WHAT’S THAT ABOUT A SISTERHOOD SPLIT?

In The Nation today, Jessica Valenti had an article called “The Sisterhood Split”. Much has been written about feminists dividing their votes between Clinton and Obama. Jessica, a fabulous young feminist and a founder of one of my favorite blogs, Feministing, made interesting points and certainly her passion for finding better ways to advance feminism and a feminist agenda shines through. But there were several statements in her piece that I thought begged for a response, especially since she quoted me in one of them. I’m sending my thoughts to Jessica also in hopes that we can dialogue more about this.

I didn’t have time to critique the entire article. What follows are excerpts (“J”) and my replies (“G”). Particular phrases of concern are in italics:

J: Gloria Feldt, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, penned a piece for The Huffington Post [NOTE: also posted here on Heartfeldt] in which she warned women they would be missing out on a historic moment if they didn’t vote for Clinton . “Will women give this Moment away freely once again?” she pondered…

G: Actually, I warned about missing a strategic opportunity to achieve important feminist goals (electing a woman president, amassing political clout so we can influence the agenda) if we fail to mass the potential strength of women’s votes. To be sure, I gave historical precedents as examples, but personally I don’t give a fig about enshrining history; I just try to mine it for what it can teach us. And I stand by my warning, based on what I learned from several decades as an advocate from the lowliest grassroots to the highest halls of power.

J: The intensity of feminist infighting has even prompted a call for reconciliation.

INTENTIONING

Sex, Power, Pandemics, and How Women
Will Take The Lead for (Everyone’s) Good

The new book from Gloria Feldt about the future, taking the leadership lessons learned from this disruption and creating a better world for all through the power of intention.

G: This phrase buys into the timeworn “catfight” stereotype. Why can’t we call these different opinions among women “principled disagreements”? Really that’s what they are. Each of us has an earnest belief and every right to argue for it. Nothing wrong with that. What’s important is for us to all work together to elect whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination. Perhaps that’s reconciliation, but more likely it is simply coalition politics in the best American tradition. At least that’s what it would be called if the differences were among men.

J:…Moreover, feminists make a mistake in prematurely calling for unity. Instead of glossing over the problem with the rhetoric of sisterhood or having an elite group declare the dispute settled , let’s own the conflict and use it to make real progress.

G: I agree completely with the point of view that conflict is not to be feared but rather to be used as an opportunity for growth. That said, I can tell you from my own story of finding feminism within the civil rights movement as a desperate housewife living the blue collar life in hardscrabble West Texas that most likely every feminist you paint as “elite” has a story of some sort propelling her activism.

J: …”The issue at hand has to do with [institutional] feminism’s inability to respond adequately to the claims brought against it,” [Rebecca] Walker says. One of these claims is that mainstream feminists have ignored an “intersectional” approach to feminism–one that takes class, race and sexuality into account–in favor of one that focuses on sexism above all else. NOW executives, for example, campaigning for Clinton in Ohio told women voters that sexism is “the worst of the isms.

G: I wasn’t privy to this discussion, but I wonder if the NOW rep was saying (clumsily) that sexism is the most primal and deeply ingrained of the isms. I believe that there is a strong case to be made for that. Having recently toured prehistoric cave art I am even more convinced that it is the original sin, for while carvings and drawings of female genitals were the most numerous of all figures found, most of the representation of women’s bodies were trunks only—no heads, arms, or legs. It is a tribute to feminism that more than most other movements, it has taken racism and other isms into its agenda. Has the rest of the civil rights movement taken on sexism and homophobia? And if not, why are we just criticizing women here?

J: In a segment on Democracy Now! with Steinem, Melissa Harris-Lacewell , an associate professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton,

G: Fairness requires disclosure that Harris-Lacewell is an Obama supporter who often appears as a surrogate for him in the media and public venues. You’ve already identified Steinem as a Clinton supporter.

J:…Amanda Marcotte, a former John Edwards campaign blogger and now an Obama supporter, says there’s “been some pressure from feminist Clinton supporters who feel that no reason to vote for Obama outweighs the possibility of the first female President.” Marcotte, however, is quick to point out that “plenty of female Clinton supporters report being bullied by liberal men who support Obama.”

G: Is Amanda saying that no Obama women have pressured feminist Clinton supporters? Surely not. I can attest that I’ve received vitriolic attacks from women convinced their support for Obama is ideologically purer than my support for Clinton.

