Donna writes:
I got an email from the wonderful Elle PhD to alert me to the latest white women feminist shenanigans being reported at the Washington Post: To Women, So Much More Than Just a Candidate. Of course by women they mean the default women, middle to upper class white women, with some ageism thrown in for good measure since they show little respect for the decision making abilities of younger women too.
…
“During the NOW tour across Ohio, the makeup of each audience was almost exclusively white, middle-age women, many of whom had joined the organization in the late 1960s or 1970s.” People vote for who they think can best represent them. I understand perfectly well why this demographic is excited for Hillary Clinton, is showing up at her rallies, and is voting for her. But for some of us having a vagina isn’t enough, because she will be voting for white, middle aged, middle class interests. Not to mention corporate lobbyist interests, and starting wars to prove she’s as tough as the guys, which I hear is her excuse for her Iraq War vote.
There “they” go again? So now white women have become the enemy?
Well, this evil white female feminist has just erased you from her blog roll.
That’s cools, whateva ya want to do. But just to let you know that’s a cross-post from my blog aggregator the Blog and the Bullet, not a post that originated from Alas, a blog.
But might I ask why is it wrong to point out white privilege and racism within feminist circles?
I’ve noticed that at pandagon, feministe, feministing, pamshouseblend, and some of the other feminist blogs I subscribe to — almost all fitting this ‘default women’ description &mndash; have been focusing on race a hella lot since this democratic primary race began. And I’ve seen them take on racial issues plenty before, when it flares up around them. They’ve consistently and regularly talked about feminism in the middle east and the religious/racial forces there.
Where are these feminists who never deal with race I keep hearing about?
Jack Stephens: There’s nothing wrong with pointing out racism in feminist circles. I just wonder why you need to resort to a simplistic “us” vs. “them” argument. (There “they” go again!) You seem to feel comfortable lumping all white women feminists together, as if we all think, feel and behave the same way. Your post just plays into this persistent media hysteria that middle-aged white women are out there voting as a block, hijacking the presidential elections. It’s funny how middle-aged white women are viewed to hold so much power in their wicked little hands.
Is this kind of racial stereotyping really the way to make your point about racism? I realize the post is an excerpt from another blog, but you posted it here without comment, thus seeming to endorse its sentiments. [And just because a woman wrote the original post doesn’t excuse the sexism inherent in it.]
Anglofile:
I think he’s pointing out that he doesn’t post to Alas directly. He posts to another blog, which is copied onto our feed.
FTR, I agree with some of your reaction to this post, although not as fervently. I’m not sure this isn’t a “if the shoe doesn’t fit you, don’t wear it” situation. I found the comments here grating, but I think that might just be my white privelege. On the other hand, this seems like a situation where JS could have provided more context from the original post, and that would have been appreciated.
I don’t provide comment as The Blog and the Bullet, which I blog at, is just to link posts we find interesting (but that doesn’t mean we don’t agree 100% with everything in them).
The post doesn’t necessarily link all white women together nor is it a racist post nor discriminating against white women as racism isn’t just simply defined as “treating people ‘badly’ based on their skin color” nor is it simply defined as the white nationalism of the KKK (for some of my thoughts on racism read this short post). More often than not when people of color express their concerns candidly they get met with knee jerk reactions from mostly whites; which is something to be kept in mind here.
As for Donna, I don’t speak for here but the fact that she was a woman had very little to do with me posting this, nor was it a sexist post from her. As for defending her arguments I feel as a white male I can write little else in this post or else I might be overstepping my bounds.find interesting (but that doesn’t mean we don’t agree 100% with everything in them). However the post doesn’t necessarily link all white women together nor is it a racist post nor discriminating against white women. More often than not when people of color express their concerns candidly they get met with knee jerk reactions from mostly whites; which is something to be kept in mind here. As for Donna, I don’t speak for here but the fact that she was a woman had very little to do with me posting this.
Anglofille, that’s not Jack’s title. It’s Donna’s. Donna’s written a lot about how white women feminism disappears (obscures? maybe) a lot of people and a number of issues, hence the title.
I mostly meant a paragraph or two more from the original text would probably have been clarifying if they’d been included in the excerpt.
I don’t quite understand the criticism in this reposted commentary, although I hear it often.
If Clinton is only capable of advancing “white, middle aged, middle class interests,” then is Obama only capable of advancing “black, middle aged, middle class interests.” And why don’t they just represent wealthy interests, as neither candidate is in the middle class? And by comparison, does John McCain only represent rich, white male, senior citizens?
Maybe the problem is that the Post article said “To Women” instead of “To Some Women”? But then the article itself talked about a generational divide among women, so no one could read the article and think that the Post says “All women think ____.” And the Post didn’t touch on the women who, although not voting for Clinton, still recognize and wrestle with the implications for women candidates overall. I don’t think it’s overstating to say that most women voting in the Dem primary have considered and weighed those concerns.
Yes, there are institutional problems with the feminist movement. But there are also a lot of younger women, senior women, non-middle class women and non-white women voting for Clinton (although also voting for Obama, of course). So I don’t see this article as part of a bigger oppressive scheme.
I don’t think Donna believes that Clinton is only capable of advancing “white, middle aged, middle class” interests because Clinton is white, middle aged, and middle class. If I understand her view correctly, she believes Clinton is only capable of advancing white, middle aged, middle class interests because those are the interests her campaign has in fact advocated for. (In Donna’s view, as I understand it).
I don’t know if there are a lot of “non-white women” voting for Clinton, because the exit polls I’ve seen haven’t been very helpful in that regard. However, regarding Black women specifically, there really aren’t many voting for Clinton; the Mississippi exit poll, for example, found that 90% of Black women reported voting for Obama. (In contrast, 71% of white women voted for Clinton).
(Among men, 94% of black men voted Obama, 68% of white men voted Clinton.)
I don’t see the Washington Post article as part of a “bigger oppressive scheme,” because “scheme” implies a conscious plot. I do think there is a pattern of some white feminists, and in particular those white feminists who are highly influential in D.C. and with the major feminist organizations, projecting a feeling of entitlement to female votes and feminist votes, and the tone and content of the Post article fits into that pattern.
I agree with Amp in that it’s not “capable”, it’s what she and her supporters are actually doing in their campaign by choice. She’s not necessarily hamstrung by her race, gender and class from representing broader interests, it’s by choice and strategy. Clinton did have a lot of support among Black voters at least in my region last year (if not the vote, at least the interest), but the actions and words of herself, her husband and her supporters like Ferraro have changed that a lot. The racism coming out of her campaign doesn’t seem to be seen as valid unless White people including White feminists see it. Otherwise, it’s not happening.
OTOH, I haven’t seen anything in Obama that leaves me the sense that he’s actually advocating for a much different crowd than Clinton is, except one that’s perhaps more male. I think evidence of that was shown with this latest fuss about his minister, which caused his White supporters to stop seeing him as raceless and now as Black (even though he’s biracial) and thus as primarily interested in the concerns of Black people.
Indeed.
Amp and Radfem, nail, head! I do believe that a person will advocate for those interests that will help themselves and others like them, but not necessarily only those interests. I think that Clinton would have done much better among blacks if they hadn’t thrown blacks under the bus in South Carolina. I think Obama still would have won but not by the huge margins he did. I think Clinton did a little political calculus and decided that the white racist vote would get her more delegates than the black vote. I also think it’s political suicide for the Democratic Party.
And the point of the post is all these second wavers coming out of the woodwork with their racist views and sense of entitlement. Steinem, Jong, Ferraro, NOW, etc. They also throw black women under the bus and young white women with their condescension and whining about how stupid they are and how ungrateful. That isn’t how you win over voters.
Boo-to-the-yeah.
