Yesterday, Salon ran a cover story written by Phyllis Chesler about my relationship with my mother. My response:
Dear Phyllis Chesler and the Editors at Salon:
I know it is very disappointing to a faction within the Feminist leadership that their candidate did not win the nomination. I feel for them, it is a devastating blow. But all is not lost. I believe Hillary and Obama will work out what is best for the country.
The major issue is how Hillary's supporters are going to recover from the statements made that an entire generation of young women are naive. Evidently, the people have spoken. The young women and their Second Wave allies who supported Obama have decided not go with those who offended them by calling them uninformed.
I note that Chesler does not bring up the significant contribution of my first book, To Be Real: Telling the Truth and Changing the Face of Feminism or my fifteen years of outreach at over three hundred universities on the subject of Third Wave feminism and its potential to work in real-time with feminists of Hillary's (and Chesler's) generation.
Instead, Chesler wants to draw in the personal differences I have with my mother. This appears to be opportunistic and ill-conceived, because the fact is the piece to which she refers is an inaccurate tabloidization of an interview I gave. No matter how much she would like to see the piece as factual and however sensational the article may appear, my father is not a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I never used the word fanatical to describe my mother's views, and so on.
Chesler's zeal to make comment is undermined by the fact that neither she nor the editors of Salon took the time to fact-check the so-called "essay" to which she refers. She has unwittingly used tabloid sensationalism to make an all too personal assessment of a situation with little bearing on the major national issues we should all be deeply concerned about.
My hope is that women of both parties will deepen their participation at the national level in a way that best represents what they feel will be good for women. I will continue to examine the relevance of Third Wave feminism and its relationship to women and men of Chesler's generation.
I hope the disappointment of those who supported Hillary's campaign will heal quickly, and in a way that avoids the kind of misguided commentary Chesler offers.
With Optimism,
Rebecca Walker
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
There will always be "issues" between a grown woman and her mother as well as a mother and her grown child.
Just look for peace.
I still don't get what the Walkers' family feud has to do with disappointed Clinton supporters?
Everybody...seek peace.
Rebecca Walker is trying to imply a parallel between her mother-daughter conflict and the generational conflict between second wave mothers and third wave daughters. She does not do so very elegantly, but I do understand her point. Again, she is shamelessly self-promoting by presenting herself as a blameless daughter and third waver. (See her books on the side bar, sending you to Amazon. Clever, clever, Rebecca.) Self-righteousness is always deceitful. I'm technically a "third wave" feminist, and I think women of all generations need to rethink the way we relate to each other and be open to what we can learn from each other. This is not the way to do it.
I think she's comparing the review to the generational conflict, not her own mother-daughter conflict. Walker does a great job of just not commenting on her mother here, except to say that the tabloid piece is inaccurate and not what she said.
The Salon review is what sets up the generational conflict, not Walker. It is titled: " The mother-daughter wars: Rebecca Walker's denunciation of feminism and her mother Alice Walker has a lot to teach us about the choices women make and the daughters who judge them." The reviewer is patronizing to Walker. Of course the worst thing about the reviewer is that she doesn't realize that Walker didn't write the tabloid article!
All you "feminists" are so confused, can you blame men for not getting it, either?
Rebecca, I understand your frustration with Salon. However, isn't it more important to defend your mother & her reputation if the Daily Mail lied? The original article was quite vicious towards Alice Walker's failures as a mom and insulting to women without children who are represented as being duped by feminism. As a childless woman and a feminist who thinks for herself and has chosen not to have children for personal, I was deeply offended by this.
The problem with not clarifying the whole truth about the original article is this: It means that you get to benefit from everything stated in the article: You get to damage your mother's reputation, which punishes her for whatever cruelties she may have inflicted on you and you get portray yourself as the "perfect mother." At the same time, with this post, you retain those benefits (because you do not fully contest that article's or Salon's claims) while also pleading innocent of any negative intention.
Rebecca Walker benefits completely from every angle of perception. She is the good mother and the good daughter. Yet she leaves the attack on her own mother intact. Alice Walker suffers from every angle of perception. She is attacked in the original article and then her defender is attacked in this post.
Rebecca has profited from her mother's name and reputation. This does not diminish her accomplishments, but her mum has helped her. Something is very wrong here and this post does not make it right.
if my mother hadn't tried to see my 4 yr old son, then I would be so pissed I wouldn't be inclined to show her in a positive light.
But we don't even know if that's true because Rebecca Walker hasn't told us what is true or false in that article. You see how this works. She won't protect her mother from possibly false claims of cruelty, but she doesn't have to accept responsibility for the accusations. Rebecca Walker isn't playing fair here.
