most 20-somethings (and many 30-somethings) perceive feminism as obsolete, I expect them to succeed on their own.
I am an apolitical, registered Independent, who never votes for Republicans, but who sometimes votes for Democrats.
Contrary to the notions of the masses, I do not support Barack Obama. I am not a disciple, and I do not emotionalize things, so his mass appeal is meaningless to me. He falls short of my standards with respect to knowledge and intellect. Conversely, while I cannot relate to Hillary Clinton as either a wife or a mother, I appreciate her intellect and breadth of knowledge. For that reason, I prefer Clinton over Obama, and will vote for her in the General Election, if she is nominated.
In general, intellect is devalued in American society (although, evidently, we value people who play the role of the intellectual). I did not expect a majority of women to support Clinton, for the same reasons I never expect them to support me. But, their lack of support will not alter my thinking. I know, from experience, that ideas based in fact, and the ability to implement those ideas, effect change, while emotional pleas do not.
The fact that Obama displays superior intellect and breadth of knowledge maybe a matter of taste, but a majority of the voters have decided that he is an appealing, trustworthy candidate. To deride those of us who support his candidacy by patting yourself on the back for being above his appeal by mischaracterizing his appeal as "mass appeal" is a sad rhetorical ploy.
I imagine such equivocation pays well in certain mass markets, but in the political arena your sort of lofty positioning comes off as blatant, if emotionally sterile, propagandizing by a disciple who will not admit she wants to shepherd those she imagines are sheep.
If I were you, I'd look into some way to find your emotional intelligence. It's probably taking a beating from your intellectual posturing, but it's in there somewhere. Emotional intelligence, properly developed, would not allow such either/or thinking in an ostensibly independent thinker.
Feminism ultimately fails because it exists only in opposition. Women will continue to be considered primarily on sexual terms because the majority of women themselves continue to view their sexuality as their only power.
And if that weren't true, we wouldn't continue to have porn, Victoria's Secret, Flavor of Love on MTV, or Sports Illustrated swimsuit issues. Men can't create these things without the cooperation and support of women.
For women, it's a breast and buttock, not a brain, world. And they help keep it that way. It's easier.
"Nothing says change more than the first female commander-in-chief in U.S. history..."
???????????????????????????
you gotta be kidding me!
just because the commander-in-chief has a vjj ?????????????????????
if hillary clinton had half of barack obama's character and integrity she would be the winner you so desperately seem to want
THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT - THE GLASS CEILING - GENDER BIAS - I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME ROAR
I GET IT - i wish with all my heart that hillary was dedicated to righting injustice and inequality including the indignities that women have suffered over the years
BUT SHE'S NOT - hillary is all about joining the club and playing with the big boys - if you think otherwise, i'm afraid that you may be naive now and sadly disappointed later
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/01/09/2008-01-09_untitled__guest09op.html
- in fact, until recently, much of my feminist fire had gone to embers. Obviously no movement, not feminism, not the civil rights movement, not Obama - ism addressess all the needs of those who fall within its scope. Still, I am extremely bothered by the a very mean spirited tone to the posts of many Obama-ites - just as I am sure there is a mean tone to the posts of Clinton supporters - I can't marry it with the idea that a President Obama would unite the country in a way never yet seen. I am also extremely worried by the great number of comments that call out women due to their age such as the post about aging holdouts - again, not the kind of inclusive comment one would expect from the follower of a transcendent movement. None of it rings true for me.
http://strictlyanecdotal.com
Color me dumb.
Here's what I know.
Women raise the children of America. And we do so in poverty. And that's stupid thinking on the part of America.
So all else flows from our attitudes about this.
Call it whatever you wish.
But until we support the people who produce the next generation?
We have no room to complain about what that next generation dishes back.
As Eliza Doolittle might say: "Words! Words! Words! I'm so sick of words!" There are "Mystiques", "Manifestos", "Politics", "Dialectics", "Studies" and, yes, "Waves", new words masquerading as old, and perfectly good old words made so proscribed that we have a new language of political correctness utterly incapable of dealing honestly with the issues that still plague us. The same can be said of almost any "-ism" that started out attempting to deal with real issues and ended up buried under an avalanche of polysylllabic words in a university classroom. When you allow an "elite" to redefine the terms of a struggle, you've already lost half of the war and created a new elite.
That said, I'd like to flat-footedly restate two things I've stated elsewhere in my comments here at HuffPo completely without prologue or apology:
1. It is easier for any man in this country to be elected to high office than any woman. To argue "THIS woman" or "THAT man" completely misses the point.
2. "He [Obama] has clearly addressed the issue of ageism." NOT! There exists among Senator Obama's supporters not only a peculiar reverse anti-intellectualism but a virulent strain of ageism -- you need spend only a little time here to see stark examples of both. Is this a reflection of the candidate or just the uniform his adherents have adopted? I don't know. But a little reminder from George Bernard Shaw might be in order: "Even the youngest of us may be wrong sometimes."
Obama has a 17% advantage among voters with a college degree, so I think it pretty arguable that he has an advantage with intellectuals in general.
The ONLY demonstrable ageism is that Hillary consistently gets a majority among women of 50, the ONLY segment he has been able to consistently win. Is that Obama ageism or Clinton sexism?
For better or worse, an interesting question.
As for the rest of it, I knew I would need empirical evidence someday, but I was too dang lazy to keep the posts that so baffled and discouraged me. Consequently, all I have to offer, MIHOP, is my very strong perception of what I noted above.