Exactly. Which is what makes this whole “oh, those horrible awful old white establishment feminists” meme so disheartening. I mean, even if you don’t agree that the lesser of the two evils is one that focuses on the middle class (with a strong history of working on issues effecting women and children) rather than the one that focuses on middle class men, do you really have to resort to the same tactics you (general you) claim to find so abhorant from these women? How does that make you a better feminist, or even a better human? It does put people in a position to choose sides, and if that’s what you want, then I guess you’re succeeding — even if that means pushing a hell of a lot of people away.
Women of color never had to “push away” the ones we are speaking about, because they are Archie Bunker style racists anyway. When we see idiots like Rosanne Barr writing drivel like, “Bow to the (white) woman” and telling the candidate who is leading in delegates and popular vote to concede…get to the back of the bus…and Hillary supporters are applauding it instead of dying of embarrassment, we know where we stand.
Seriously? Wow. OK — let the new race war begin. Have fun. I think I’ll sit this one out.
If you consider it a “war”, perhaps it’s for the best? Because if you can’t discuss a posting like this without jumping into the “What about White feminists” mode which seems a bit similar to the “What about men” dynamic which enters into many discussions about women’s issues whether it’s MRAs or even liberal men or male leftists depending on where you are at.
Actually, my comments on Obama were more of a commentary on the status of the Democratic Party and the direction it’s been heading in for a while. The more right it goes, the more we all hear about having to vote for increasingly right candidates, male or female, to prevent the greater evil. Well, I guess that will work for the next 20 years or so. It’s worked great so far. Maybe it’s helped get us Republican presidents.
I don’t support either candidate. They are both to far to the right for me, but I know who’s leading right now and who’s trying to get a leading candidate to be their vice-presidental choice. And there’s no way in Hell Clinton would be doing that if it were a White man ahead of her in the contest. I don’t even agree with what some people say that she should drop out but it’s a bit arrogant for her (or her husband or supporters) to imply or state that he should think about brokering a deal to drop out and be her vice-president candidate at this point.
It’s been, “wait your turn”, until it turns out Obama’s got more legislative experience than Clinton does. Then it’s well, she’s got all this first lady experience until you start talking about the negative things her husband has done then there’s this need to almost surgically separate them so that only the “good” rubs off on her as far as “experience” and not a bit of the negative, which seems a bit disingenous.
Where did I say I was a better human? No where. Where did I say I was a feminist, let alone a better one? No, to the latter and I’m doubtful to call myself the former mostly because it seems more focused on exclusion while purporting to represent all women and I’m wondering whether at times, some women seem more intent on reinventing the patriarchal structure in their own image than in dismantling it. I work with women regularly who are excluded from Clinton’s brand of feminism. But they’re excluded from Obama’s vision too. There’s so many women unrepresented by either and that’s not being talked about nearly enough, because to do so sometimes feels like you’re not a good feminist (if you don’t support Clinton) or not being a loyal Democrat (if you don’t buy into the lesser of two evils argument which might be tossed on its head this year)
Donna in her posting pinpointed one of the major frustrations that I’ve had with Hillary Clinton very well. I’m glad she wrote her piece. I guess there’s a small part of me that’s mystified that White women are up in arms about it, but it’s a fairly small part at this point.
1)I wasn’t talking about you Radfem. Believe me, I’ve heard you talk about how you are NOT a feminist, how you renounce feminism, and so on enough to never confuse you with a feminist (ftr, I am also not trying to imply here that you are by default a horrible misogynist/sexist — I’m simply acknowledging that I recognize that you long ago drew your line in the sand, and you clearly distanced yourself from feminism).
2)How is it jumping in about “what about White feminists” when the title of the post is “White Women Feminism” (as if there is only one kind of feminism for white women). How is it okay to constantly and continuously be slamming in the most disgusting terms the “white feminist establishment” (as if there is one now, come on). Seriously, now.
3)As a white feminist, I have needs and issues that I want addressed. I do not want them to be addressed at the expense of any other issues affecting women, be them poorer or richer than me, women of color, women with children, women without children. But I also do not want to be expected to pretend that my issues don’t exist, that they can be put aside or simply less important, more trivial. And I’m not going to support a notion that to fight for some of these issues that I am inherently racist (or classist, or abelist, or whatever it is you want to say next). I’m not going to support the kind of sexism that is spouted by assholes from Chris Rock to Reverend Wright about how white women are somehow privileged bitches who have never been oppressed, simply by virtue of being white. I’m not going to play the oppression olympics — but that means not only am I going to pretend that sexism is worse/more rampant/more prevalent than racism, I’m not going to pretend the reverse, either.
Sorry about the bolding — it’s not letting me edit to fix the tag.
[Fixed! –Amp]
Sexism isn’t worse than racism, and racism isn’t worse than sexism, but you forget that women of color live at the intersection of both. We get sexism from men and racism from whites, not just the white men, from the white women too. That’s kind of the point. You’d think that feminists would be more aware of their privilege and learn to stow it and treat women of color like sisters and allies, but they don’t. It’s exactly as Radfem said, it’s “what about the men?!” in feminism and “what about the white women?!” when WOC discuss racism. Somehow you’re the victim and WOC are getting all the preferential treatment in your bizarro world. Instead of us being ignored, used, and taken for granted, thrown under the bus when it’s expedient, and forgotten as soon as the election is over, which is business as usual with white Democrats. We already know that Clinton will do that just like most of the white politicians before her. She and her surrogates and supporters are doing it already. We aren’t certain about Obama.
Thanks, I guess and thank you for the clarification about me not being a horrible misogynist/sexist.
While I believe in a lot of elements of feminism, I’ve grown somewhat weary of the litmus tests to prove my loyalty, that of other women and because of what Donna said, about having to choose racism over sexism or sexism over racism without acknowledging the intersection of both for many women. And it’s interesting that Whites including White women and feminists often opt for the phrase “oppression olympics” usually when they are asked or even confronted on the privileges they do enjoy by race and perhaps others like class, ablism and so forth. No one else here is playing oppression olympics. I usually hear that term from White conservative men in real life. Heh.
The defensiveness by White feminists and White women when challenged on racism just reminds me an awful lot of how men come into the discussions on women’s issues and say, what about the men? Why are you labeling us as the evil patriarchy? We’re all different men. The parallels between the two make me wonder if we as White women are as progressive in separating ourselves from racism and classism in our own examination of sexism and misogyny. I tend to think not unfortunately. The worst part is too often we don’t even really take a serious look at that but deny it’s there. I think it would be very useful if we did, but first we have to get over ourselves and we’re a ways from that.
I can think of a lot of more disgusting terms to be called than White feminist establishment. I’ve been called some of these things on a regular basis but among many White feminists, there’s a huge reluctance and sometimes outright denial about racial privilege that comes with being a White woman in almost every situation. Our refusal to see that makes it difficult for women to come together and have serious discussions about issues pertaining to gender. Our defensiveness is responsible for most of the roadblocks.
There’s a focus on oppression as a gender which White women belong to, but even though there’s inequalities among how different women are treated, White women adopt the oppressions of other and define them solely by gender without recognizing how identies including race and gender do intersect. Sometimes, White feminists even define their racial privilege also as a sign that they’re not privileged but being oppressed through gender. That the privilege they have as White women over women of color is really not a privilege but oppression.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t pretend that your issues of sexism as a White women don’t exist because sexism is a problem for White women or even work on them, but what bothers me and has bothered me is how these problems are often given priority and defined solely as gender issues impacting all women and that any deviation away from these issues is being disloyal to feminism or women, or being more loyal to race (which for some reason often seems to equate male in a similar way that women equates White) and thus being antifeminist.
Maybe for you, Clinton’s election would be something to celebrate because maybe she speaks to your issues and represents your interests, but she’s been defined by many as representing all women’s issues and their interests when her paremeters will prove to be much more narrow (and I totally agree with Donna about election time vs the rest of the time in terms of the Democratic Party’s priorities) than that. Many women don’t view Clinton’s candidacy or even election as anything to celebrate or look forward to or suppport and maybe instead of believing in some circles that this is flunking a loyalty test to feminism, perhaps there should be more discussions about what’s still being overlooked and what’s still missing in this discussion.