Alice Walker is far in advance of most feminists of her generation, as she still maintains an anti-imperial position that they seem to have forgotten in their rush to endorse a candidate who looks like them, but acts tough and belligerent like Maggie did before.
In fact, Obama should heed Alice's friendship with the people of Cuba and Castro and the changes taking place in Latin America. His policies right now are heading into the same imperial bipartisan ditch as his predecessors, who veer sharply to the right once primaries are done. For shame.
It's been amazing to me how Second Wave feminists apparently learned nothing from the Third Wave activists of the 1990s -- women who today are 45 years old (not newbies) and of course younger -- who spun off of their movement, and how much of the baloney that Third Wave feminists found objectionable about the Second Wave resurfaced into the mainstream during the Democratic primaries.
The place to refute the Daily Mail is in the Daily Mail. And how about some specifics, please?
Yes. I'm confused. I've read all three articles, and I have no idea what's true and what's not.
Ms. Walker, good for you for setting them straight. Let me add to your amunition. I am 52, and my two best-friends are 56 and 60 respectively. We are all for Obama. We WERE for different primary candidates, but when they dropped out, not one of us considered Hillary. She is Republican-Lite, a sell-out of my Progressive values. My friends felt the same. I have marched and raised money for the ERA. I was a member of NOW for many years. I am happily married - for 28 years - and have two teenagers I love with all my heart. I might have been a bit younger than movement "elders", but I have held hands with Gloria Steinam and Bella Abzug in front of the White House while singing "We shall overcome". Women fans of Hillary must stop blaming "young women" for her loss. Hillary lost the primary all by herself. That pic last year of her and Rupert Murdoch didn't help my opinion of her, just for one tiny example of what went wrong!
I am a 60 year old feminist and voted for Obama in the Primary--it is mentioned that Republican Lite was Obama campaign driven but I have been using that term in describing Hillary before the campaign started--and I don't think the thought was original with me. She voted for giving Bush the power to start this war, and then she voted for the same type of vote against Iran...it was the choices she herself made not sexism-- plus shooting guns, fishing and knocking back shots--I thought I was seeing the new incarnation of Ernest Hemmingway crossed with Maggie Thatcher...
It's interesting you mention a picture of Senator Clinton having an impact on your vote, and mentioning Republican-lite (another campaign driven slogan.) Maybe it is not the younger women who are naive.
I'm neither young nor female - I hope I'm still naive about some things. But about the way Senator Clinton has been treated, I am not. Yes, she did bring some on herself by running a more centrist campaign, and by not being herself in the public eye.
As it stands right now I will not vote for Senator Obama for President. Right now I could not vote for Senator McCain either. Unless a revelation comes, I'm writing in the best feminist I know, my wife, for President and vote mostly Democratic in the other races - the so called undercard.
If you call race-baiting a "centrist" tactic, then I suppose you are right.
A man speaking on feminism, imagine that? Not.
If it's any encouragement, many members of the previous wave of feminism supported John Edwards, then Barack Obama. Of my 5 best friends, all long-time active feminists who are approximately my age (60's to mid-70's) , only one supported Hillary. The leaders of the old movement were so hell-bent on getting a woman into the Oval Office--any woman-- that they were willing to overlook the misogny of the Clintons...his disrespect for her AND his mistresses and her lying for him to get him off the hook for his infidelities by calling his mistresses "stalkers." There was also their sneaky way of campaigning on a platform of opposing NAFTA, then ramming it through congress before the inaugural-baked meats were even cold.
I used to think that feminism was about DIGNITY, and as such, was also about fairness to the working class and dedication to civil rights. I was wrong.
Gloria Steinem, who so effectively decried the use of stereotypes, was perfectly willing to stereotype Obama's supporters as "cultists." Nevermind how many of us were supporters of the Clintons during thick and thin in those 8 long years they were in the White House. And Ellen Goodman practically accused Obama of having invented the Hillary nutcracker. They were so quick to blame Obama for Hilary's losses when anybody else could have done the same thing, but perhaps without Obama's grace and class in winning.
as a black woman, what pissed me off was Steinem's statement that since black men got the right to vote before white women, we should support Hillary. She, of all people, should know better than to make a stupid statement like that.
Do you think that the KKK just LET black men mosey up to the ballot box? I know Ms Steinem of all people, has heard of voter intimidation, lynching of black men, Jim Crow laws that kept black men (and women) in their place up until the 1960s!!!
My father and uncle suffered job discrimination in the 1970s!!!
To me that just means that Ms. Steinem was willing to throw the needs/rights of black people under the bus in her zeal to push a woman in office. And yes it didn't matter what Hillary's policies were... we were supposed to support her regardless, just because of gender .