I agree with much of Rebbeca Walker's assessment. Nevertheless, the quote above did catch in my craw.
Why does Ms. Walker assume that if feminism is hurt by this election, Senator Obama MUST be the culprit? Could it not be that Senator Clinton has damaged the feminist agenda by discrediting the movement with her tactics and/or by transparently establishing feminism in her campaign as a form of bigotry?
Ironically, the people Hillary attacks in this primary season, on the basis of sex, have been lifelong supporters of women's rights, both men and women. Accusing women's rights supporters of being misogynists. How can this be anything but destructive for the movement, to alienate it's strongest allies?
Because I'm not a great feminist - but I'm an awesome humanist.
Should we throw in the towel on that one too because it made a bad impression on some people?
Feminism that does not take into account other factors including region, religion, race, ethnicity, historicity, age, sexuality and social class as other facets of interanimating factors which comprise the social --- are theoretically ossified ... What does this mean in terms of practice or praxis? Who was watching the children of second wave feminists while they were out obtaining women's rights? How can American feminists speak for women worldwide? When I say this some of this for of anachronistic feminism seeks to give voice to --- but, voice cannot be given it must be taken and indeed, in so many ways this form of feminism is imperialistic because it emerges out of the West.
To say someone should support one candidate or another based on the gender is simplistic at best, and not something that ought to be seen as a feminist act or action. I also think it is important to think of rights as human rights ... For those of us who have privilege who are white who are western --- there is a locus of invisibility in the pronouncements to vote for Senator Clinton or betray your gender ...
The invisibility is a nexus of power --- that is the power of whiteness (not as a color but as a power formation) ... the struggles of white women are not the same as the struggles of black women, or the struggles of women with capital (be it cultural or financial) are not the same struggles as women who are poor. Telling women that they are betraying their gender is overly-determined at best ... at worst it hegemonically serves the static social order ...
Some draw circles to keep others out; we draw circles to include everyone.
There are many significant distinctions between the two campaigns, but this one, which you have noted, is huge. Yet another exampe that if you do not start with the right mindset, you cannot achieve the right endpoint. Another way of putting the Iraq War and similar policies--which begin with wrong principles and require endless, inadequate fixes--in perspective.
Thank god we listen to Rush Limbaugh instead of Susan Faludi.
Now that it is so uncool to call oneself a feminist, how shall be recognize each other beyond the parochial confines of family and workplace?
I think teaching women to despise our history and re-isolate ourselves into our little towers of individuality is a spectacular triumph for the right-wing.
And by the way, I'm voting for Obama because his record in the Senate outshines Hillary's by a wide margin. When it comes to getting things done he is miles ahead.
Even Molly Ivins wrote that she would NOT vote for Hillary because of the compromising and triangulation.
The real litmus test as far as voting for a woman would be if a viable candidate ever appeared. Would we have voted for Pat Shcroeder or Barbara Jordan if they had run?
GObama!
And, indeed, I do think it's correct now to call Feminism dead. Good riddance. I much prefer the strong and open attitudes of the young "post-feminists" or the anti-essentialist "queers."
And, yes, I do believe Obama promises a real transformation, not just in politics but in culture. The old dedicated culture warriors (on all sides) are not happy about this prospect because their identities are so inextricably bound to the battling.
Whether the individual is a woman, man, black, white, hispanic, asian, arab, etc... it is an offense against human dignity when people are disrespected because of sex or gender.
Whether or not feminists must support one candidate or another is not the point. The fact that Ms. Clinton has been unequally disrespected and deprived the dignity that she deserves for her long political career fighting for the working class, and as a history making candidate for POTUS, should trouble everyone.
She is called first during debates more often than any other candidate -- this implies that she can take the first call, and know the answer first -- and yet her knowledge and willingness to be the first responder is unrecognized, and unrespected.
Being called "Frigid," characterizing her daughter's participation as being "pimped" --- such attacks & treatment call on those who believe in equality to come to her defense.
oops. To be clear, meant to write:
Whether the individual is a woman, man, black, white, hispanic, asian, arab, etc... it is an offense against human dignity when people are disrespected because of _race_ or gender.
time to call it a night, head upon pillow, to dream of better things, one more post before I sleep.
If you need a constituency - you may as well be a political party. As direct expression by and of women empowering themselves, feminism (as any ism) doesn't really need to be representative of the people it claims to represent - the discourse is just a justification for the very act of rebelling and empowerment. But the "constituency" benefits by default.
When it becomes a political discourse being manufacture by intelectuals, in the academia, being thaught in schools - then you must really represent those you claim you do - because it has lost its original, visceral force and now depends of the validity of the discourse, which is the only thing moving it on. But there's no way it can represent. There's just too many women, with the only commonality, which is (well, roughly speaking) having a cunt.
The problem with feminism is the same of all the other isms. It thrives on division. It comes from a perspective of war: "history is class war", which was turn in war of genders, or races. But we've come a long ways. We can see things hollistically instead of through the prism of different parts of a whole.
We've come to understand that, when a society or civilizations collapses, all the classes and genders and races go down. Now, more than ever, we are one. Injustices still exist. Privileges still exist. Oppression still exist. But new forms of overcoming will arise.
"the rise of feminisms"? It just won't work. Feminism needs to be one to survive.
Let it die, and let the spirit of empowerement take other forms - that visceral force that moved the first feminists never dies. It's inherent to human nature. But let it take other forms, other associations, other arguments... let it be! It doesn't need you discourse, your books. Step aside and let it rise again.