I talk to women every day about Clinton who really hope she doesn’t get elected because they don’t see anything about her that really speaks to them. It’d be interesting if that discussion could be had as well without it seeming that any criticism of Clinton is unwarranted, that any criticism of her racism (and that of her husband) is blatently false and what the future holds for more candidates (and a political party) that truly addresses many issues that women face that are at best getting lip service from the major ones or getting ignored or at worst, involve candidates holding positions which are harmful to many women.
I do understand that for many women of color, they are at the intersection of race and gender. And I don’t think they should be expected to choose one or the other. I don’t think Clinton is entitled to their votes, anymore than she’s entitled to white women’s vote, or any votes.
That said, I do think there’s another litmus test that has been cropping up more and more lately. I think it started long before this latest election, but it’s hit a crescendo lately. And I think the language that’s used makes it seem like it’s about “white women,” but I think it’s more than that — it’s about proving that you’re not one of those “old white women.” The young, hip 3rd wave feminists are so feminist they are beyond supporting women. And the language used isn’t ambivalent or ambiguous. It’s very much about separating, degrading, dismissing, and dividing.
Actually, the place I’ve seen the term “oppression olympics” the most in recent months is on the blogs of Obama-supporting feminists of color.
You think? Maybe because she doesn’t back away from those pesky “women’s issues.” She even goes so far as to [gasp] include them among her “issues” on her website. She talks about what she has done for women, what she will do for women. She openly discusses reproductive rights, equal pay, violence against women. (Do these issues affect only white middle class women?) Unlike Obama, who can’t even bring himself to include them among his issues on his webpage.
Well, fwiw, I too talk to women (white, asian, black, and latina) every day about Clinton and Obama — and for many of them, they feel the exact opposite. I’m not saying these women are more important than the women you talk to, but they aren’t less important either. Additionally, I would love to see a conversation where criticism of Obama isn’t viewed as unwarranted, where any criticism of his sexism is blatantly false.
For that matter, I’d love to see a campaign where Black Clinton-supporting Super Delegates receive death threats, talking about “riots” at the Denver Convention if Obama doesn’t get the nomination, major bloggers encouraging people to divulge personal information for Clinton supporters.
FWIW – Rev. Jim Wright (who is not a super delegate) has received enough death threats lately that he has had to cancel speeches recently. I found that surprising, given that he has led a long career as a black leader, so is probably no stranger to death threats. They must have been pretty bad for him to cancel an engagement.
That Clinton has seized upon the Wright controversy as a means of gaining advantage shows her willingness to embrace divisive racial coding, fan fears among white voters with little experience with black voters (at least outside the workplace), and employ the same “Anti-American” tactics of FOXNews &c. While Obama has certainly had his moments of insensitivity, when exactly has he employed these kinds of tactics?
I ask that – risking, of course, a Clinton-vs.-Obama tangent (sorry) – because I think it speaks to the kind of privilege that Donna et al. are talking about. To ignore this level of opportunism implies a high degree of privilege as a white person, regardless of sex or gender. If blue collar white men (my peoplez), who generally harbor various resentments based on Affirmative Action, flock to Clinton because she has exploited the Rev. Wright “Angry Black Man” stereotype (which she did not originate, of course, but again, she’s decided to pick up the cudgel), then Clinton has effectively employed a Nixonian “Southern Strategy” within the Democratic Party, a potentially destructive move. She’s already disparaged Obama in comparison to John McCain (while exaggerating her own foreign policy experience), so she seems willing to hand the election over to McCain should she fail to become his competitor (and some 28% of her supporters are willing to go that direction.) Frankly, for all the stupid sexist things Obama has said (and they don’t compare to the dumb shit John Edwards let out of his mouth), I don’t see anything comparable in terms of a willingness to exploit race and gender identities – with a soupçon of patriotic chest-beating – for political advantage.
Death threats are always issued by cowards and unfortunately are left to the involved parties to address though often you do have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. ;) The majority of the ones I received most likely are from people with some White Supremacist bent than anything else.
What was she going to do? She’s behind in delegates (yet still believes she’s entitled for the nomination with among the other arguments, that a Black candidate should “wait his turn”) and it’s an easy arrow in the arsenal to reach for. Her behavior and the support of it by feminists is what it is. It’s very disappointing behavior on her part. If her supporters want to back it or explain it, then that’s up to them I guess.
I’m not really an Obama fan either and I think his tactics have included sexism. I’m not sure he’d address the issues any better. However, I totally disagree with Hillary Clinton’s own divisive, destructive and dismissive (including her entitlement attitude towards the nomination) tactics and find the support of that or the complete denial by some of her supporters that this is going on disappointing to say the least.
As for the “pesky women issues” (not my words, btw), yes issues like reproductive rights and economic issues impact women but they impact women differently and the efforts to enfranchise some groups of women harm others and Clinton’s spin on these issues still favors White middle-class voters. I don’t see how her support of the border wall with Mexico is speaking to all women and those “pesky issues”. Anyone who’s seen the impact of Operation Gatekeeper on many women as well as men should have a difficult time at examining her views on this issue as one that’s not helping women but could be very detrimental to certain groups of women.
I’m not sure how her position on DOMA does so either although its existence definitely doesn’t impact many of her constituents. I’m not sure how her voting to support the Iraq war supports women. Many women have died during the Iraq war but after all, women died during her husband’s presidency so her vote doesn’t surprise me. Anyone who was too stupid or too politically opportunistic to vote to support a war (thus buying into the Bush campaign’s argument which she did here into why it’s necessary) is among other things, not exactly addressing several “pesky women issues”, which is the freedom to live without being under occupation. Any person stupid enough to fund that war with a single dime or authorize the president to move forward with it doesn’t deserve my vote.
Maybe none of these issues (and others) impact Clinton’s main constituency and her supporters in the same ways. But they do and have impacted many women in this country and abroad.
Kevin, I’m not going to defend some of the ways that Rev. Wright controversy has been handled by the Clinton campaign. But, frankly, the fact that the outright misogyny from him towards women in general (and Clinton in particular) can be completely ignored by Obama and the MSM shows another kind of privilege going on. And one that liberals and Democrats are all too willing to ignore (again).
As for death threats to Rev. Wright, I am very sorry that he is receiving them. And it is a shame. But I have no doubt that at least the majority of them are coming from white supremacist bigots who wouldn’t vote for Clinton if you paid them. I haven’t seen or heard anything that would suggest that any of them have come from Clinton supporters, from other democrats.
Radfem, I’m not denying that there are various women’s issues that need to be handled in various ways. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is only one candidate who is even willing to openly and publicly and loudly embrace them. Maybe they’re aren’t in the way you’d like them embraced, and that’s fine. But it takes a hell of a lot of male privilege to be able (and willing) to ignore all of them (it’s not like he’s addressing any of these issues in a “different” way — on his website, he won’t address them at all).
As for “unity” and “entitlement” — it’s Clinton, not Obama, who is publicly stating during speeches that Dems (even her supporters) should support whoever gets the nomination. Obama isn’t doing that — he’s even said that Clinton supporters will vote for him in November, but his supporters will not vote for Clinton. How is that not entitlement of votes? How is that unity? And for as much shit that is thrown at Clinton about “entitlement” to the super delegate votes (even ignoring, for the moment, that MI and FL votes would change things — and more than likely, a revote would do the same thing), how is it that these super delegates are supposed to “go with the will of the people” — but only when the “will of the people” aligns with what they want. Super delegates in ID are expected to switch their votes to Obama because the voters in ID voted for Obama. But when Richardson and Kerry and Kennedy go against the “will of the people” in their own states, that’s good, too. I’m not going to argue whether the super delegates should be able to vote how they want or they should go with the “will of the people” — but come on, you can’t have it both ways (unless you feel that you are entitled to do so).
