In an attempt to salvage a failing campaign, renowned feminists have resorted to an offensive and dangerous game of ism against ism.
In the wake of Clinton's campaign woes and Obama's growing momentum, several pieces from celebrated feminists emerged: Gloria Steinem's "Women Are Never Front-Runners," Robin Morgan's "Goodbye To All That (#2)," and Erica Jong's Hillary vs. the Patriarchy. The pieces reveal disappointing ageist and racist undertones.
Morgan says goodbye to ageism—only to imply that Obama is too young and should wait eight years. Jong mockingly says, "Obama is smart and attractive. Maybe he'll be president someday." Steinem boldly claims that younger women "hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system" by not voting for Clinton. Morgan suggests that some younger women, "eager to win male approval...can't identify with a woman candidate." Both are refusing to accept that young women, as critical consumers of information, can come to support Obama. Perhaps these female leaders fail to realize that we [young women] are not bound to, and do not cater to, the men in our lives and that we are capable independent thought. Instead of recognizing the meaning and potential behind the remarkable youth turnout, these women are telling us that we've voted wrong, we're dim-witted, too influenced by popular culture, and merely seeking what's "cool."
I deeply appreciate the struggles women of previous generations have endured to secure the rights that I and other women enjoy today. I do not, however, accept the assumption that older women are more radical and or supportive of feminism than younger women simply because the latter are more inclined to vote for Obama. There is nothing liberating about a view that asks us to blindly pursue a candidate based on gender or one that bashes those who made an informed decision to support another candidate.
And for someone who champions the dignity of women" I was saddened to read Jong refer to other women using a sexual stereotype when she says,
"She [Clinton] endured... a brilliant, straying husband who played around with bimbos. She was clearly his intellectual soul mate, but the women he chased were dumb and dumber."
I find it shocking that instead of viewing these women as potential victims of sexual harassment, as some claimed, the reaction is to question their intellect, reduce them to a sexual stereotype and insult them using the same offensive tone sexists use to undermine Clinton. Aside from that rudimentary point, I found the general language of the pieces acidic and (ironically) immature.
Morgan is particularly concerned with the unjust argument that black women who vote for Clinton are betraying their race, but goes on to imply that women who don't vote for Clinton are uninformed and blinded by Obama's charm, an argument which is transparently the inverse of the first assumption, and is certainly just as limiting and insulting. Morgan also conveys the experience of sexism as more intense and rampant throughout the world than racism—a claim suggesting that sexism trumps racism in the "who's more oppressed" game. To make her point, she creates a collection of inappropriate and unnecessary comparisons regarding the experience of Jews and African Americans to sexism. At one point she says,
"Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable)."
The comment that Obama has had to "pass as white" to make it this far is a racist implication that an educated and successful black man is effectively white—that blackness can be corrected with training and "assimilation" while gender is an inescapable, perpetual experience. Obama is portrayed as a smooth talker who has lured ignorant young folk with words like "hope" and "change." And despite the fact that he is a great orator and the author of a best-seller, Morgan says, "goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he's an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who've worked with the Kennedys' own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson." Who doesn’t have a speechwriter? Doesn’t Clinton? Jong even says Obama is a "token," as if his support stems from the idea that he's simply here to please whites and make America feel like its achieved racial equality. Obama's complex character has much more offer, and his presence is indeed more humbling than the articles give credit.
Morgan's comment that "a few non-racist countries may exist – but sexism is everywhere" completely misses what racism is, and it is entirely dismissive of the existence of, and gravity of, its consequences around the globe. We cannot spare this carelessness from our leaders.
It is possible to present the unique and poignant challenges that Clinton faces as a woman without resorting to insulting youth or disregarding racism. The legitimate criticisms of sexism and double standards are lost in the attacks by these respected feminists. It is unfortunate that instead of celebrating this remarkable moment in history, this widening collection of articles alienates younger generations of women and plays the risky game of "who's more oppressed." If it's a contest, we all lose.