The overall premise of the article is that there are these huge rifts among feminists. Perhaps because the feminist organization in which I worked the longest was all about younger women, and during my tenure as Planned Parenthood’s president, we initiated campus programs, programs for youth leadership, and even started putting young people on boards of directors, I might not be as sensitive to the divides as others. But I see much more convergence than division. And I know I hear from all sides of the current presidential fray that whoever the candidate is come fall, we’re going to have our shoulder to the wheel together to make sure John McCain doesn’t make it to the White House.

12 Comments

  1. freddie on March 7, 2008 at 10:19 pm

    I agree with what Gloria wrote and I’ll add more of my own thoughts.

    This writer is too rich in equality to see and understand how it matters to get a woman in the president’s office. She mocks and spits at women who are passionate in their support of Clinton, then wonders aloud about the split in women’s opinion – clearly again, being holier than thou about Clinton suppporters as if she is more pure. Kettle? Black?

    I think that the writer wants to make a career for herself in being provocative, so she will write about the in-fighting, as she termed it, with no particular point other than women who are passionately for Clinton are out of line, to get herself on tv as a commentator. It’s a shame she wipes her feet on Clinton’s run for the president for her own gain.

    • Carolyn on March 7, 2008 at 10:20 pm

      In response to the previous commenter, Jessica Valenti neither mocks nor spits in her article. She makes some perfectly reasonable points, which Gloria Feldt has replied to in a sensible and considered manner. That’s called grown-up discussion, and if feminism is to achieve its goals, we need a lot more of it.

    • Marleen on March 7, 2008 at 10:20 pm

      freddie,

      I think you are confused. What article did you read again? I’d like to see where Valenti indicates that Clinton supporters are “out of line” better yet, how she manages to “mock and spit” at these same individuals. That would be great if you could do that, thanks.

  2. Goldie on March 7, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    The writer WAS side-ways insulting to Clinton supporters. She tries to use a rhetorical strategy of calling for peace, but she is all about evening a score she has to settle with established feminists who don’t curry her favor.
    Indeed, calling Clinton supporters “the usual suspects…”‘ Is there any positively slanted adjectives that she has for Clinton supporters or any sins to admit about the pure Obama? Nope.

    “Indeed, feminist support for Clinton–coming from the usual suspects like the National Organization for Women (NOW), EMILY’s List, Gloria Steinem and former Ms. magazine editor Robin Morgan–has been organized, strong and far-reaching.”

    Unbalanced and a continuous smear of Clinton supporter, while no counterbalance of Obama supporter abuse.

    Comments about Obama supporters being called “traitors”

    Clinton supporters are “less than savvy”

    Slant, Slant, Slant… the writer has an unbalanced agenda — calling for peace in the dispute, yet only smearing Clinton supporters.

    She continually slams “mainstream professional feminists” Obviously, the feminists in their twenties for Obama are pure like her.

    Again another slam in the article against “mainstream feminists” These feminists are old guard. She can barely contain her disdain for them and their passion for Clinton. They should be, as she suggests, concentrating on building young feminist leaders. I can’t help but think that, just because a lot of feminists don’t agree with her, she wants to take her ball and go home or form her own club, which would be, no doubt, an echo chamber and older feminists would not be honored, it would be all about her age group. How dare they be inclusive of older feminists and not put the spotlight on her!

    All problems in the feminist conversation about Clinton vs. Obama are due to…wait for it…older feminists NOT like her!!!

    “consequence of mainstream feminist leaders and organizations not listening to critiques from younger women”

    And, apparently, there are no younger women in “mainstream feminists”

    The writer seems to be against passionate women for Clinton (how dare they challenge her vote! – well maybe the writer should challenge herself to look beyond her slant), and there’s a kewl rebellious aspect too. She’s going to storm the “mainstream feminists” for “telling her what to do.” Please.

    Geeze.

    • splude on March 7, 2008 at 10:21 pm

      Goldie,
      Your response is further symbolic of the vitriolic and unnecessary split in the feminist institution. You claim that Valenti has a clear slant towards Obama. After reading your response, I could easily deduce that you have a contempt for “young Feminists” such as Valenti… HOW DARE SHE INTERRUPT YOUR TEA PARTY!
      Valenti’s article was not intended to be balanced. She is discussing the lack of acceptance for Obama feminists among Institutional Feminist circles.
      Feldt had a measured, informed resonse, whereas yours was much like “Freddie’s,” filled with anger at her divergent views from your perfect image of Feminism.
      Support for a candidate should not be about any measure of ‘ism,’ and Valenti points this out. She doesn’t take issue with a woman who votes for Clinton, so long as this woman (as would be expected of a man) does not discriminate against an Obama feminist for her view.
      After reading your response, I find you fit in a very different branch of Feminism, that headed by Anne Coulter.
      Check out Feministing.com, get to know the women running it (especially Valenti) and you will see your responses are hardly factual.