Well said, RadFem. That’s kinda my point. To invoke the blue collar men who support Clinton, the war impacts them, too, because they or their sons and daughters are fighting the stupid thing. War hits all of us. It sucks out funds that should go to health care and education, to enforcing environmental laws, to creating an energy producing and consuming infrastructure that reduces the impact of global warming, and other broad issues that impact all of us – but, it should not need pointing out, fall upon the poor, people of color and women in harsher ways. It sucks out funds from programs directly tied into women’s reproductive rights and domestic violence.
Clinton has a deep level of knowledge and experience in all of these matters, but so long as she buys into Neocon rationalizations for “spreading democracy” in the Middle East (or other aspects of the American Empire), she undercuts all of her best intentions. She makes it worse by playing into psuedo-patriotic chest-thumping and Too Liberal scapegoating. Obama, to his credit, has talked frequently (early and often) against such rhetoric, and advocates a foreign policy approach not built on Imperialist Machismo but actual engagement with countries branded as “enemies.” Hence, Bill Richardson’s endorsement.
Bean: I agree with you that Obama has exercised a lot of male privilege, especially by not directly addressing issues that directly affect women. That is disappointing, to say the least. But like I said above, nobody’s social programs are going to get through so long as the Iraq War albatross (and Afghanistan albatross) hangs around the country’s neck. This economy ain’t helping much, either, but then when it was doing gangbusters, the poor were still in the shit. :-P
Yeah, actually there is one and her name’s not been mentioned in this posting or comment thread yet. So I guess that makes it two then?
I’m not the only one who’s unhappy with the way the women’s issues are being handled so it’s not just about whether I like it or not. And it may take a hell of a lot of male privilege to ignore women’s issues entirely and I agree it does, but it also takes a hell of a lot of racial privilege to take “women’s issues” and define them under narrow parameters which leaves a lot of women feeling like they’ve been ignored or thrown under the bus and then as a political candidate say that she’s the only one willingly embracing them which has been said by a lot of White feminists about Clinton.
That’s kind of like saying, well just settle for what she’s willing to do (without admitting that you might belong to a group that’s more represented by Clinton’s stances on women’s issues than other women are), it’s not perfect but no one else is discussing the women’s issues (which might be true but does examining women’s issues through the prism of a White well-off women really any more inclusive including because her definition of those issues purports to represent “women”)
I was reading bfp’s thread about the ICE raids in Michigan (which I find horrible but yet intriguing given Michigan’s disenfranchisement by the Democratic Party including the timing). Women separated from their children and locked up. Women separated from their spouses. Children watching their parents get assaulted by ICE agents. And I’m thinking, what does Hillary Clinton, the “women’s issues” candidate have to say about this? What is she planning to DO about this, given the statements by her supporters that if you want women’s issues to be heard you must vote for her? Or does it only matter if she can get their votes?
And I’m not saying going against federal law, I’m saying to start with, saying that she expects that any allegations of misconduct by ICE (which it appears there are plenty) be investigated and taken seriously. That ICE’s policies about separating families be examined. Tasing and using less lethal options on young children. Denying medical care to women and their children in custody.
Do these ICE raids impact Clinton’s primary constituents? They don’t really hurt them. They’re being done at least in part with the stated purpose of benefiting her constituents. Is that why there will probably be silence on this issue from her camp? That’s one way that it can be offensive to take “women’s issues” that impact some women very negatively in order to purportedly represent the interests of other women and then define promoting the latter as being about “women’s issues”.
And btw, one of the reasons I’m tougher in a sense on Clinton is because she’s more like me, racially and genderly than Obama is. Though I’m all ears to hear what Obama and his supporters plan to say or address these issues as well.
Kevin – I’ve never been fond of the “these issues are more important than your issues” vein of argument, which I really feel is what you and many of the white male liberals are doing. Yes, I get that the war is an important issue for you (and, for that matter, it is to me as well). But I simply don’t see that Obama’s policies re: Iraq are so much better than Clinton’s in as far as they will make a significant difference in our ability to deal with other issues. I don’t think that we need to make other issues take a back seat to the war in Iraq (both Clinton’s and Obama’s plans for Iraq will do enough that we can also and simultaneously address social issues of importance. I’m just not convinced that Obama would be willing to address those issues, even if the war was completely over.
And, to take it one step further, I don’t think the Iraqi and American women were helped in ANY way when Obama voted against getting rid of the very contract workers that are assaulting these women in astounding numbers. (FTR, no, I don’t think Clinton’s or anyone else’s primary goal in voting for that bill was to help these women in particular — nonetheless, the effects would help these women. Voting against it didn’t help these women, and could help continue to aid their oppression.)
And I don’t think Obama is helping any of those women by not voting for the recent bill that would start pulling troops out this month. Yeah, yeah, he claims he didn’t vote for it because it didn’t have a definite end date. But then, his own foreign policy advisers have said he doesn’t actually have a definite end date either (only a “best case scenario” — and we know how well those go).
And, as for Afghanistan, Obama isn’t for pulling out of Afghanistan, either. He wants to send more troops in (including private contractors).
Radfem — I get that you don’t support either candidate, and I deeply admire that. I agree that neither candidate is perfect on any (let alone all) of the issues. But, I do have to wonder — do you also argue against Obama? Or is it only Clinton? And is it only white feminists who support Clinton that seem to get you so worked up?
Thank you for getting it. I do appreciate that. No, I’m not for either one but that said, I definitely do agree with points made on this thread critical on Clinton pertaining to her platform being largely for women like her which it is and for her campaign throwing a lot of women under the bus which it has done. And I agree with Donna’s excellent posting on this issue.
That’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t support Clinton. But she’s treated as if she’s the only candidate who cares about women’s issues and that’s not even true. There’s actually more than two political parties including those running female candidates with strong histories with women’s issues. As far as Obama’s record on “women’s issues”, it might help to look closer at the intersection principle raised earlier on this thread to find out some areas where he has emphasized.
Examining Obama’s Web site on civil rights issues, there’s a lot under that section including federal incentives to local LE agencies to eliminate racial profiling and strengthening the ability of the US DOJ particularly its Civil Rights Division to address civil rights violations. Both of these definitely should be included as women’s issues because it’s not just men of color who are racially profiled (in fact, Black women were the most commonly profiled by airport security/U.S. Customs in some major airports). And it’s not just men of color who are racially discriminated and/or harassed in the workplace, in housing, education, justice system and so forth.
Voting rights, yeah that’s a huge one that doesn’t just impact men of color (and it’s impacted different demogaphics in different ways), but many women as well. It wasn’t just men of color who were thrown under the bus so to speak by the Democratic Party which ignored pleas by representatives in Florida to look into allegations of misconduct disenfranchising African-American voters for example. How many female voters were betrayed after already being disenfranchised in the voting process? That’s one example.
But then on immigration, the emphasis on family safety is good but most of the rest is just as broken as the system he says is broken and is and will be harmful to women because not all undocumented immigrants are men. Many of them are women. But then I think this is an issue that the Democrats don’t get high marks on.
But then there’s issues that he doesn’t directly address. I also agree that Democratic candidates tend to be go back to “business as usual” when the election is over.
I believe I have argued against Obama several times on this thread. You see, I am not for either of them. So I don’t see arguing against Clinton as arguing for Obama or vice versa and I don’t keep count, because I have discussions off-line and I don’t think the people I discuss it with are confused about where I stand. My conversations about the election aren’t only online.
No, it’s not only White feminists who support Clinton who get me “worked up”. In fact, there are other habits by White feminists who support Clinton included reknowned ones who get me “worked up” in ways separate from Clinton herself. One of those being in different venues, the definition of issues pertaining to mostly White middle-class feminists for example which are enlargened to define what they mean to all women (as a gender).
And I get “worked up” about quite a few things. White feminists who support Clinton probably wouldn’t make the top 10 or at least the top five.