Great response...
Oh, by the way, "Everyday Use" was/is/always will be a favorite of mine.
Thanks to both of you...
I'm not seeing the great. She declares the interview 'distorted' but doesn't say how or why. It's a straight up "no I didn't" contradiction.
You know, I read that Salon article. Where does it mention the presidential candidates????
The Salon article, which I read, quotes from the Daily Mail, so it's no surprise that the facts were brazenly twisted. The Daily Mail, affectionately referred to as "The Daily Hell", is one of those fear-mongering, neo-con right wing rags who delight in painting England as a country under constant threat by immigrants, gays, unmarried women, married women with jobs, feral teenagers, the poor etc. What makes them even more nasty is that they pretend to be a serious newspaper: I remember reading it on a plane once and it had a centerpiece story about a "serious" scientific study showing that condoms don't work. That the Salon's writer chooses the Daily Mail as the factual source for her article without even mentioning the paper's reputation is pretty rich, which is a shame because I normally like the Salon.
Joan Walsh, head honcho at Salon, was an avid campaigner for HC, and--as far as I know--she is still being a sorehead about her loss. I stopped reading it a while back, though, so I could be wrong. I haven't seen Walsh lately on MSNBC, but she appeared there a lot during the active part of the primary seasonl
Thank you Ms. Walker for your wonderful work. I have to say I actually gave up on Salon a while ago, and now I have another reason. I cannot say this with more emphasis. I am a 51 year old woman. I own my own business, in a completely male dominated field, and I own my own home. I support my 82 year old mother, and I work my ass off to pull it all off.
There is nothing in this world I resent more than other women telling me that I should have any kind of opinion based on gender, or that I would EVER consider a presidential candidate based on gender. As a fully informed, feminist and independant woman there is never a time when I would have voted for Hillary Clinton, and for purely political and well informed reasons.
The healing that needs to occur is women backing off of other women and giving the same kind of respect that they claim to deserve. I have empathy for the dejection of losing, but to suggest that one campaign represents all women is stereotypical, prejudicial, and insulting. It has no relationship to any kind of meritocracy. Isn't that what we worked for - meritocracy? To be valued for what you contribute, not what you look like?
Well said! Not just "meritocracy " either, but also the granting of dignity to other people (for instance by not talking about "hardworking Americans, white Americans" or accusing other candidate's supporters of being "cultists" or "haters)." It seems to me that the graceless people who go around spitting on the dignity of others are the quickest to demand respect for themselves.
If the essay were to be fact-checked, what would you correct?
If feminism is to become relevant again, it will have to move away from cultishness, personalities, and fear-based ideas. We will have to let go of the anger, and the old grudges.
I'm tired of hearing about glass ceilings. IT'S A LIE! Come on outside! The sky is huge... . The real glass ceilings are within.
What Hillary and her supporters failed to understand, is that there's enough for all of us, and women voting for someone because she's a woman is NO DIFFERENT than men voting for someone because he's a man.
Sameness is not equality.
That anyone believes there is no glass ceiling leaves me with a profound sense of sadness.
A second amen.
The "cultishness" you refer to is nothing short of appalling. This 1970's brand of feminism corresponds absolutely to religious or any other kind of fundamentalism and fanaticism, is inherently divisive and undemocratic, and has become irrelvant by the new millennium.
Revolutionaries are necessary to start the process of change, but one the chance begins in earnest, they quickly become quaint anachronisms if they are unable themselves to evolve. The daugher is the product of the mother's struggle. The daughter may now be judged much more than her mother by the content of her character than her gender, and HER daughter will inherit a society even further evolved.
Meanwhile, the mother has become a fossil, and an embarassement.
In 1964, when I was 13 years old, Bob Dylan wrote:
"Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."
I am 57 years old now, but I learned my lesson 44 years ago. I know that my road has, inevitably, become the old road. But I'm doing my best to lend a hand on the new one.
Would that old school feminists lend a hand, or get out of the road.
Amen to everything you've said. I was a charter subscriber to Ms. Magazine in the early 70s. Over the years, I found myself drifting away from the anger and hatred. I found my core in spirituality with both feminine and masculine energies balancing. We're all in this together!
I did the same thing ---drifted away from the old feminism-- once my two sons were born and I knew that I had to bring them up to respect women and themselves. There was no point in sticking them with that original sin concept of men's having abused women over centuries. Fortunately, my husband treated me and the kids with love respect, and gentle humor, and that made it a lot easier to let go of the anger.
Posted June 10, 2008 | 09:41 PM (EST)