      • Goldie on March 7, 2008 at 10:22 pm

        My responses are factual and taken directly from her article.

        If it was her goal to be unbalanced, slanted toward Obama, and full of hateful bias toward, as you named them, “institutional feminists”, she achieved that goal.

        How is that the feminism we are all working for? How is that not spliting and splintering herself?

        I did read her article and I really have to say that outside the echo chamber that is Feministing, which she works on, she faces a lot of criticism. Thoughtful criticism.

        Because when you are insulting feminists by looking down your noses at them with your “institutional feminist” words and “mainstream feminists” and any sort of words to make them remote, something you’re not a part of, you make Rush, Ann Coulter, and Tweety proud.

        It’s a Fox-news like combative, divisive approach that she took here.

  3. Maura on March 8, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    I think what is missing in this commentary/comment section is the WAY in which SOME (not ALL) Clinton supporters are pushing Clinton: as “a young feminist” who is truly split and confused over how to feel, as per this election (I voted for Obama in the primary but was surprisingly relieved when Clinton took Texas and Ohio), I find the conversations I have with different camps telling: in discussing with Obama supporters WHY I should support Obama, I usually (and yes: I realize I’m limited by the conversations I have in person with friends and the conversations I follow through various forms of media, new and old) receive extensive lectures on Obama’s platform: the issues he stands behind, etc. However, sadly, when speaking of Clinton this conversation tends to be about HER AS A WOMAN and me as a feminist. How can I – as a feminist – NOT vote for Clinton? She’s a woman! Now, my CONFLICT – regarding Clinton and Obama – is not fueled by gender. I’m trying to decide who will be a better candidate, a better president, and a better supporter of the issues I see as critical. So I RESENT Clinton supporters telling me to support her BECAUSE SHE’S a woman. I might end up supporting her because she’s a better candidate and a stronger supporter of feminist issues. This, however, has little to do with her being a woman, herself. My version of feminism, among other things, fights against oppression in all its forms and male identified candidates can further this fight just as much as women identified candidates can. I’d like to see BOTH Clinton and Obama lauded for their policies and NOT their gender orientation (or race, religion, class, blah blah blah). Identity politics can only hurt us at this point.

    • Goldie on March 8, 2008 at 10:23 pm

      Maura –
      Take responsibility. If you don’t want to vote on gender orientation. Don’t. But don’t vote for a candidate just because you’ll be damned if someone tells you to vote for a woman.

      Take responsibility. It sounds like you are ruling out Clinton based on what people within a ten feet radius tell you, and if they are Obama supporters, of course they will be all about Obama and not so much for Clinton.

      Go to hillaryClinton.com and read about her policies. Don’t blame the people within a ten feet radius of you on the information that you have to vote. If you don’t vote on gender, don’t vote like your friends either. Think and research for yourself. Go to the source and read her policies.

  4. Gloria Feldt on March 9, 2008 at 10:23 pm

    See March 9 post for more thoughts…

    And I appreciate the conversation, ya’ll.

  5. […] the intergenerational conversation among women I jumped into on this blog below in “What’s That About a Sisterhood Split?“, two young writers who have already distinguished themselves as influential feminist […]

  6. Kate on March 10, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    Thank you for posting this rebuttal. One area of Jessica’s piece that concerns me the most was that the argument seemed subtly (or maybe even not so subtly) imply that Obama were the better candidate and that voters who would vote against him were doing so because of race while voters who would vote for Hillary would ONLY be doing so because of the historical/cultural significance of seeing a woman in the White House.

    “been some pressure from feminist Clinton supporters who feel that no reason to vote for Obama outweighs the possibility of the first female President.”

    There was no attempt to respond to that statement with even lip service to the fact that Hillary is NOT just a woman candidate, she is a qualified politician who many view as an inspiration, trustworthy, a fighter, and even a hero in many respects.

    I feel that this article directly marginalizes Clinton supporters and feminists who believe that sexism is arguably one of the more pervasive and extensive of the “isms” in today’s society.

  7. Maxi on March 11, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    It is a tribute to feminism that more than most other movements, it has taken racism and other isms into its agenda. Has the rest of the civil rights movement taken on sexism and homophobia? And if not, why are we just criticizing women here?

    I’ll disagree with you on this one. Feminism has paid lip service to including racism, homophobia and other “isms” in its agenda. It has not, actually integrated them. When criticizing the feminism for its lack of intersectionalism, one would not be criticizing “women”, one would be criticizing “white people”, “heterosexual people”, “able-bodied people” etc.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.