And so you know, I disagreed strongly with Obama’s opposition to withdrawing Blackwater’s mercenaries. However, they are not the only ones who rape and kill or have raped and killed women and girls in Iraq. Members of the U.S. military have done this as well, in and outside of the detention prisons and Iraqi homes. So sending the military over there in the first place which Clinton voted to do, was definitely harmful and may continue to be so to women and girls in Iraq including but not exclusively the women who are raped and often killed by U.S. soldiers.
And you know what? When it comes to female soldiers from the United States being raped, I daresay it’s their fellow soldiers who are doing the lionshare of that as well.
It’s not necessary “what” is in Iraq that’s harmful to women and girls there though that might play a role. I think it’s the fact that the United States was sending miltary and mercenaries there in the first place, by Bush as president but backed by Congress including members of both “oppositional” political parties. It’s the occupational mentality that we sent with that vote that is the real problem, whether it’s Blackwater or other mercenaries doing the raping and killing of the women and girls or U.S. soldiers doing the raping and killing of women and girls. It’s the disregard for the lives and bodies of Iraqi men, women and children for “security” purposes, when all that disregard does is create more resentment. With that resentment comes even greater disregard.
It’s not always as much a leap as people may think from being able to break down people’s doors with impunity and search them to being able to rape a teenaged girl in front of her family, kill the family and then set them on fire before hiding behind the “code of silence” which at least in this particular case was a more fragile one than is usual. Or receiving an order over the telephone to execute detainees rather than take them prisoner, though sometimes there’s some accountability as one of my city’s police officers discovered when he went to work and was arrested by federal agents in connection with his killing of two male detaineers in Fallujah several years ago though I doubt the individual who issued the order was arrested and charged.
I don’t hold my breath that Obama, Clinton and certainly not McCain will necessarily do anything to change the course to leave Iraq or create an “exit plan” which is necessary. After all, the Iraqi invasion and bombing began without an exit plan. I guess it didn’t seem like an important thing at the time. I’m not convinced that it’s now.
Well, my argument is not that one issue is more important than another, nor that some issues should take a back burner to others. It’s that a $3 trillion war sucks up a lot of money, time, and resources that are not then available to accomplish anything else. Honestly, I don’t think either a President Clinton or a President Obama will be able to do much until they resolve that very problem.
As for Obama’s votes, I’m surprised he was there to vote at all recently. He and Clinton have been on the campaign trail so long, they forgot their day jobs. :-P
Hey, apropos of this whole discussion, anyone see Patricia Williams’ Nation column? Iz to be read.
I understand that. But, as I said, I’m not so sure that overall Clinton will be significantly worse in this area — but I have more reason to believe that after that, Clinton will actually address some of these other issues that I, personally, think are important.
I suppose –but they both voted on these bills, so there ya go.
As for the article — eh, it’s good for what it is. Everything she says in it is true, and I agree with it. But it still comes across to me as focusing almost exclusively on Obama and the racism he has to deal with, with some crusts tossed in about the sexism Clinton deals with just so she can pretend it’s about both of them. And, if it were an article written for a predominantly Clinton-supporter-based audience, I’d be fine with that. But it’s not, it’s the Nation — just take one look at the front page and it’s pretty clear where they lean. So, they’re primarily addressing Obama supporters, but coming across as wagging their fingers at Clinton supporters. Plus, the examples she uses make it seem like the sexism is so petty that one would almost wonder why anyone would care. Why didn’t she use some of the more blatant and disgusting and over the top examples? Oh, right.
Radfem, you are right, of course, that there are a number of issues on Obama’s website that affect women. But then, Clinton also addresses the majority of those issues. And I certainly don’t want to ignore issues that affect both men and women — but when you give precedence to the issues that effect men and women and outright dismiss the issues that effect primarily women only, I sure as hell wouldn’t call that being in favor of women of any race. I’d say that’s more of a lucky break (hey, look, you’re focusing on issues that effect women — because they also effect men).
As for the mercenaries vs. the war — look, I’m not going to defend the war. I’m not going to defend Clinton’s vote (although, I’m not convinced, based on Obama’s party-line voting since then, that he would have actually been the only Senator besides Wellstone to not vote for it. Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn’t — but his voting record since that hasn’t made me think that’s the obvious choice he would have made). That said, it happened, we can’t undo the past. We have to go forward. And I sure as hell am not going to pretend that the military isn’t often a disgusting breeding grounds of sexual assault – against female soldiers and female civilians. And I’m not going to pretend that the military always does something about it when it happens. BUT, at least there are potential consequences (yes, we need to put pressure on them to actually enforce them, but they are there). It’s the mercenaries, not the military, that have the outright immunity to rape Iraqi women AND American women. It’s the mercenaries that the Justice Dept. will be unable to take any criminal action against (or, most certainly, unwilling to do so) regardless of how much evidence, regardless of anything. It’s the mercenaries that are protected from being made to answer in a court of law — either criminal or civil. So, as bad as the military is, I’d say the mercenaries are far worse. And voting against getting rid of mercenaries AT THIS TIME, is, IMO, even worse than voting to get into a war in 2003. Nobody — NOBODY — knew that the war was going to be this long or this bad (yes, many of knew it was the wrong thing to do — I’m not saying that it was “OK” to have voted for the war), but we KNOW what’s happening with the mercenaries. We KNOW how bad it is for the war, for the Iraqis, for women. To vote that way when you know the extent of how bad it will be is, IMO, worse.
Contrary to what a few posters here have said, Obama is significantly better than Clinton on the mercenary issue.
Clinton’s signing on to Bernie Sander’s ban is good anti-mercenary publicity, and I’m glad she did it for that reason.
But as a law, the bill is a bad idea and will never be implemented — not even if Clinton becomes president. We simply don’t have enough trained security personnel to replace 100% of private security contractors in Iraq in six months, which is what the bill calls for. And we can’t pull them out without replacing them, because there are tons of Americans in Iraq who actually need security (you can’t run an airport in Bagdad without security; you can’t have diplomats anywhere in Iraq without security; etc).
Clinton only endorsed it because she knows that it will never pass the Senate, not even if a bunch more Democrats win Senate seats in November.
In contrast, Obama originated (not just co-sponsored) S.674 in February 2007, which would end criminal immunity for Blackwater and other mercenaries for crimes committed in Iraq. As far as I can tell, Obama was the first Senator to write legislation to hold contractors in Iraq responsible for crimes they commit, and he did it before this was an issue anyone in the media was paying attention to. In other words, it appears to have been an actual attempt to address the problem, not just political pandering.
s.674 won’t become law while Bush holds the veto pen. But if either Clinton or Obama is elected, s.674 — or something very like it — will almost certainly become law. And the law Clinton co-sponsored will not.
Obama has done more substantive work to hold contractors accountable than Clinton has.
OK, I was unaware of that, and that’s wonderful that he has done that. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s enough — we need to get rid of contract workers. Making them more accountable is great, and a good band aid measure, but it’s simply not enough. Not even close.
Thanks for that information Amp and thanks for restoring my comment.
I didn’t know about the legislation but it would be a great start to see someone and hopefully more people in Congress actually push to hold them accountable for their crimes, because like you said, if the military isn’t or can’t provide security, then private contractors will be hired to do so if there’s a demand for it. But I don’t think that bill will pass unless the Congress will back any democratic president with the guts to push for it once in office and unless the Congress will override what would probably be a McCain veto.
Replacing them would be logistically difficult, I would think. I’d rather see them gone but I’d rather see the military withdrawn as well and I’d rather have people in the Senate who don’t just knee-jerkedly buy into what they were told by a commander in chief with a clearly petty and phony argument to invade Iraq and support that war, only experiencing buyer’s remorse when a hell of a lot of bad water has gone under the bridge and it starts to impact polls.
I’m not so sure I consider it just a “lucky break” on the issues impacting women that Obama does endorse, because that implies that women weren’t considered that all when these issues were being addressed and I don’t think that’s true. That’s also discounting the women who work on these so-called issues which impact themselves as well as men because it is women who do a lot of the work on these issues including raising the attention of governmental officials about them to make them a priority. I know women do this work because I’ve worked alongside them. But I’m aware that to many White feminists, these aren’t “women’s issues”, they are side issues that aren’t counted often because they are viewed as being issues that women are just add-ons to, except when there’s some spare time and they detract from the *real* women issues. That’s why I have some serious difficulties with feminism. What’s a “women’s issue” is much more than what seems to be included in the platforms.
Racially profiling, voting issues and hate crimes are not just issues which women are addenums to. Women are impacted by these issues as well, perhaps they’re just not always or in some cases ever White women so they’re seen as “lucky break” issues.
I do agree that dismissing “women’s issues” such as those which impact women much more than men isn’t right. But your comment that he’s doing so isn’t 100% accurate, unless you dismiss the issues that he’s worked on that impact many women and I think to do so is offensive and just concerns me more about the lack of inclusiveness in Clinton’s definition of “women’s issues” because these issues that impact women don’t matter any less because they impact men as well. That doesn’t make them any less “women issues”. Because they don’t impact White women at all or to the same degree as women of color doesn’t make them less “women issues” either. But then seeing the intersection which impacts many “women’s issues” has never been our strong point in addressing issues which impact women.
As for the “women’s issues”, sometimes, I think it’s a “lucky break” that women of color are included at all in that when White feminists including Clinton address these issues but then I remember that it’s women of color who’ve done a lot of the work on these issues as well, in health, the workforce and education among others along with White women. I’m not sure there’s really an issue that impacts women that’s a “lucky break” considering all the hard work that women have done in different communities.
Is Clinton better on “women’s issues”? As you define them clearly. Probably other women as well as they define them. I think her record is very mixed. I think Obama’s very mixed. But as stated, I have serious concerns about both candidates.
It’s definitely not a “lucky break” for the women who either are impacted by issues that aren’t being covered by either candidate nor is it a “lucky break” for women who are impacted negatively by decisions made by candidates including those being presented as better on women’s issues. There’s issues that impact women in this country including many who can’t vote that frankly neither candidate impresses me on. There’s women working on them but they are likely dealing with either a lack of meaningful support by either candidate or that candidate holds a view that’s counterproductive or even harmful to them.
I’m not going to split hairs to decide whether it’s worse for Iraqi women to be raped by members of the military or the Blackwater employees which I guess makes Obama far, far worse on this issue than Clinton. Or whether the 15-year-old girl who was burned after being raped and killed as was her family would have had it much worse if a mercanary would have done it. I’m not convinced they’re held accountable either way. And I’m not sure that a vote for sending the military over there (which of course cleared the path for contracters and their mercanaries) puts someone on much better if any footing than opposing the contractor later on.
I don’t see one as worse than the other because it’s the system in place in Iraq of entitlement and occupation among other things that contributes to the crimes and misconduct of both. You can have good people trying to do a good job, you can have bad people trying to do harm but if you have a corrupted war based on lies that many people (except apparently politicians) can see through, expect serious human rights violations only they won’t necessarily be called that. As for talk of an “exit plan”, well it took long enough for those two words to enter into the discussion of this war, hasn’t it?
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the first thing a Democrat in office started a war themselves to *prove* they’re just as hawish or as good at being Republicans as the Republicans are.
Correction: I don’t see one as worse than the other when they commit crimes
I’m just going to copy Eliza here:
If you could show that the issues you’ve outlined here were somehow NOT addressed by Clinton (some in betters ways, some in not as effective or direct ways, but in 99.9% of the cases so close to the way Obama is addressing them) then you might have a point. But that’s not the case. So you’ve got a bunch of issues effecting both men and women that Obama is addressing, but so is Clinton. Then you’ve got some of those “white women’s issues” (despite the fact that all of these issues DO effect women of color as well) that Clinton addresses and Obama distances himself from. That’s not just bad for white women, that’s bad for all women. As much as you want to paint the great divide between women of color and white women, it’s just not as great and expansive as you seem to think. Violence against women effects women of color in even greater numbers than white women (not significantly greater, but greater none the less). Unequal pay effects women of color even more than white women. Women of color DO want access to reproductive health care — and yes, many of them DO want access to abortions.
FTR, I know that Obama has technically addressed a number of these “trivial white women’s issues” in his downloadable .pdf file. But the fact that this is the ONLY category that appears in the downloadable plan but is completely invisible on his website shows how much he is willing to distance himself from these issues, and how he’s willing to sell women out to get where he wants to be. Because we all know damn well that few people will actually go and read up on the issues on the website — but significantly fewer are actually going to read the .pdf file. At best they’ll look at the issues, and I know several men already who have commented on how refreshing it is to see a candidate not be “side tracked” by “women’s issues.” And, if he actually addressed these issues on the website within the context of other issues, rather than separating them out as women’s issues, I’d accept that. I’d think it’s stupid, but I’d accept it. But he hasn’t done that, either.
I suppose that depends — Clinton has done a hell of a lot more to hold contractors accountable NOW. She is the one speaking out (loudly) and demanding federal investigations into the acts that have already occurred. Which would also effect how they are held accountable in the future. Obama is working on future contractor’s accountable.
“if the military isn’t or can’t provide security, then private contractors will be hired to do so if there’s a demand for it. ”
There is a back story to this, and this proposed law may help to fix that too. The main employer of these contractors is the State department, other contractors in theatre may hire them too, but that is secondary. And the reason that State uses them is that there is toxic bad blood between State and Defense across the entire range of issues both departments deal with. State looks down on soldiers as crudeand Defense despises state for its callous ineptitude in stumbling into pointless wars. And it gets worse form there. This law would in effect require State people to trust their lives to defense people, and require Defense people to give a shit about State people getting iced, and just maybe, maybe, cooperation on that farily primal issue might offer benefits across the entire range of issues both departments deal with.
And if not, no problem – the contractors are a f*cking disgrace that undermines us all over the world and it has to be fixed yesterday, even if only for utilitarian reasons.
Ah, the “you’re creating division” or being “divisive” argument. I’ve heard that before but mostly from White male or female conservatives, heh. Whatever. But to say I’m fostering or trying to foster division is almost like saying there wasn’t any there until I came along and I don’t think that’s the truth either. But it’s something good to throw out I guess.
You know what? I told Eliza that I have no issue with dealing with issues that impact White women. I’m a White woman. But what I have an issue is looking at issues as to how they impact White women and then defining them as “women’s issues” and then taking issues that impact women of color and maybe not White women as much or at all and calling those “lucky break” issues or issues that just happen to include women, because there under Obama’s platform after saying that he doesn’t address “women’s issues” at all. I agree with what you said about him not being honest about addressing a lot of “women issues” but that’s not the same as saying he doesn’t address them at all simply because they might be issues that are inclusive of women but not necessarily White women at all or to the same degree. And it’s kind of dismissive to say that the issues that impact women that he does address are “lucky break” issues because many women put a lot of work into those issues.
I just wish White feminists would be more honest about saying, hey these are issues that pertain to women like me and I care about them and advocate for them, rather than say they impact all women or all women in the same way and it’s a one-sized-fits-all platform to address them. That’s the sentiment that seems to be pervasive and I think in itself, it’s damn divisive.
Are they not “women’s issues” because they include men of color (i.e. racial profiling for example, disparities in drug law enforcements) or because they might not include White women in many circumstances? I think that’s a valid question but if that makes me fostering division between White women and women of color, then I guess that’s another way of saying it’s not going to be answered.
Though I don’t think anything I’ve written so far has been about creating a division. What I and others have written about here is the division which already exists and it’s not exactly news. You yourself have said that issues that impact the lives of many women that Obama addresses are just cases where those women including those who have worked damn hard on some of these issues are just “lucky breaks” that they are included. No, they weren’t “lucky breaks” any more than the inclusion of women under Clinton’s platform are, one would hope.
Where did I say this wasn’t true? I didn’t. But even within these issues there are differences in impact, dynamics and yes, strategies for addressing them. Domestic violence, for example, there’s an excellent chapter on the impact of that issue by race and class in a anthology titled, “Policing the National Body”. If I can find it, I’ll post a link to it. But it talked about how strategies to address it which mostly address how it impacts White women have been not helpful or detrimental to women of color and their communities. It kind of put some words to some experiences I had or had seen.
Did I ever say abortion wasn’t an issue? But you know what, although abortion is an important issue, many times when you say “reproductive care” or “choice”, it doesn’t come up first like it just did in your statement. Other issues do like freedom to choose and from having choice imposed on you (and that includes contraception and abortion) safe neighborhoods, safe medical care for all medical conditions, and in ways seems far more encompassing than most White feminists’ definitions of “choice”. Being free from occupation either here or abroad. Being free of state-sanctioned abuse and rape. Being able to raise your children (because choice includes families) in a healthy and safe environment.
Sometimes I think that we don’t understand that what’s “best” for White women might not be best for other women or all women and can in fact be detrimental. Even including White women, it’s not that simple. Take DV for example. The strategies to help women facing DV help themselves may be beneficial for a lot of women but at best not helpful and at worst lethal for women dealing with LE related DV for example. I read the platforms of candidates on issues pertaining to women and their quality of life issues and think it’s much more damn complicated.
Violence against women? Yes, women of color are impacted by violence disproportionately compared to White women but again, the platform of that issue is more geared towards addressing the violence of White women sometimes to the detriment of women of color and their communities. It also doesn’t address the broad division (a real division, not one of my making, sorry) between the protect and serving of White women and the policing of women (and men, because often separating issues by gender isn’t as neatly done for women of color as it is for White women but that doesn’t make issues any less about women) of color.
I think there were some White feminists who actually argued against your statement that women of color are impacted more by pay disparities, saying that White women were more impacted? I don’t agree with that and I don’t think that you do either.
First, let me just say that I’m getting really sick and tired of “white feminists” being grouped together as one big group. And if you’re going to complain about using the term “women’s issues” because it allegedly lumps everything into one broad category as though all women are the same, then it’s just as ridiculous as saying that women are one big group. White women come from a variety of backgrounds and face a variety of issues. What effects a middle class white woman is, in fact, more often far closer to what effects a middle class woman of color than a working class white woman. So, get off the “it only helps white women” schtick — because it’s no less offensive than what you are getting so upset about. White women aren’t a homogenous group any more than “women” are.
I realize that women have worked on the issues that you mention, the ones that also effect men. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s much “safer” to talk about those issues because they aren’t considered “women’s issues.” You and I may recognize that these issues effect women and that their success has been largely attributable to women. But I think it’s a cop out to claim that he’s oh so willing to promote women’s issues just because he is willing to address issues that effect both men and women (particularly when these are issues that Clinton is ALSO addressing). What issues are there that don’t effect women in any way and that women aren’t instrumental in getting pushed forward? Cuz, frankly, I don’t know of any. In fact, if you want to go by that way of thinking, then McCain is also addressing women’s issues. All those issues he addresses, those effect women, too. And there are women out there working on those issues. So, I’m not going to say it’s not great that Obama is addressing those issues (but, then, so is Clinton). But, that doesn’t change the fact that she also addresses these other issues (in a much more open, and positive, way). If it was one or the other, I’d see your point. But it’s not.
And, yes, I absolutely agree that reproductive rights must include more than abortion. And, apparently Clinton does, too. But she’s willing to talk about all of those issues on her website (and, no, not just abortion). To imply that she, or “white feminists” ONLY address the issue of abortion is to outright dismiss all of the work done by feminists of all colors (including white!!!!!!!) that go beyond the abortion issue, not to mention Clinton’s own work on these issues.
And the issues of violence against women of color may require a variety of ways of handling it (although, working in this field and studying these reports myself, I’d argue it’s a lot more about class than race when it comes to various strategies). But, all of these strategies are going to require VAWA. And I want to see that addressed right up front, not hidden away on some .pdf file. And, btw, speaking of VAWA, when it comes to immigrant women, there has been nothing more helpful to these women who experience domestic violence than VAWA. It’s only through VAWA that they were finally able to come forward and seek help to get out of a violent relationship without fear of losing their immigration status (or of being deported for being undocumented). It’s only through VAWA that these women can stay in this country without staying in a violent relationship for years.
I’m not sure I said he was promoting women issues as you define them. I think his record’s mixed. Good on some issues that impact many women and undefined on others that impact women. Clinton, the same. Both together on issues that might detrimentally impact many women. Like I said when it comes to women, I’m not thrilled with either. Clinton’s platform according to the links for her site below seems in many ways more geared towards White middle-class but I think that she and Obama are fighting hardest for those votes and taking a lot of voters for granted. But then that’s what the Democratic Party has come down to. Taking for granted voters from certain demographics while throwing them under the bus the rest of the time. Clinton’s rhetoric on race which she is fully aware that she’s doing is making it clear that she’s probably not taking voters for granted but instead alienating them. I don’t blame people who feel shut out by Clinton and especially her closest supporters are more hopeful about Obama. No I don’t.
I was answering the statement that Obamawas completely ignoring them. Which he’s not but then I guess it comes down to how you define “women’s issues” and I can see that we disagree. I do agree with his not putting women’s issues prominantly on a Web site set up for each candidate to examine their views on issues. I didn’t see Clinton’s section on “civil rights” (which is included on Obama’s issues page) either until I googled that term associated with her and ran into her plans for the DOJ civil right divisions which are similar to those proposed by Obama more prominantly on his issues page. I had questions for both candidates on these issues. I’m much more likely to cross paths with Obama who’s not written off my region than Clinton who apparently has so if I have the opportunity I will research these issues further.
There’s some agreement in goals between the two but Obama’s connection between civil rights and the CJS is much more apparent and a bit risky for a Democrat during a presidential election year. Clinton’s certainly not going that route. She’s strong on some educational issues but her connection and attempts-to-reform-after-the-fact on No Child Left Behind parallel her shifting position on the Iraq War issue.
Because there’s no “civil rights” section on her Web site under “issues” does that mean she’s completely ignoring civil rights? Does this make them less of a priority, more of a priority or a priority at all because I have to search harder for them? Does that mean that she’s “distancing” herself from these issues?
Hillary Clinton on the issues
Barack Obama on the issues
I think it’s a copout to write off issues under Obama’s “civil rights” sections which greatly impact women (if not White women to the same degree) as “lucky break” issues or to say that they are any less important because they also impact men. And to say that a candidate isn’t dealing with women issues at all or is ignoring them because they’re not categorized under “women’s issues”. I have already said that I think there’s women’s issues that he’s not openly addressing. But I’m not really impressed with either candidate that much so maybe those feelings aren’t relevant unless you have a horse in this race and I don’t, at least not between these two candidates.
But to write off the issues that he does address that impact women’s lives is not entirely fair and is also dismissive. Just because the issues under this section might not impact White women or White feminists doesn’t make them less women’s issues.
As to the statement someone made about Clinton being the ONLY candidate in this presidential election willing to discuss or embrace “women’s issues” openly because that’s not true. And I think it’s a pretty telling statement about , women, the party system in this country considering where these candidates are coming from.
I don’t think that “white feminists” only address the issue of abortion. I didn’t say that though often I think that’s where a lionshare of the focus is but that’s a common observation not unique to me. I don’t think Clinton’s platform or that of White feminists, individually or collectively consists of only abortion.
What I did say or tried to say is that even with issues of reproductive choice and health that it’s not always the first issue that comes up. That doesn’t mean that it’s not an issue in any way except for those who believe that if it’s not the first issue mentioned or not the most important, then it’s not being considered at all. And often it comes up in discussions that aren’t just about legalizing abortion but in reducing abortions which by some White feminists gets conflated to meaning doing so at the legal and legislative levels, because I’m sure that you’ll agree choice regarding abortion means the freedom to have one and also the freedom not to have one.
I do think is that abortion tends to come out of their mouths (and keyboards) first before anything else when it comes to addressing reproductive health and “choice” kind of like it did here.
And other issues mentioned here that are part and parcel of “choice” which come up in discussions don’t get much mention at all.
As for VAWA, I agree it’s got wonderful componants and applications but “immigrant” women still get deported here FTMP if they report ANY crime including DV. The ones who don’t and get special visas, it’s very, very, very few, which is why in this region if not in some others, women still don’t come forward, because of the fear of deportation. It’s the same for hate crimes b/c Latinos including immigrants are one of the fastest growing groups impacted by hate crimes in parts of the country. So that means that if you or a family member gets assaulted by a group of men who hate your race and you being in the country, you can’t report it unless you want to risk exposure and deportation.
VAWA helping immigrant women who are undocumented is also hindered by whether or not the local law enforcement agency (because much of the crime is covered under local or state statutes) has an agreement or not to declare immigration a “federal issue” and not enforce immigration laws (which doesn’t automatically mean they won’t do like if approached by a crime victim who’s undocumented) or whether they have usually through city ordinance agreed to do enforcement of immigration law beyond what they customarily did under policy.
But it’s not just VAWA that should get the credit or most of the credit, it’s women who work together at the grass-roots level often despite much opposing political pressure, doing work that’s not always safe who have also made a dent in regards to issues impacting women and violence.
And as long as there’s any hint of “criminalization” or “security” involving this immigration issue, this isn’t going to change, VAWA or not. How can these women report DV or any crime if local LE agencies are getting funding from federal agencies to involve themselves further in enforcing immigration laws? Do you think in this type of climate, they feel safe doing so? Maybe in your neck of the woods but not in many other places and it’s not getting easier, it’s getting harder. I don’t think that will change under a Democratic president.
Besides, the Republicans aren’t the only ones criminalizing these women before they can even come forward to report DV or other crimes, not by a long shot. And speaking of violence, do you believe raids like the ones currently going on in cities in Michigan count? Is that a conducive environment for reporting crimes including those committed by family members? It’s not.
And like I said, I’m waiting for either or preferably both candidates to speak on these raids and how they impact women and their families. Hopefully, they will soon.
Clinton and Obama have the same problem on what’s labeled immigration issues. They say they don’t want to break up families or make them choose but their other solutions for immigration “reform” contradict these other statements because their solutions will increase not decrease the breaking up of families and problems with what they call a “broken system”. But it’s a system that criminalizes women for being “undocumented” and then expects them to report crimes against them apparently.
Also addressing violence against women of color, often means addressing forms of violence against men of color. But then does that make it still a “women’s issue”? To many women, yes, including the ones who lead and belong to organizations of women addresssing violence that impacts them and their families. Women are also instrumental on working on these issues. Grant money for preventive or interventive programs has dried up in favor of anti-terrorist or homeland security grant funding. I didn’t see anything on Obama or Clinton’s sight that has addressed this issue pertaining to women and violence.
I think both class and race apply to strategies with dealing with different forms of violence. I’ve found that both in research and in working with individuals and groups. Violence impacts differently on race, gender and class among other demograghics and just as importantly how the CJS handles it or addresses it, differs as much too. It’s more adversarial to many women based not just on class but also on race. Since candidates from both major parties both want to appear “tough on crime”, there’s often not much difference between the two.
There’s much more to add but I’m out of time.
It’s not equivalent. Because, although she doesn’t have a separate section for civil rights issues like Obama, she still discusses this within the issues on her website — she just put it under government reform. As I said earlier:
As for VAWA, I’m not going to pretend it’s perfect (esp. when you’ve got Bush trying to cut $100 million from it) — but I do have to wonder if our vastly different experiences with it have to do more with our different locations, or if you are equating VAWA immigration with U visas (which, frankly, it seems like you are, to me, because you keep referring to “other crimes” and so on). Again, I’m not going to pretend that it’s even close to perfect, but my experience simply hasn’t been the same as what you are describing.
As for the rest, I’m just going to keep going back to the fact that not all white women are the same. Not all white feminists are the same. Not all white women are inherently different than women of color (nor are their issues). There are a number of other intersections that can be even more important in a particular situation.
Point taken, but I’m going to go back to my point about writing off issue coverage as being “lucky breaks” or as not being about women except as add-ons because they include men or perhaps do not impact White women at all or to the same degree. This doesn’t make them less women issues and discounting them to say that Obama isn’t addressing women issues AT ALL isn’t accurate.
Taking your point, Obama also includes text about women’s issues in other categories on his issues section, though he does miss issues on his main Web site.
Hmm, maybe your area is just less xenophobic at the moment? My state’s voters regularly pass legislation that is xenophobic and racist, I’m not sure that yours does.
Because it’s really difficult for immigrant women even in cases legal immigrants particularly Latinas but also Asian-Americans to report anything.
This just in Yahoo kind of gives some summary.
Policing immigrants
(excerpt)
[bold, mine]
My point about them being “lucky breaks” is not to belittle or dismiss the idea that these are issues that are of importance to women, but rather that it’s ok and safe for Obama to address them, not because they effect women but despite the fact that they also effect women. Because it’s a hell of a lot easier to get men’s support on issues that effect men and women than just women And I think that remains true even when you compare it to issues that white women will support wrt issues that predominantly effect women of color vs. all women. Keep in mind 2 things here — 1) I don’t believe that every white feminist recognizes or cares about issues that predominantly effect women of color (and the same can be said about able-bodied feminists on issues predominantly effecting women with disabilities, and so on), but I still believe — based on my experience (including coalition building with feminists of color on the local level) that this will hold true far more often among men than white feminists. And 2) there is not one single issue in existence that will effect every woman (or every person) to the same extent, but there are issues that will predominantly effect women, of any class or race or ability, and those are the issues I’m talking about.
As for immigration issues, I don’t think I live in any sort of utopia for immigration. Nor am I going to pretend that law enforcement is completely anti-racist or anti-bigotted. Yes, there are many immigrants who feel that they cannot report. And for some of them, this is based on actual experience. For others, it’s based on an outright fear of the legal system (esp. police) that comes from their experiences in their home countries, where to call the police and try to report DV or SA would be allowing the police to, at best, bribe them, and at worst rape and assault them themselves. That last one is a very real and very legitimate fear. And these are things that need to be addressed, and other options looked into. But in those cases we really could live in a utopian anti-racist, anti-bigotted area and it wouldn’t change a thing. And, to take it further, there are a hell of a lot of white, middle- and upper-class white women who have the same problems with law enforcement. No, they don’t face deportation, but they face other consequences that can be just as scary and just as fatal. So, this isn’t an issue that is exclusive to women of color or to immigrant women.
That said, the community here, at least the DV/SA community, has been very inclusive and very accomodating to a number of various needs to various women, based on what they need as an individual, not what they are perceived to need based on their race (white, latina, black, asian, american indian, or any other), class (middle, lower, working, or any other), immigration status (naturalized citizen, immigrant, or refugee; documented or undocumented), disability, sexuality, or gender identity. There isn’t deemed to be one way of helping, or even one way for each group — because the fact is, everyone has different needs. And it would be completely unhelpful to assume that a particular woman of color needed help in the same way that a particular white woman needed help. But it would be just as completely unhelpful to assume that they needed help in a different way.
I hate when I try to edit and it gives me that “loading comment” line for an hour but never brings up the comment.
OK, just a further clarification — the “lucky break” is for Obama, not for the women who would be effected by those policies. The “lucky break” is that he can safely address these issues without the sexists getting in a tiff, without looking like he’s “courting women.” He gets plausible deniability — from both sides (“see I’m concerned about women” AND “I don’t need to go after those special interests for women”).